On Aug 1, 2:08 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > That's correct (in the comp theory). It is a very complex lattice, but > once you say "yes" to the doctor, it can be described as a number.
What if you say yes to the doctor, and then realize that you've made a terrible mistake later on? > The > lattice becomes more complex, if you weaken the comp hypothesis, and > allow extension in the reals. But in the reals, there is no equivalent > of Church thesis, and it looks like you can prove everything, which I > take as a defect of the theories based on the reals. > > > It's punctuated by > > qualitative paradigmatic leaps of synergy. Thus the big deal between > > an organism being alive or not. > > If only you could give evidences for making the theory so complex at > the start. Consciousness is no evidence for that. A cell is a synergistic leap above the molecules that it's made of. An organism is a leap above cells. > > > > > The entropy cost is not uniform, just > > as the different hues in the visible spectrum seem to appear to us as > > qualitative regions of color despite the uniform arithmetic of > > frequency on the band. Let's say that human consciousness spans the > > spectrum from red (sensation) to violet (abstract thought) with > > phenomena such as emotion, ego, etc in the orange-yellow-green zone. I > > think that a computer chip is like taking something which is pre- > > sensation (silicon detection = infra-red) and reverse engineering > > around the back of the spectrum to ultra-violet: abstraction without > > thought. If we want to go further backward into our visible spectrum > > from the end, I think we would have to push forward more from the > > beginning. You need something more sensitive than stone semiconductors > > to get into the visible red wavelengths in order to have the 1p > > experience get into the violet level of actual thought. Or maybe that > > wouldn't work and you would have to build through each level from the > > bottom (red) up. > > I believe that babbage machine, if terminated, can run a program > capable to see a larger spectrum than us. Why do you, or why should I believe that though? > Infinities and non Turing > emulability does not need to be added, there are enough of these in > the arithmetical realm, as viewed from inside. Don't really understand. Are we on a non Turing-completeness diet? I don't get the difference it makes whether we add to it or not, or why you say my view adds to it. > If front of complex questions, I think it is better to start with > "simple hypothesis" and to add axioms only if strictly needed. > Especially that today, we know how "simple things" can lead to very > high complexity and very sophisticated views on that complexity. I don't approach questions in terms of syntactic architecture. I'm starting with nothing and adding only what appears to be necessary to understanding the cosmos without leaving out anything important (like life, consciousness, subjectivity). Craig Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
