On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote:
We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain
what I
mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey.
Probably I
am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you kindly
reminded me. On many levels I could just agree with you. But on a very
important level I disagree, but unfortunately the point I disagree
with is
subtle. It seems to me you are confusing representation and
actuality, but I
am not sure this is precisely it, either.
It can be that, indeed, unless you meant that comp is false. Comp does
a sort of bet that a brain is already representing you, and that some
digital machine can be sued for a representation of you <here and now>
as faithful as the one already done by nature with the brain, or with
the body, or whatever observable who would play that role.
So I am not going to argue anymore, it seems pointless.
It is indeed, because my point is a point of logic. People find a flaw
or get the point. I would say it is a scientific discovery: the
discovery of the universal machines and some of their abities,
including theor theology, including their physics (making comp
testable).
I am just making a
few comments regardless. If you want to respond, I am happy, but I
will
probably not get into a debate about what's right and wrong.
To be sure I have never done that. I show a derivation COMP => physics
is a branch of universal machine's theology.
And then I show we can already talk with those introspective numbers,
using math as a tool for understanding them, and derive the logic of
the observable propositions, and compare to the logic of the
observable proposition in nature.
All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on
consciousness
is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's
independent of it, or prior to it.
I would say of course, except that "independent" and 'prior" are a bit
fuzzy.
And the fact that it derived from numbers
within the theory still doesn't mean that it is in actuality the
reason for
it.
Logically you are right. But remember the invisible horses.
But obviously I can't prove that it isn't. I am just stating a
(strong)
intuition. I guess there is no point argueing over that.
Especially that the comp theory, + the classical theory of knowledge,
suggests clearly that machine's intuition will conflict with the
correct self-referentially provable, and true, propositions.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It's self-reliant, and is making
sense of itself.
But what is it? People never agree on any definition of
consciousness.
I have no clue what consciousness really is, or how to define it.
But I feel
that it is still obvious (on some level), somehow. I guess we will
eternally
learn about it, without ever figuring it out completely. Probably we
will
infinitely continue opening ever more astonishing mysteries that are
answers
and questions at the same time.
Yes, but there are also conceptual jumps, complete shifts of
perspective, exchange of paradigms, the future of our local thought
and mind is both simple and complex.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But there is
no need to do this, as consciousness is perfectly self-explanatory
and
self-explaining.
If that was true, we would not need to have this conversation. There
would not be journals on consciousness studies, etc. There would be
no
question like "is and how would consciousness be related to the
brain?", or "can computer thinks?", Etc.
All of this things are consciousness explaining itself to itself!
At some level.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I got the feeling you are confusing the inner god and the outer god,
like you might confuse consciousness and cosmic consciousness. I know
that from the point of view of cosmic consciousness they are
equivalent. But from that point of view the physical universe does
not
exist, and does not need to be explained.
From my perspective the physical universe is a manifestation of cosmic
consciousness, so it is very real, and needs an explanation (but not
an
explanation apart from consciousness, but within it).
yes, but that is exactly what the TOE provides. It is NUMBERS ->
CONSCIOUSNESS -> PHYSICS.
But I don't like that sum up: it is really preferable to understand
the UDA which put the rational sense of this.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The question is why do you take as obvious that consciousness cannot
be explained, or explained at some degree n%.
I can't answer this question in some logical sense. It is just
obvious that
there can be no external explanation, as there is obviously no
exterior to
consciousness. And it is equally obvious that all internal
explanations are
incomplete, as explaining yourself is always a bit like a dog
chasing its
tail (well, a lot more productive and interesting ;) ).
Well thanks, but that's the point. The discovery of the UMs and LUMs
invite new person at the table of the theological discussion.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
So the needle falling in the forest not only does not make any noise,
but it makes also no vibrations in the air? I doubt it.
It makes a noise, and it makes vibrations. We are just not very
aware of it.
It is part of our sub-conscious.
Hmm... then all arithmetical truth is part of our subconscious I'm
afraid.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let us assume that physician are correct and that there has been a
big
bang. What was the qualia when the first particles appeared?
I don't think it can be attributed a particular qualia. The closer
we get to
the big bang, the less the notions of attributing a particular
qualia to
particular things make sense, because there was no differentiation of
consciousness there.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... With comp, God knows if there is an infinity of twin primes.
The inner God tends to know almost nothing of that kind. It knows
just
a finite extendible part of it.
Do *you* know if there is an infinity of twin primes?
One moment I believe there is. One moment I believe there is not. If
we
define knowledge as true belief, I knew it either at the first, or the
second moment. :P
Seriously, I believe that God doesn't need to be explicitly aware of
every
single fact as a single fact. This would just make God go insane. It
is
enough that he knows the answer sub-consciously.
Him too! Soon you will send him to the psycho-analyst! Suggest Him to
smoke salvia instead :)
Whether he can recover this
fact, and so bring it to the center of his attention doesn't really
matter.
God's attention is not logically forced to be on every single fact
as a
seperate fact. Actually, this would be extremely tedious, even
hellish. It
isn't necessary, either, as there is a unfying truth behind it all
(at least
I bet on it).
Yeah OK. It is the unifying truth which counts.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The sense you do is a making of your brain. The absolute sense, of
1+1=2, is what God's sense, as you told me. You continue to talk like
if you were God. With comp: it is a blasphem. May be you should
search
a position in the Vatican. They allow some confusion between earth
and
heaven.
I wouldn't say I am God, because "I" is mostly understood to mean
"ego". In
fact, I think this "I" is just a temporary, quite flawed expression
of God
(not at all a mistake, though). But I think the ever present I am is
God.
I think there is no ultimate boundary between earth and heaven.
Earth is
there to make it heaven (and heaven, if it exists as a spiritual
realm[s],
is there to bring it down to earth). Individually, I think you are
in heaven
on earth, if you realize who you are.
I agree with this.
And with comp earth *is* in heaven although matter itself is really on
the border of it.
...I don't think the vatican would like me proclaiming that WE are
all God,
though. :D
They will burn you, but in some century they will sanctify you, and of
course censor the discovery.
It can make sense when you see how far some are able to misunderstand
the statement.
In comp you are true, and all machine can discover that, but if
assert, or even if taken as an axiom, it transform itself into
bewesibar ('0 = 1") which is the arithmetical version of BS.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is extreme relativism which leads to instrumentalism.
Fundamental
science is driven by the search of knowledge. To say yes to the
doctor
cannot be just a useful story. Either you die through it, or you
survive. That *can* make a difference.
I guess I am to near to a transpersonal view to accept this. It
doesn't
ultimately really matter whether I die or survive.
The irony of comp: once a machine has the cognitive ability to
understand that she can survive through a digital functional
substitution, then she has the ability to understand that she will
survive no matter what.
But then she understands that the real goal is not surviving, the real
goal is making high the probability of seeing the near soccer cup
nearby. For which an artificial brain can be handy. Of course it is a
little ego affair, like life, dreams and realities.
It just matters for the
relative story. So saying yes is just a useful story as well.
OK.
I am not saying we shouldn't search scientific knowledge. But it is
just a
small part of being human.
Hmm... OK. It is a bit ... subjective.
OK, story may be to strong of a word. I just mean that it isn't of
uttermost
importance. It is of relative importance. It is of uttermost
importance to
realize our own nature, to become aware of ourselves (but
paradoxically
trying to force this leads one astray, too, so it may be unwise to
believe
this).
Yes, at the G* (true) level, a lot of truths go astray when asserted
publicly.
Precisely the one in G* minus G.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
In the comp theory, the following are (meta) theorems:
- God agrees with you,
- The inner God agrees with you,
But the little terrestrial "man" disagrees with you, and rightly so,
because if he agrees, he becomes "retarted", a bit like when smoking
salvia.
*lol* This statement is really, really funny. God agrees, but little
Bruno
prostests that God will make him retarded if he agrees! No
offense... I am
not juding you, I just found the statement profoundly funny.
Actually, I see truth in what you say. The ego can't agree, because
it is
just not of the realm of ego. But ultimately ego is just a temporary
phenomenon (dare I say "illusion"?), and so there is no need for the
ego to
believe it in order for you to see it, and so no one will become
retarded.
You don't have to fight becoming enlightened! Just enjoy it, I am
sure Lady
Salvia will agree
Sure :)
(as long as you promise to not abandon your
responsibilities) :D.
Ah Ah! The key point!
Once, a scientific theologian, a serious person, announces the
following discovery:
1) heaven exists
2) every one go to heaven after death.
After that, every one killed himself, except the theologian who
harbored doubt and discovered indeed that a codicil should be added:
2') every one go to heaven after death, but only if they don't abandon
their responsibility on earth.
oops! (said the theologian).
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But then I am not sure your
goal is really to make a (testable) theory.
Your right, it definitely isn't. Maybe this makes this debate somehow
superflous ;).
We have gone far well all along despite the difference and the
motivation. We might still disagree on a quasi technical point which
is that the TOE does not need to assume consciousness existence
explicitly in the basic axioms. (independently of the fact that comp
assumes explicitly its existence). But then I know that this is key
matter *only* for deriving the little physics of he little ego, in
which you are apparently not more too much concerned with. No problem.
My explanation is my job, my little-responsibility on this planet, in
this game. Not necessarily yours. I am already quite happy that you
don't throw the machines and its dreams in the aristotelian trashes.
Bruno
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32257371.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
