On 6/18/2012 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent, Stephen,
On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a separation between
me and not me, and the "not me" below my substitution level get stable and persistent
by the statistical interference between the infinitely many computations leading to
my first person actual state.
How does on computation interfere with another? and how does that define a conscious
stream of thought that is subjective agreement with other streams of thought?
Brent
They interfere statistically by the first person indeterminacy on UD* (or
arithmetic).
That still seems very vague. I can suppose that many computations go thru the same or
similar sequences which later branch and so have indeterminant futures. But is that
'interference'? And why should it produce any "me", "not me" boundary?
And it remains to be seen if that defines a conscious stream of thought that is
subjective agreement with other streams of thought.
Do you realize that you are asking Bruno the same question here that I have been
asking him for a long time now? Exactly how do computations have any form of causal
efficacy upon each other within an immaterialist scheme?
By the embedding of a large part of the constructive computer science in
arithmetic.
There is a universal diophantine polynomial (I will say more on this on the FOAR list
soon). Once you have a universal system, you get them all (with CT). I might identify a
notion of cause with the notion of universal (or not) machine. Some existing number
relation implements all the possible relations between all possible universal machine.
You have to study the detail of Gödel's proof, or study Kleene's predicate, which
translate computer science in arithmetic. For the non materialist, the problem is not to
get interactions, the problem is not having too much of them.
Exactly. It's the problem of having proved too much. To say all computations can exist
and if consciousness is computation then all conscious thoughts will exist is true but
meaningless - like tautologies are.
Brent
Keep in mind I submit a problem, for the computationalist. Not a solution., but precise
problems. You can use the arithmetical quantization to test test the quantum tautologies.
We will see if there is or not some winning topological quantum computer on the border
of numberland, as seen from inside all computations.
Bruno
Might it be that 'subjective agreement" between streams of thought is just another form
of what computer science denotes as bisimulation (except that it is not a timeless
platonic version of it)?--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
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
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto: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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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.
--
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.
