Hi Bruno Marchal
Wow ! If true this would be the Holy Grail I've sought, and the irony is that I could not understand what to do with it. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 04:17:20 Subject: Re: Imprisoned by language (code) Hi Roger, On 14 Aug 2012, at 18:26, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Well, I feel like Daniel must have felt when before the Giant. And I can't even find a rock to sling. Nevertheless, as I see it, computers are imprisoned by language (computer code). Like our social selves. But like Kierkegaard, I believe that ultimate truth is subjective (can, like meaning, only be experienced). Life cannot truly be expressed or experienced in code. No problem for comp here. We have discovered that machine, when looking inward tend to perceive, or experience many truth which are beyond words. There is a logic (S4Grz) which formalize at the meta-level that non-formalizable (at the ontological level) informal process of though. I wrote (and published) recently a paper on this, (the mystical machine, in french) but it is what I try to explain here since a long time. Machines have already a non formalizable (by themselves) intuition. Indeed self-referentally correct machine have a rich, neoplatonist-like, theology. On my url front page, you can download my paper on an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus, made possible (and necessary in some sense) by computer science. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 05:13:01 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On 11 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Roger wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO. Computer have a notion of self. I can explain someday (I already have, and it is the base of all I am working on). Better, they can already prove that their self has a qualitative components. They can prove to herself and to us, that their qualitative self, which is the knower, is not nameable. Machines, like PA or ZF, can already prove that intuition is non-computable by themselves. You confuse the notion of machine before and after G del, I'm afraid. You might study some good book on theoretical computer science. Today we have progressed a lot in the sense that we are open to the idea that we don't know what machine are capable of, and we can prove this if we bet we are machine (comp). Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/11/2012 ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 04:08:29 Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ? The Dennet conception is made to avoid an agent in the first place because i so, it whould be legitimate to question what is the agent made of an thus going trough an infinite regression. The question of the agent is the vivid intuition for which there are ingenious evolutionary explanations which i may subscribe. But a robot would implement such computations and still I deeply doubt about his internal notion oof self, his quialia etc. The best response to many questions for the shake of avooiding premature dogmatic closeness is to say "we don't know" El 11/08/2012 07:57, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> escribi : > > Hi Roger, > > ? I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about > Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony? > > > > On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote: >> >> Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say >> contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your >> monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling >> agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and >> neurophilosophy. > > > > -- > 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. > 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. -- 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. 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.
