On 16 Aug 2012, at 18:45, Roger wrote:
Wow ! If true this would be the Holy Grail I've sought,
Well, you make me hoping it is true, then.
and the irony is that I could not understand what to do with it.
It is the major weakness. I just open a little bit a door in a new
direction (or in a very old one, the platonist one), and show how to
proceed from there, by studying a lot of math, which few people in the
philosophy of mind field are ready to study, even the
computationalists, and despite the obvious link between comp and
computer science.
But you can also contemplate, and since recently, there are some
feature you might even experiment, or better experience, if you are
lucky enough to be in a free country, where you can test salvia
divinorum.
The Salvia experience seems to be able to sum up some of the most
startling aspect of comp in less than 2 minutes. (Or you can move to
do that, salvia is only illegal in less than 20 states and countries).
So the choice is perhaps between 40 years of math, or two minutes in
the 'salvia space'. Note that some aspects of the salvia experience
challenge, also, the comp hypothesis, but this is what makes it
particularly interesting.
Of course it is "only an hallucination", but the experience can
challenge the very meaning of what is an "hallucination", and what is
"real". Unfortunately we live in a period where such experience are
not well seen, but this is coherent with the way human so often
disrespect themselves. Salvia is non toxic and non addictive (even
anti-addictive: it is a cure to quit drugs), but the experience can be
*quite* overwhelming if not quite shocking, especially for people who
believe in total self-control, or in a too much literal idea of what
is "real". Provocatively, some describes salvia as a cure to atheism!
If you try salvia, start from leaves and increment only with
concentrated extracts slowly, with a sober sitter to minimize risk.
The first thing most forget when trying salvia, is that they have
taken salvia, and some people have some sleep-walking behavior. You
can search "salvia" on youtube, but don't do like the young people
there, who use salvia only to make a funny video, and give strong
extracts to first timer, and eventually disgust them of it, if not of
all psychedelic plants.
For anyone interested in consciousness and spirituality, that plant is
a godsend. It can be frustrating, as it gives a *lot* of new data,
which are hard to swallow. To be sure, few people like it, but then
most people dislike being challenged on their deepest conception of
reality. To be clear, I have published all my work before trying salvia.
You can also train yourself in lucidity during sleep, notably the REM
sleep. This is what I have done for many years. This can provide many
informations too. Consciousness is private and individual, at first
sight, and we are our own guinea pig.
Take care,
Bruno
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,
>
> 牋 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-
l...@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.
