On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and
evolutionary
psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is
true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and
psychology
still does not address the mind-body issue, even less the comp
particular
mind-body issue. In fact they use comp + weak materialism, which
can be
shown contradictory(*).
The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is
crucial for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of
perceptions
and phenomena with the timeless, reversible, mathematical nature
of the
laws of physics that by the way, according with M Theory, have also
dualities between the entire universe and the interior of a brane
on the
planck scale (we can not know if we live in such a small brane).
OK. No doubt that Kant was going in the right (with respect to
comp at
least) direction. But Kant, for me, is just doing 1/100 of what the
neoplatonists already did.
I don? assume either if this mathematical nature is or not the
ultimate
nature or reality
Any Turing universal part of it is enough for the ontology, in the
comp
frame. For the epistemology, no mathematical theories can ever be
enough.
Arithmetic viewed from inside is bigger than what *any* theory can
describe
completely. This makes comp preventing any text to capture the
essence of
what being conscious can mean, be it a bible, string theory, or
Peano
Arithmetic. In a sense such theories are like "new person", and it
put only
more mess in Platonia.
Probably the mind (or more specifically each instantiation of the
mind
along the line of life in space-time) make use a sort of duality in
category theory between topological spaces and algebraic
structures (as
Stephen told me and he can explain you) .
Many dualities exist, but as I have try to explain to Stephen,
mind and
matter are not symmetrical things if we assume comp. The picture
is more
that matter is an iceberg tip of "reality".
Even if matter the tip of the iceberg, does the rest of if "matter"?
Without the rest (water), there would be no iceberg and no tip!
do we can know about it this submerged computational nature?
In science we never know. But we can bet on comp, and then, we can
"know"
relatively to that bet-theory. So with comp we know that the rest
is the
external and internal math structures in arithmetic.
which phenomena produce the submerged part of this iceberg in the
one that
we perceive?.
Arithmetic gives the submerged part. The UD complete execution
gives it too.
The emerged part is given by the first person indeterminacy.
Multiverse hypothesis propose a collection of infinite icebergs,
but this is
a way to avoid God and to continue with the speculative business.
What the
computational nature of reality tries to explain or to avoid? . May
be you
answered this questions a number of times, ( even to me and I did not
realize it)
Careful. Comp makes the observable reality of physics, and the non
observable reality of the mind, NON computational. Indeed it needs
a God
(arithmetical truth). It explains also why God is NOT arithmetical
truth as
we usually defined it (it is only an approximation).
By the way, Bruno, you try to demolish physicalism from below by
proposing a
computational theory of ultimate reality.
Not at all. many are confuse about this. This is the confusion
between comp
and digital physics. Comp is just the bet that "I" am a machine.
Not that
reality is computational. Comp makes reality ultra-non-
computational, like
arithmetical truth is already ultra-non-computational. The
computational =
Sigma_1 complete. Above it is not computational, and arithmetical
truth is
the union of all sigma_i (Sigma_0 U Sigma_1 Sigma_3 U Sigma_4 U
Sigma_5 U
Sigma_6 U Sigma_7 U ...).
Digital physics, although perhaps useful, is contradictory at the
start, as
it implies comp, but if you get the UDA, you can understand that comp
entails non digital physics. By transitivity, this shows that Digital
physics entails non-digital physics, and so digital physics is
refuted (with
or without comp).
I try to demolish it from above, by proposing that perceptions are
the
effect of computation in living beings for survival .
OK. But you have to assume some sort of reality to define
"survival" and to
define what is surviving.
I assume, and I make use of it, that the comp hypothesis can also
be applied
at a level above phisical reality instead of below: a substitution
at the
axon firing level could be used to substitute a part of the brain by
computer chips (by making the chips to inject axonic signals) +
perhaps some
hormonal control. This substitution level Matrix-style can produce
the same
first person indeterminacy and still the computation is made within
this
reality, by real computers made of ordinary matter.
It will work for you, as an external observer for the matrix. But
it will
NOT work for the people inside the matrix, as they will not stay in
that
matrix for long, as their reality is the "real" arithmetical
matrix. In fact
physical computation just don't capture consciousness. Physical
reality is
completely a product of consciousness, and consciousness is a
statistical
product of *all* computations.
This is something hard to explain, without going through the whole
UDA
reasoning.
This is enough for a discussion.
With "by real computers made of ordinary matter." I mean that the
computers
are structures within the mathematical manifold that describe the
physical
reality (or the tip of the iceberg).
But with comp, the physical reality cannot be taken for granted.
You *have
to* extract it from the logic of the sigma_1 sentences structured
by the
person points of view. (unless a flaw in UDA).
I don't try to demolish physicalism. I just show that it cannot
work once we
assume comp. Without AUDA, I would say that I just translate the
mind-body
problem into a problem of justifying the hallucination of matter from
arithmetic.
Then, AUDA gives the method and the non trivial first results.
There is
already an arithmetical quantization, and it is just beyond my
competence to
show if it simulates a quantum computer or not.
Many philosophers (especially academical and atheists) hates this
as it
makes the mind-body problem into a technical problem, and then it
is against
the current weakly-materialist dogma favored by the most common
current
ideologies.
The global picture is the same as the one described by the mystics,
though,
as we can say thanks to that greek period where mysticism was the
best ally
to science. Indeed the greek created the science from that insight,
theology
included.
Please keep in mind that: "I am a machine (comp) implies that
everything
else (matter, consciousness) is NOT a machine".
"I am a machine" is an abbreviation for CT+ "yes doctor" (the "I" is
ambiguous).
Bruno
Eventually matter emerge from dreams coherence conditions. Dreams
are just
the first person view on the relevant computations which exists by
elementary arithmetic.
For the perception of time or for the ordering of past events in
time
since future events are unknown due to the increasing entropy, the
mind
would make use of another mathematical structure with a relation
of order.
I agree, and N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... } is quite enough, at
least with
the addition and multiplication laws. You can define the order by
the order
relation x < y, that you can define for example by Ez(x + z = y &
~(z = 0)).
That order is enough to define the order of the computational
steps in any
computations.
With computationalism, physics is *literally* entirely reducible to
computer science (= number theory or combinator theory), in a
sense similar
to the fact that current biology is literally reducible to
chemistry, itself
reducible to physics. Note that computer science refers to number
crunching
and syntactical manipulations, but also to the many semantics of
programs
and computations, like Scott denotational semantics, or like those
derived
from mathematical logic (self-reference theory, model theory,
Curry-Howard
isomorphism, etc.).
Here, the use of self-reference makes it possible to explain the
*whole*
of physics: that is the quanta *and* the qualia together, and why
they seems
(and are) different. All universal numbers, when looking inward,
find that
same universal qualia-quanta distinctions. Note this makes comp
testable, as
you can compare the quanta behavior found by machine introspection
with what
we can observe, and in that sense, we can say that QM-without-
collapse is
quite an ally, up to now, to the comp postulate. Newton physics,
once
assessed, would have violate the comp theory.
Bruno
(*)
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
2012/10/6 Roger Clough
http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm
Kant's "Copernican Revolution"
" Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his
"Copernican
Revolution,"
that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object
possible
rather than the object that makes the representation possible. This
introduced
the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than
just a
passive
recipient of perception. Something like this now seems obvious:
the mind
could
be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of
silicon chips
could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed,
i.e.
recognized,
or it would just be noise -- "less even than a dream" or "nothing
to us,"
as Kant
alternatively puts it. "
.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 10:42:30
Subject: Re: A "grand hypothesis" about order, life, and
consciousness
On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order
out of chaos" *. Since at least higher living beings
also possess consciousness, my "grand" hypothesis is that
life = consciousness = awareness = producing order out of chaos.
I agree Roger. I would add to this understanding however, a
logarithmic
sense of increasing quality of experience.
human experience = consciousness > animal experience = awareness >
microbiotic experience = sensation > inorganic experience =
persistence of
functions and structures.
I would not say producing order out of chaos because I think that
chaos
is not primordial. Nonsense is a mismatch or attenuation of
sense, not the
other way around. Order cannot be produced from chaos unless chaos
implicitly contains the potential for order...which makes the
production of
orderly appearance really just a formality.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y5Z0qwWOARAJ.
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.
--
Alberto.
--
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.
--
Alberto.
--
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-
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.
