On 27 Jan 2014, at 13:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014-01-24 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
You are a bit non serious here. I have never concluded anything of
that kind from computationalism.
Marijuana is good because it is a better medication than the most
common one for at least 2000 diseases, according to experts in the
field, but this has nothing to do with comp.
Then I allude sometimes about salvia divinorum, for which your
remark makes much more sense (but still not as a consequence of
comp). It is normal that altering consciousness products or methods
can provide information on consciousness.
So inplicitly you are agreeing with what I told. You would never
accept it however.
Accept what?
But don´t worry. That is not bad. It is simply human. To use the
desired conclussion
Which desired conclusion. You talk like if I was doing philosophy.
as an starting axiom is natural.
Well, I desire that 1+1 = 2. You might say that. But I have no desire
that comp is true. Nor that it is false. I don't really care. In both
case we face something extra-ordinary.
I do not talk about your professional work or your conscious
thinking, in which you are correct, but about the influence of you
hipothesis in the spontaneous thinking about what is true in
apparently unrelated questions where the conscious does not fire the
"caution, it is only an hipothesis!" warning.
You lost me. Not sure what you are saying. I don't use comp to justify
the use of coffee or tea in the morning. same with any other
psychotropic products.
Most of the thinking is unconscious. That´s why we wake-up with a
solution for a problem after sleeping. That is an example of how
the individual good (desired outcomes at least) establish what is
true.
Which good, which truth?
As a scientist, I never invoke truth, except of course when I use the
concept of truth in the subject matter, which is the bread of the
logicians' work. But we will never pretend that this or that statement
is true.
I intuit some misunderstanding, but you are not enough clear so that I
can point of which precisely.
Bruno
(It is not a rethorical question. it is not an "accusation". I just
ask)
Marijuana makes things cool and a bit psychedelic.
To dissociate completely and "visit other realities" Salvia is more
efficacious. Also the experience last between 4 and 8 minutes, when
cannabis or wine inebriate you for about two to four hours.
But the results are more easily sharable when doing math and logic.
Normally.
Bruno
2014/1/24, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
On 24 Jan 2014, at 00:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>:
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital
computer.
So everything is a computation. That is a useless definition.
because
it embrace everything.
Not everything. It would embrace the category of emulations,
simulations,
representations and all other information related aspects of the
universe.
It is not necessary for this Category to be identified with the
physical
world. Yes, it must be related to the physical but that relation
can be a
morphism to another Category: that of physical objects, forces,
thermodynamics, energy, etc. Two Categories, side by side, separate
yet
related. If we remove the possibility of distinguishing the members
of the
Categories they collapse into singletons and then, and only then, are
Identical.
Everything is legoland because everything can be emulated using lego
pieces? No, my dear legologist.
What about this definition? Computation is whatever that reduces
entropy. In information terms, in the human context, computation is
whatever that reduces uncertainty producing useful information and
thus, in the environment of human society, a computer program is
used
ultimately to get that information and reduce entropy, that is to
increase order in society, or at least for the human that uses it.
Not correct. Computations that generate output that is identical to
their
input exist. I would say that computations are *any* form of
transformation
Yes. there are computations that produce that. and computations that
produce disorder in the real world. For example, a cruise missile.
A cruise missile is not a computation.
Provably so when assuming computationalism. It is not a computation,
nor the result of a computation (but it is related to a measure on all
computations).
I think it is preferable to use the standard definitions for the no
controversial notions. the notion of computation is based on the
mathematical discovery of the universal systems, languages and
(mathematical and digital) machines. Computation theory and
computability theory are standard branches of computer science.
Well, to be sure, the notion of computation is more complex than the
notion of computability, but it is easy to get in all case precise
definitions which are coherent with what we know about universal
systems.
Bruno
But... as long as the are though or they are build or they are used,
the goal is to create some kind of order by the mind that defines,
uses or build it.
These computations at last produce certain desired order. Either are
made for you to convince me about how meaningles is my definition or
to kill terrorists in an enemy country etc. Ultimately the desired
outcome is reduction of uncertainty and entropy around the designer.
. It is a metaphisical position if you like. If you like, I can call
"essence of computation" instead of "computation" as such. or
alternatively "the self sustained process for which the computation is
_ever_ made for"
of information, including transformations that are automorphisms.
A simulation is an special case of the latter.
So there are things that are computations: what the living beings do
at the chemical, physiological or nervous levels (and rational,
social
and technological level in case of humans) . But there are things
that
are not computations: almost everything else.
We are using a very narrow definition of computations and thus miss
the
computations that physical processes outside of our CPUs and GPUs are
performing. If the functions of an Isolated physical system are
such that
the transformations they induce in/on their cover space (?) of
representations are a simulation of the physical system, what
obtains? A
one to one map of the system that co-evolves with it. When we
consider
physical systems interacting with each other, could they
additionally have
partial emulations of each other within their "self-simulations"?
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
