On Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54:41 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:48, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > In the "Is Conscious Computable?" and "Suicide Words God and Ideas" > threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of "primitive > materialism". This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the > Aristotelians get to slug it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the > discussion between David Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. > > Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno’s version of CTM and I > take the liberty to provide this. > > In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I > thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first > Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short > version of the SANE 2004 paper. > > This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change > your stance vis à vis Bruno’s core ideas. It is designed to read as > fluently as possible. > > The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download > folder > > > *Comp 2013 Redux* <http://www.kmjcommp.com/COMP%202013%20Redux.pdf> > > thanks for taking the trouble to do this. I did read it through once > again, but I suppose with some amount of trepidation shall have to report > no status change as the result. Then to highlight the issues as I see them: > > 1. Nothing wrong with logic on its own terms. His points are reason and - > allowing I probably miss some of the deeper layerings of significance - > easy to understand and even 'obvious' (in a good way). Emphasis once more > on 'that of it I could make out' as it were. > > 2. The issue - as I see it - is logical nonetheless, which may seem > contradictory but just isn't....not once one appreciates the nature of the > UDA is that of successive levels of logical deduction, each one building on > the last (or summation of all previous taken together or subset or > whatever). > > The logical nature of *that* kind of structure, must/should always include > - cumulative with each further layer - appreciation and allowance for what > might be termed 'exo-logic'. That is, say from the perspective of the > initial conditions, or in this case the initial assumption (comp), the > logical implications of not just what is in the assumption, but what > 'sense', by what 'degree' what (a given thing) is in the assumption. all > the way to what s not in the assumption at all despite appearing to be. All > from the *retrospective* vantage point of whatever direction the layered > deductive structure actually converges to. > > > Specifically? If an implicit assumption is used at some steps, please tell > the step and the missing assumption. >
Why can't you see this is not a question of what assumptions you do or don't make within your logic? Ste outside out your box briefly, outside your logic. Or just explore the logic native in the conception of deriving large impications from....try making a logically parallel metaphor using completely different objects...describe one of these you regard as legitimate I will create one for you. Let's say, someone got wrapped up with 'origin of life', as in abiogenesis. Then had a similar idea based on another universal principle - conservation of energy. So...reasoning his cogwheels turns....energy is conserved always it is thought, and so origin happened energy-symmetrically. So then, assuming "cons-e" for origin of life Bruno...what logic is now available Or....I just constructed a physical test for you: Bruno I have just placed 'something' into a black-box. It is associated with 'concepts' which are vague, and may or may not exhibit physicality, but I'm not saying. Assuming it's emulable....Bruno....what are your logical deductions? Can you deduce any non-trivial information what is in the box? How about the innards of Jupitor...assuming comp, is anything new available to you? Test it...get a friend to put something in a box, then you assump comp and get deducing. If you manage to generate non-trivial new knowledge on a statistically significant basis, I think you'll find yourself winning a large prize for supernatural powers. Or just from a straight appreciation of....why go elsewhere let's stick with conservation of energy. New knowledge, because it's information, is thought to be *energetic* in character. Now, we're still trying to work out how it squares off.....and indeed this is one of THE huge baffling questions of the scientific revolution. Philosophers gravitate to this. The centre piece of philosophical odyssey was an epistemology of knowledge. There are unresolved problems with exactly how energy conserves knowledge creation processes...we're not there yet. But nevertheless we assume the answer will obey conservation of energy. So, I suppose, no one can tell anyone else they can't have their own theory. But I think it's reasonable just to ask you examine the logics of what you seem to think is possible. The assuming comp for consciousness, equates to assuming something about which absolutely nothing is understood is emulable by 'something' which applied to this context, this one, about which absolutely nothing is known. So that's the energetic charge in your logical battery. How far do you believe logic can be translated from this? You go a damn long way, but perhaps you think you might've gone a lot further? Is it infinite Bruno, how much logic and new knowledge you can deduce from something like that? That's effectively a theory of knowledge creation. Personally, I would say you aren't addressing the issues involved in that, but simply walking away from them. Finally.....as I took great pains to distinguish, the logic in which analytics of things like this is best available involves encapsulations. Something encapsulated, something else encapsulating. Does the mainstream not a logical scheme for that? It doesn't matter because it's easily shown, but admittedly I derived the schema from first principles, for practical reasons in that the need came in what I was pursuing. But look, you would agree, or not agree, that in the world we live, there can be instances (in fact its ubiquitous) of things having their own logic in a given environment or set of conditions. This is what we do...how we navigate people and the world. Like empathy...we want to understand, so we look for where someone else's behaviour or actions have their own logic. We do this intuitively all the time. We do it by encapsulation...building in whatever container is necessary in order to complete the logic such that what is bizarre or unpredictable is now logical on its own terms. The only thing different is that its very rare that people construct such things in reverse. It's also a fact of life, we - humans - find it very easy (we do it intuitively without thinking in the main) to encapsulate for analysing others (we've evolved, potentially 'mirror' neurons to handle a lot of the heavy lifting). But humans don't find it easy at all to construct encapsulation in the other direction. We find it very hard...and are prone to take offense at any suggestion our worldsense and actions are products of 'encapsulation' logics. That part is new, if it's really true the mainstream hasn't bothered. And so that I guess is what you are all finding so difficult. On a lighter note, did you ever see Dead Men Don't Wear Plad? The whole plot was constructed from Steve Martin's logical deduction from coming across a dollar bill with a small tear at one corner, no writing, no other imperfections just a small tear - deducing a vast global conspiracy of diabolical complexity to sufficient resolution he know who was involved. Yeah dudes...we used to joke about this sort of thing. Where did all the good times go? With no disrespect, I've made this my response. Below here, from what I see, you exercise your right to repeat your position, which I'm obviously well aware by now. And....lol....dismiss my large effort as verbose jargon. And once again, I find myself in the situation of being pretty sure from what you said, just here, that you did not read what I had to say. I'm not going to take offense about this any more, because I shall be addressing the group generally, or whoever or whatever, going forward regarding this matter in your theory. I will gladly talk to you Bruno....if you feel you are getting a value from it when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly explicitly to anything I say). It's a curious behaviour....is it something to do with comp as well? 'There's a possible pattern here, of similar deductive energetic potentiality. Is there a connection do you think, between your [apparent[ logic the other day that you believed you were able to gauge what whole populations believe; deducing first consciousness then nature of reality itself from 'assuming comp'; have you assumed comp with me or something else, that you already know what I've said? > > I appreciate this isn't necessarily intuitive immediately, and that it is > very easy to overlook. But once you do get it, it does become intuitive, > and also very clearly legitimate in terms of logic. I appreciate what I've > said so far won't make much sense to those not already aware. However, > hopefully WITH the following two brief clarifications read and > internalized, then everything read again, it might. Or more so. Enough > perhaps for a question that goes beyond "?". > > the two clarifications are: > > *- the 'structure' (i.e. an initial assumption followed by several layers > of cumulating logical inference) is one kind of versioning on some more > generic concept of a 'magnification' device*. > > Frankly this looks like verbiose distraction. > > You say clarification, but I see jargon. > > In this context logical, > > It is theological. comp is equivalent with a belief in a sort of local > reincarnation. > > > > in that where proper the final step 8, say, *could* be deduced directly, > intuitively (say with the right intuition/intellect) directly from the > initial assumption in a single step. > > Step 8 is indeed independent of the preceding steps, yes. But it is far > more difficult for most people. > It is also not that important, with occam razor and the fact that AUDA is > confirmed (up to now). > > > > > > Just as, say, the Moon through a telescope may technically be the > resultant of multiple layers of components/alignments involving whatever > physics, the actual crater one views is - assuming all proper - the same > as, say, the crater would look from 200 km away in similar conditions. > > As with all magnification devices, not only what is desired or intended is > magnified but *everything* - including imperfections and inaccuracies and > limitations according to the basic logic of the task. In the case of a > telescope, because it is logic+engineering that will include imperfections > that can and will be at every level. In the case of Bruno's UDA - allowing > that it is logically proper all the way through - everything then becomes > about the initial assumption itself. But the principle is the same, that > what may appear to the 'naked eye' as it were, looking at the assumption by > itself, is not necessarily reliable when it comes to analysing the logic of > the magnified resultant multiple levels subsequent. any more than the moon > to the naked eye is useful for analysing the magnified resultant of the > moon through a telescope when it comes to the difference of that to the > actual moon from whatever much nearer vantage point would be the > approximate equivalent. > > What gets magnified is everything, and what everything is, is not > necessarily obvious or even detectable from the 'naked eye' vantage point. > > But it can be derived from some deep principle, like the invariance of > consciousness for some digital transformation. > > > > > In many cases it's literally impossible to gauge what 'everything' is from > that 'naked eye' vantage point alone, simply because the very question is > wholly dependent on what dimensions of some potential space of absolutely > everything, are *actually* magnified by the 'device' itself. In the case of > a telescope it's more obvious; in the case of something like comp there > could be countless directions of 'magnification' and each one would define > 'everything' according to itself. > > ? > For all self-referentially correct machine, you can find eight points of > view, which are there due to incompleteness. It is really 4 + 4 * infinity, > as the "material views" get graded. > > You seem to dismiss computer science, and computer's computer science. > > > > > > > Everything, though, whatever it is, on whatever definition, will always > include imperfections. At a certain granularity, imperfections will always > include not just what is present, but progressively, what *sense* present, > inclusive of what is missing. What to the 'naked eye' does not appear > relevant, can become very relevant. > > A magnification device is always objective where proper, therefore does > not depend on subjective perception of what is there to the 'naked eye'. > This is no less true for a logic-based device than a telescope. > > Or a brain. > > > > The cumulative logic, will increasingly magnify not only the logic that > the logician was aware of, but also the imperfections that he either was or > was not aware of. Logic won't discern between the two. > > Not at all. Logic does the distinction. Logic + arithmetic does it. > Machines do it. > > > > Clarification two: The key or core 'direction' of magnification in the UDA > is the entity 'consciousness'. > > Put simply, the UDA magnifies implications for consciousness, one sense or > another, from an initial assumptions that does not contain *knowledge* > about consciousness. > > OK. > > Which does not matter to the 'naked eye' since the assumption is actually > about something else, that being computation. > > > Not at all. It is like seeing only the []p part of the machine, and > dismissing the []p & p. > > Not only I don't do that confusion, but I insist the machines are already > susceptible on this. Of course G* knows that []p <-> []p & p, but unless > the machine is "simple", you cannot be the god of a machine similar to you, > and machine knows that, and understand their inability to identify []p and > []p & p, and to "live" their different logics, that is structuring of their > beliefs and knowledge. > > > But when the direction of magnification converges T0 implications for > consciousness, from an assumption that does not contain knowledge of > consciousness, the logic itself at each layer will inevitably magnify > precisely this imperfection...which is at an encapsulating layer...entirely > logical in nature. > > the impact is duality. You get logical correctness in terms of what the > 'naked eye' can see of the initial assumption. But increasingly, every next > layer is equally adequetely, but more simplistically, explained by the > imperfection, in direct proportion to the size of the imperfection from the > retrospective vantage point of the resultant (this case step 8) resultant > vantage point. > > In the case of a convergence around consciousness from an assumption > containing zero or small knowledge of consciousness, the distortion can be > assumed large. > > Please show it. You speculate with terms more vague than the one used in > the topic. > > > an example of a dual explanation would be Bruno identifies a phenomenon of > 'first person indeterminacy' as 'amazing'....probably with some nod in the > direction of indeterminacy in qm. However, an equally valid explanation > would be the less interesting more common variety of indeterminacy arising > - again in all logical domains - when implications are drawn too > far.....say in terms of resolution, than the resolution available in the > initial conditions (e.g. statistics assuming what is most significant or > even logical deduction from a large set is the same at a much smaller > subset of the same data...e.g. case in point racial differences if they > exist, getting applied between two individuals of different races). > Indeterminacy is ALWAYS the logical result of asking such questions. > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout.
