On 22 Jan 2015, at 06:06, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Roger: Just because things can exist outside the mind/head doesn't
mean that a specific thing does occur outside the mind/head. If
the pi proposition and the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal point of pi
can be shown outside the mind/head or any experimental evidence
for the existence of the pi proposition or the 10^(10^(10^100))th
decimal point of pi existing outside the mind/head, I'd be happy
to accept it. I can see that a circle can exist outside the head,
but I don't see anywhere outside the mind/head, the proposition
that if you divide the circle's circumference by its diameter you
get pi.
But that proposition is not in the head of anybody. A body can get
a representation of that proposition in some language (be it LISP
or neural nets, or numbers): that is usually called a sentence, and
*that* is in the head of the machine or the number. The proposition
itself is what is intended by the sentence and the universal
machine in presence. That pi is what you find by dividing the
circle's circumference by the diameter is (true by definition), and
that the sum of the inverse of all squared natural number is true,
by a proposition proved by Euler.
That is true. period. It was true before Euler proved it, and
after, although this is only a metaphor. The number are just not
concept to which time or space attribute can apply.
There is no number, nor proposition, in a brain. You might find
representations of number, and of propositions in the brain, but it
makes no sense to say that a number is in a brain, or on the planet
mars.
Then a brain itself can be described as the representation of a
universal numbers with respect to some other universal numbers.
If you accept Church-Turing thesis, all computations exists in the
elementary arithmetical reality, and in a very special redundant
way, and we are there, and we must explain why the white rabbits
are so rare and why the rabbit hole is so deep. The quantum almost
solves that problem, but to solve the mind-body problem, we must
justify why only the quantum works.
Bruno
Roger: I understand that the sentence, the words and the thought
"divide a circle's circumference by its diameter to get pi" are in
the mind/head.
Yes. even in the mind/head of all universal machine, in the sense of
Turing-Church, which can be defined in arithmetic.
But, what is outside the head is a circle, with a circumference and
a diameter.
This is ambiguous.Are you talkng about the "platonic perfect
circle"? Or about a circle physically realized, like with a pen and
a compass?
Roger: A physically realized circle.
I doubt this exist. And with computationalism, I doubt this makes sense.
There is no process outside the mind/head saying that if you
divide the circumference by the diameter, the number 3.14... results.
Yes there is. For each choice of a universal numbers in N, you will
have an infinity of numbers which describes that process, like all
programs simulating Archimedes algorithm to compute Pi. Those
programs and their executions are entirely well defined in
arithmetic. Some quite indirectly, like the programs simulating the
milky way, in string theory, just before Archimedes discovered his
algorithm.
That process and the idea of even doing it are inside the mind/head.
But with computationalism everything is inside the mind/ead of the
universal numbers, even the idea that there is something outside the
mind/head of the universal machine.
Roger: If you believe in computationalism and arithmetical reality.
Computationalism implies the arithmetical reality. You need it to just
define computation, Church thesis, etc. You need at least a part of it
(the sigma_1 complete part).
I don't know any one not believing in the arithmetical reality, even
philosophers (which sometimes claims that they does not admit them,
but eventually betray themselves.
Not everybody agrees that it is enough for explaining consciousness
and the physical reality, but most everyday concept (like forever,
while, again, anniversary, death, everyday, ...) assumes the intuition
needed for agreeing on the elementary arithmetical axioms.
It will give 3.14 for all physical circles and their
circumferences and diameters outside the head, but the only thing
outside the head is the circle.
The platonic circle? Perhaps.
Roger: As above, a physically realized circle.
I really doubt you could realize a circle in nature. Only an
approximation, and then I am not sure if nature is not in the head of
the Turing machines and relative numbers.
So you take as axioms that there is a primary physical universe. I do
not. To better tackle the mind-body problem, it is better to be
agnostic on this, and open to the idea that such a primary physical
universe might not exist.
The process and the idea are inside the mind/head.
There are also in arithmetic, and in the mind/head of all universal
numbers, although they can focus on something else.
The "what you find by dividing..." in your sentence also kind of
implies that an action needs to be taken by the observer.
OK, but the observer is defined by a relative number, or a couple of
universal numbers. We never go outside a tiny fragment of
arithmetic, except for the reasoning on the measure on the
computational histories, where analytical tools are not forbidden at
the metalevel.
Keep in mind that I do not assume a physical universe, if only
because I want a non circular explanation of matter and of the
physical.
Everett use computationalism to justify the absence of collapse, but
this works only if we can derive the SWE from the measure on *all*
computational "dreams" in arithmetic.
Bruno
Roger: It just seems like we're starting out with different
assumptions (arithmetical reality/computationalism versus physically
existent entities), and I don't think we can resolve that one. But,
that's okay. As I mentioned before, we'll all keep working our
models and try and make some progress.
Indeed. All what I say, with materialism = the doctrine which asserts
the existence of primary matter, or physicalism, is that Mechanism
and Materialism are incompatible. You can put it in this ways:
Mechanism & Materialism -> contradiction.
Mechanism -> ~ Materialism
Materialism -> ~ Mechanism
The problem is only for those believing in both mechanism and
materialism.
Then a materialist must provides a non mechanist theory of mind. And a
mechanist must provides a non materialist theory of matter, with mind
defined by the object of study of computer science. That last task is
more easy, and leads to a testable theory of matter by machines.
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-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.
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.
