On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.
But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing + Matiyazevich...
discovery *is* the discovery that just the arithmetical reality if
full of entities, machines, and non-machines, which struggle to
understand what happens, and develop true and false beliefs around the
subject.
This is proved. What is not proved is that they are conscious, but
they need to be if you assume that there is no magic (actual
infinities, non-local 3p influences, 3p indeterminacies) playing in
the brain.
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a
random (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial
conditions lead to the development of beings who are then able to
correctly (or even approximately) discover those physical laws and
initial conditions.
If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since
evolution seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not
truth. So how do evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory
like that?
But a scientist will never say that <anything> is true. He will just
say what he believes in, knowing he might be wrong.
We can only hope getting close to the truth, but even in arithmetic,
lies can be consistent, and truth can depart from wishes, etc.
However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not
true) - this is more consistent - since it also predicts that
evolved beings will develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories.
"usefulness" would reduce science to instrumentalism, and then the
question which will be forbid will be "instrument for what"? Torture?
But you are right, truth is not always useful, but lies makes things
harder, and should be avoided in most situations, I think.
I think I understand why you think consciousness "precedes" logic and
arithmetic. I think that this is coherent with the first person view
of the "universal person", as consciousness is atemporal at that
level, and is the origin of all possible consciousness content. But
that is still an inside view. That general consciousness is the
atemporal consciousness of the löbian machine, and perhaps even just
the universal one. It is something approximated by
<>t? & <>t
It is an unconscious "Am I consistent?" in consistent situation. It is
also a semantical fixed point. It provides the meaning of "meaning"
somehow, and let the senses filtered it into consistent scenarios.
Bruno
Rex
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com
> wrote:
I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will
see my posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines
(evolution is a very very bad name for natural selection).
But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of
view is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that natural
selection is what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since
evolution makes the mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a
priory truths that are self evident and toward which we can not
create any simpler explanation.
You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk
metaphysics of today: There are an external reality that is
inaccessible to us, and that external reality is the "True Reality".
Kant called phenomena what we observe and the external inaccessible
reality is what Kant call noumena. Only by means of experimentation
on phenomena we can known something about the true external
reality . The results are scientific models and theories. Internally
there are only subjective things : feelings, values etc. Only what
is objectivated by science are facts. the subjective gain objective
status by means of science or direct shared observation. Since
internal states are not observable, this positivistic metaphisics
despise all of this, including metaphysincs. So it is self
reinforcing and self contradictory at the same time.
But I think that this is not that way. the noumenal external
reality does not exist. the reality is in the mind. The external
reality is purely mathematical an evolution creates the conscious
experiences, the values, feelings and perceptions (including
tacticle and visual) necessary to maintain the body in this
mathematical four dimensional reality along the time dimension.
Then there are no two realities but a single meaningful one, that is
mental. and the models are the true external reality or an
approximation to it, that is mathematical. we share almost identical
internal realities because we share the same mind functional
architecture.
But there is more. QM and GR are not the only mathematical
structures out there. Both need other mathematical structures to
work and the space time generate other structures along the time
dimension,seen locally as evolution: it generates structures that
are in the physiology of living and non living beings but also in
the mind of inteligent beings. It could be said that a perfect mind
is also a mathematical structure toward which our mind is evolving.
natural selection does not produce arbitrary forms, but optimize
designs close to an optimum of efficiency and simplicity for a task,
many times in ways that apparently look weird but other times are
very clear. there are mathematical relations in living beings.
In terms of behaviours, there are also mathematical relations in
game theory that may be used in the future to relate love, goodness,
evil and so on to mathematical entities, and degrees of good and
evil in terms of variations of entropy. Being will be also something
objectivable mathematically in the future. I think that a notion of
mind or soul, can be also a ideal mathematical structure towards
which our evolved minds try to imitate in his evolved imperfection,
in the same way that by convergent evolution the fin of a dolphin
and a shark tend to the same ideal dorsal fin. And this Mind really
encloses not phisically, but mathematically, the universe and we are
part of it and this Mind is the ultimate reality. It is not an
evolved mind but a "mathematical" one in the platonic sense but also
in the same way that we are not maths, but math is our model, He is
not only that.
2015-01-20 3:33 GMT+01:00 Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com>:
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic.
Axioms and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice
versa. Consciousness comes before everything else.
It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences. However,
what consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-
evident. Further, what any particular conscious experience “means”
is also not self-evident.
For example: The experience of color is directly known and
incontrovertible. But what the experience of color *means* is not
directly known - any proposed explanation is inferential and
controvertible.
We do not have direct access to meaning.
We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.
So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside
(i.e., objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness,
by conscious processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.
Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based
entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning,
and arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in
intrinsic meaning.
It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are
what they are. And what else do we have other than the way things
“seem”? I experience what I experience - nothing further can be
known.
HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t.
For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting,
believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied
conscious experiences just keep piling up.
Why is this?
Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it
just a brute fact that has no explanation.
If there is no explanation, then we should just accept our non-
acceptance, our non-stoppingness, and let it go. Or not. Doesn’t
matter.
Alternatively, if there is an explanation - then there are two
options:
The explanation is not accessible to us because our conscious
experiences do not “point” towards the truth of the way things are.
The explanation is accessible to us, because our conscious
experiences *do* point towards the truth of the way things are.
Again, if we believe that option 1 is correct, we can just stop. Or
not. It doesn’t matter.
So - let’s *provisionally* assume that option 2 is correct.
I say “provisionally” instead of “axiomatically” because we will
revisit this assumption. Once we’ve gone as far as we can in
working out the implications of it being true - we will return to
this assumption and see if it still makes sense in light of where we
ended up.
At this point I am willing to grant that modern science provides the
best methodology for translating (extrapolating?) from our truth-
pointing conscious experiences to models that represent the
accessible parts of how things “really” are.
To the extent that anything can be said about how things really are
“outside of” conscious experience - science says it.
But we never have direct access to the truth - all we have are our
models of the truth, which (hopefully) improve over time as we
distill out the valid parts of our truth-pointing conscious
experiences.
Okay - now, having said all of that - what models has modern science
developed? Apparently there are two fundamental theories: General
Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.
From Wikipedia:
GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of
gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-
scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On
the other hand, QFT is a theoretical framework that only focuses on
three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in
regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles,
atoms, molecules, etc. QFT successfully implemented the Standard
Model and unified the interactions between the three non-
gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.
Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed
with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these
two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In
accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and
QFT, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible -
they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability
of GR and QFT are so different, most situations require that only
one of the two theories be used. As it turns out, this
incompatibility between GR and QFT is only an apparent issue in
regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that
exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the
universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang).
Now - in addition to those two fundamental theories, we have other
higher level theories, which are in principle reducible to GR+QFT.
Chief among these is the Theory of Evolution. Wikipedia again:
Evolution – change in heritable traits of biological organisms over
generations due to natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and
genetic drift. Also known as descent with modification.
So - ultimately evolution reduces to GR+QFT as applied to some set
of initial conditions (IC) that existed approximately 14 billion
years ago.
I introduce evolution here because it explains how relatively
complex “entities” such as human beings can “arise” from relatively
simple initial conditions. All that is required is for GR+QFT to
support the existence of patterns in matter such that:
(1) The patterns vary in structure, in function, or in behaviour.
(2) The likelihood of continuance (i.e. survival of the original or
the production of copies) of a pattern depends upon the variations
in (1).
(3) A pattern’s characteristics are transmitted during reproduction
so that there is some correlation between the nature of original
patterns and their copies.
Given that GR+QFT satisfy these requirements, it is possible to
picture how the right set of initial conditions (IC) can lead to
simple replicators gradually evolving into more complex replicators
like humans.
In this picture, human ability and behavior doesn’t arise suddenly
out of a vacuum - rather it gradually develops from simpler behaviors.
So there is a continuum from the simple to the complex. From
prions, viruses, and bacteria to tetrabaena socialis and
caenorhabditis elegans to insects, fish, reptiles, mammals, apes,
chimpanzees, and (most complex of all) humans.
Note that “evolution” doesn’t do any real work here. GR+QFT+IC do
all of the work. Every aspect of evolution “reduces” to some aspect
of GR+QFT+IC.
Any state of matter or change in the state of matter, including
“living” matter, is explicable in terms of GR+QFT+IC.
Evolution just provides a conceptual bridge between the fundamental
laws and entities of physics and the abstract higher level
“patterns” that we more immediately perceive in our conscious
experience - like plants, animals, etc.
Further note that computers are also complex patterns of matter -
and their behaviors and abilities are reducible to and based in GR
+QFT+IC, just like everything else. It is only the patterns that
are different, not the underlying principles. Computers are a
moderately complex by-product of human evolution and human selection
- and not directly acted on by evolution and natural selection. But
their patterns may yet become complex enough to survive and evolve
without further human involvement.
Now - given all that: why do humans have the behaviors and
abilities that they have? Why are we “this way” instead of “some
other way”?
Evolution says that we behave the way we do and have the abilities
that we have because those behaviors and abilities are part of the
patterns that have most successfully survived and reproduced inside
the system described by GR+QFT+IC.
We have our behaviors and abilities because they “work” (or at least
have worked in the past) to enable survival and reproduction.
However - they do no actual work because any change in any state of
matter is ultimately due to GR+QFT+IC - which do all of the real
work. Talk of “behaviors” and “abilities” is another type of bridge
between what exists - GR+QFT+IC - and what we perceive - behavior.
Why do we engage in philosophy, mathematics, and science? Why do we
concern ourselves with ethics and political theory? These
activities are all just aspects of the set of evolved patterns that
constitute the human species. We do these things because the are
the inevitable manifestations of the survival and replication of
patterns of matter whose state changes are governed by GR+QFT+IC.
Note that the question of free will is ultimately about the causes
of behavior. GR+QFT+IC+Evo fully address the question of why we
behave as we do, without the need for anything like free will.
So - why punish or reward people if they are not “free” of GR+QFT+IC
+Evo?
Because if you “want” to change their behavior, this is what works.
Most animals, including humans, will change their behavior in
response to circumstances that either threaten or improve their
ability to survive and reproduce.
Why? Because the evolution of the patterns that these animals
consist of has resulted in flexible and adaptable (though still
reductionistically mechanistic) behaviors under a wide variety of
circumstances.
And that’s all there is to it. It is useless to punish or reward
animals whose patterns are not sufficiently flexible to change
behaviors in response. The punishment or reward should be selected
to match the animal’s inventory of adaptive responses.
The point is not the reward or the punishment. These are just means
to an end. The point is the desired change in behavior (in either
the animal being administered to, or other animals who may be
encouraged or deterred by what they observe).
Further note that why you “want” to change another animals behavior
is also explicable within the framework of GR+QFT+IC+Evo.
Next we will consider how conscious experience fits into GR+QFT+IC.
It is certainly true that my experience of consciousness and my
conception of GR+QFT+IC do not overlap. For example - my experience
of seeing the color yellow does not overlap with my mental
conception of the photons, quarks, electrons, retinas, neurons, and
visual cortices that are described by the GR+QFT+IC framework.
However - GR+QFT+IC *does* seem to provide a satisfying explanation
of the *mechanics* of how I detect, process, and represent color,
and evolution explains why I have the “ability” to see color.
Even so - there is still an unsatisfying “conceptual gap” between my
experience of color and my understanding of the physics of color.
How can we explain this gap?
One possibility is to claim that “future science” will close the gap
for us. However - I doubt that this is true because GR+QFT is
already so successful in explaining all observed behaviors of
matter. There is no promising theoretical gap in our understanding
of the behavior of matter that matches up with the conceptual gap we
feel exists between consciousness and matter.
So - I think a more promising approach is to show that the
conceptual gap is more apparent than real. The gap isn’t because we
are missing the existence of some force or particle. Rather the gap
is due to us not looking at the existing facts in the right way.
In the GR+QFT+IC framework, our abilities and behaviors (including
beliefs) have evolved because they “work” - not because they are
necessarily truth-pointing.
So our belief in an explanatory gap between our conscious experience
and our conceptual model of reality *is* necessarily a result of our
evolution.
We have evolved to cognitively conceptualize reality in one way (GR
+QFT+IC) and we have evolved to represent our direct *experience* of
reality in another way (colors, feelings, sensations) - and because
there has been no evolutionary pressure to synchronize these two
views, we haven’t - and so the perceived mismatch is a kind of
cognitive illusion.
Perhaps, as it turns out, that conscious experience just *does*
accompany certain kinds of patterns in matter and that’s all that
there is to it. The fact that this seems odd to us is just a quirk
of our cognitive evolution. Maybe it would seem otherwise with
minor changes to our evolved matter patterns - but there is no
evolutionary pressure pushing in this direction, so we have not gone
in that direction.
In this view - conscious experience is an aspect of patterns of
matter - and thus just an aspect of matter - and our intuition that
it is something *other* than matter is just an accident of
evolutionary history.
Belief is a state of mind.
States of mind are just brain states.
Brain states are just patterns of matter.
Patterns of matter are just matter.
Matter is just GR+QFT+IC.
The fact that there *seems* to be a unsatisfying epistemic gap in
step 2) is just an accident of history stemming from GR+QFT+IC. In
fact, the step in #2 is no less valid than the steps in #3 or #4,
both of which seem pretty unobjectionable.
When I wear my physicalist hat, this is basically the position that
I take.
SO - we have come full circle.
We started with the assumption that our conscious experience was
“truth-pointing”.
We granted that modern science is the best way to distill out the
truthful aspect of conscious experience.
We summarized how modern science explains human behavior and ability.
We discussed how that explanation of human behavior and ability
could result in an apparent conceptual gap between GR+QFT+IC and our
conscious experience.
We proposed a solution to this conceptual gap.
Now - given all of this - given where we ended up - let’s revisit
our assumption in #1.
Does the model of the world that modern science has constructed give
us more or less confidence that our conscious experience is, in
fact, “truth-pointing”?
And the answer is: less. In this framework, consciousness is a
product of evolution - and evolution only concerns itself with what
promotes survivability and reproductive success - not with what is
true. So GR+QFT+IC+Evo supports the belief that our conscious
experience is *useful* in that sense - but not that it is truth-
pointing.
However - if we change our starting assumption from:
Conscious experience is truth-pointing
to
Conscious experience is survival/reproduction-enabling.
Then we are on more consistent ground. Then we can assert that
modern science is the best way to distill out the survival-enabling
aspects of our conscious experience, and that the most useful model
of reality for enabling survival is GR+QFT+IC+Evo.
Which actually makes some sense...
I initially claimed that conscious experience had no directly
accessible intrinsic meaning. A conscious experience just is what
it is. Only by fitting it into a larger narrative framework does
any particular conscious experience acquire meaning.
However - the narrative framework of GR+QFT+IC also lacks any
ultimate meaning.
My experience of seeing yellow “means” that there are particular
patterns of photons, quarks, and electrons - but what do these
patterns mean? Nothing! They don’t mean anything beyond themselves
- they just are what they are.
So - assuming that there is something beyond conscious experience
which we can know “through” conscious experience, still leaves us
with an ultimately meaningless reality.
Reversing the order of our earlier list:
There is no larger meaning or purpose behind GR+QFT+IC+Evo.
Matter is just GR+QFT+IC.
Patterns of matter are just matter.
Brain states are just patterns of matter.
States of mind are just brain states.
Consciousness is just states of mind.
There is no larger meaning or purpose behind Consciousness.
IN SUMMARY:
Consciousness is the fundamental fact.
The fact of consciousness is directly known.
The fact of consciousness is the only directly known fact.
The contents of consciousness are experienced but are without
intrinsic meaning.
It is reasonable to stop here.
Most of us do not stop there.
Either there is a reason that we do not stop there, or there is not.
If we believe there is not, we can stop here.
If we believe that there is a reason, this reason is either
accessible or it is not.
For it to be accessible, conscious experience must be “truth-pointing”
If conscious experience is not “truth-pointing” then we might as
well stop here.
If we assume that it is truth pointing, modern science provides the
best way to distill out the truthful aspects of experience.
Science ultimately leads us to GR+QFT+IC+Evo.
GR+QFT+IC+Evo does not concern itself with truth - only with
survival and reproduction.
Our assumption that consciousness is truth-pointing must be weakened
to “consciousness is survival-enabling”.
GR+QFT+IC+Evo is ultimately as without intrinsic meaning as bare
conscious experience.
Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether we stop at #5, #8, #11,
or #16.
--
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.
--
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/d/optout.
--
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.
