You wrote: *(Brent):* *But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable.*
*(Bruno):* *Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the "self-referentially correct" machine theory.* *...* The entire train of sophistication is based on 'human logic' as derived on Planet Earth for "us". If I allow contents 'more' and 'so far unaccessed' in the *Entirety*, "our" the sophistication may reduce to a flimsy explanatory ignorance. Including physics, universal (self-referentially correct) machine, etc. *Theory* of Everything is spellable 'h o a x', since 'everything' TOGETHER(?) may be a balanced and inseparable - well - 'Entirety', of which we got glimpses of details only and used our extremely sophisticated brains (!) to explain it all to less sophisticated believers (scientists?). One more: there were several questions about a fitting ID of super-intelligence. I would start with a 'fitting ID' of "intelligence" and then decide if the one we are talking about is 'super' indeed. I proposed the Latin origination of 'reading between the lines' (inter-lego) i.o.w. to consider more than the plain dictionary definition for concepts spelled out. In such respect 'Watson' would be a good example. We do it simpler(?) in our brain. IFFF? Considering our 'intelligence' we are still at human levels. The reason, why I went with 'consciousness' a step further to consider responses (unidentified nature) upon relations (unidentified and unrestricted) over the entire Entirety. Most of the discussion on this (and other?) lists restrict both concepts to humans (machines). With agnostically restricted intelligence (consciousness) JM On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working in > some field, and admits not being interested in the question. may be Bruce > just confuse physics and metaphysical physicalism. > > Bruno > > > One might be interested in the idea that computationalism has implications > for physics which are not metaphysical. There are many speculative > theories of physics that are based on information as the ur-stuff and one > would naively suppose that a computationalist theory of the world would > have something to say about them. > > Brent > > -- > 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.
