On 21 Oct 2016, at 21:45, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
it was the third reading when I realized that I do not understand
what you wrote.
as for "...
"Life is a pure religious concept, based on delusion that there is
something in an organism that makes it alive."
That's a quoted quote: I did not say that. I guess you know that.
I oppose that indeed. I guess they mean by organism some colony of
molecules, made of atoms, but those does not exist except as local
convenient stable hallucination. You know that with computationalism,
matter belongs to the category of the mind. It is the border of the
universal mind, which is the mind of the universal (in the Church-
Turing sense) machine, or number.
standing for consciousness?
I do not feel it.
I was alluding to the popular idea that "being alive" = "feeling
alive", which is more an attribute of a conscious person/entity than
of a piece of matter, or a number, or anything describable at the
third person.
Life, unlike consciousness, does not pose any conceptual problem. Self-
reproduction, self-regeneration, embryogenesis, are easily managed by
the second recursion theorem of Kleene, as I explained and illustrate
in some papers, and it the long version of the thesis.
As for a definition of life, my favorite one is "capable of self-
reproduction", even if this make cigarette alive. Like a virus, a
cigarette has to inject you what will make you behave for paying
people to make cigarette. Its life cycle involve humans, like most
machines today, still.
Consciousness is more problematical, because it seems that a third
person explanation makes it non necessary, like if a person does not
really exist, which is (arguably) eliminative nonsense.
But once we just listen what the machine say, we find that she is
already aware of many things that she cannot justify, or even cannot
define, yet is still lived in the sense that they can introduce words
to pint on them, and they can project such things on others, etc.
Colin McGinn, a philosopher of mind, has defended the thesis that
consciousness is a natural mystery. Computationalism is close to that
view, except that it is more an arithmetical mystery than a natural
one. Machines are limited, but the machine can be aware of those
limitations, and bet on what might be, or not, beyond themselves.
Bruno
JM
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
John,
No, I do not know what life is. I guess, nobody does.
From what I have seen recently, I like:
"Life is a pure religious concept, based on delusion that there is
something in an organism that makes it alive."
That's consciousness, and if that is an illusion then everything is.
Such a "definition" of life is eliminative materialism.
With computationamism the material composing the organism can itself
be described by a delusion of a universal person brought by an
infinity of universal machine. We can say then that Matter is a pure
religious concept based on the universal number delusion that there
is something made up of something when there might plausibly be only
a statistics on number's (sharable) dreams.
Bruno
Evgenii
Am 14.10.2016 um 21:08 schrieb John Mikes:
Evgenii,
do you have some idea about "LIFE", not the '*Game *of it'? Are
there disclaimers that may lead to a STATE - callable 'life'? I would
not rely entirely on the biology, life may be much more and not
quite(?) moelcularly bound. How is 'mentality' involved? Changes???
(and I mean: self induced ones!) We have a very limited image of
Mother Nature. Is 'life' more, or less than our limited knowledge of
'nature'? Please do not forget: I am an agnostic and believe in many
many facets of the Entirety we know nothing about, yet supposedly
exist beyond our world. Is a 'self-induced change' L I F E ? How
induced?
The question is exciting, I would learn more about it.
John Mikes
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:
I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is
actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit
more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he
proposes.
Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He
takes a compatibilist position in respect to free will: free will
is compatible with the determinism. At the same time, he says that
his equation is the very strong intellectual achievement of the
mankind.
I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game
of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the
game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat
analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives
some freedom to invent such a game.
I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
Game of Life in that sense?
Evgenii
P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-
world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
-- 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
