Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno has had something to say about this in the past. If an mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality PS - Mark, what is CDES? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno has had something to say about this in the past. If an mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality PS - Mark, what is CDES? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
MN: 'If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' and that's
a lovely way to put put it now isn't it is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.
one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.
Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
has had something to say about this in the past.
If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
David
DN: '
I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?
As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of things; all else is most likely not true, in my
simple minded view :-)
Metaphysically speaking _existence_ is a given; I don't exist
is either metaphor or nonsense.
As you so rightly point out, positing 'nothing' to separate
parts, etc, doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Currently this makes me sympathetic to
* a certain interpretation of mbrane theory [it ain't nothing,
it's just not our brane/s] and
* a simplistic interpretation of the ideas of process physics.
I know Bruno reiterates often that physics cannot be [or is very
unlikely to be] as ultimately fundamental as numbers and Peano
arithmetic, but the stumbling block for me is the simple concept
that numbers don't mean anything unless they are values of
something. I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference. I can see how
'existence' per se could be ultimately simple and unstructured -
and this I take to be the basic meaning of 'mbrane'. If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
On 21/06/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RS: It seems you've miscontrued my bashing, sorry about that. I was, perhaps somewhat colourfully, meaning extracting some meaning. Since your prose (and often Colin's for that matter) often sounds like gibberish to me, I have to work at it, rather like bashing a lump of metal with a hammer. Sometimes I succeed, but other times I just have to give up. DN: I do sympathise, truly! RS: I most certainly didn't mean unwarranted critising of, or flaming. I am interested in learning, and I don't immediately assume that you (or anyone else for that matter) have nothing interesting to say. DN: No, I've never thought you were 'flaming' and I genuinely appreciate any time you take to respond. I was only indicating the sort of response that would most help the improvement of my thought process. RS: Terminology is terminology, it doesn't have a point of view. DN: This may be a nub of disagreement. I'd be interested if you could clarify. My characterisation of a narrative as '3-person' is when (ISTM) that it's an abstraction from, or projection of, some 'situation' that is fundamentally 'participative'. Do you disagree with this? By contrast, I've been struggling recently with language that engages directly with 'participation'. But this leads to your next point. RS: Terms should have accepted meaning, unless we agree on a different meaning for the purposes of discussion. DN: But where there is no generally accepted meaning, or a disputed one, how can we then proceed? Hence my attempts at definition (which I hate BTW), and which you find to be gibberish. Is there a way out of this? BTW, when I read 'Theory of Nothing', which I find very cogent, ISTM that virtually its entire focus is on aspects of a 'participatory' approach. So I'm more puzzled than ever why we're in disagreement. I've really been trying to say that points-of-view (or 'worlds') emerge from *structure* defined somehow, and that (tautologically, surely) the 'primitives' of such structure (in whatever theoretical terms we choose) must be capable of 'animating' such povs or worlds. IOW povs are always 'takes' on the whole situation, not inherent in individuated 'things'. RS: 2) Oxygen and hydrogen atoms as counterexamples of a chemical potential that is not an electric field DN: I certainly didn't mean to imply this! I just meant that we seemed to be counterposing 'abstracted' and 'participative' accounts, in the sense I indicate above. Something would really help me at this point: could I ask how would you relate 'physical' levels of description you've used (e.g. 'oxygen and hydrogen atoms') to the 'participative' approach of 'TON'? IOW, how do these narratives converge on the range of phenomena to be explained? David On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:22:31AM -, David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 1:45 pm, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You assume way too much about my motives here. I have only been trying to bash some meaning out of the all too flaccid prose that's being flung about at the moment. I will often employ counterexamples simply to illustrate points of poor terminology, or sloppy thinking. Its a useful exercise, not a personal attack on beliefs. Russell, If you believe that a particular thought is poorly expressed or sloppy, I would appreciate any help you might offer in making it more precise, rather than 'bashing' it. It seems you've miscontrued my bashing, sorry about that. I was, perhaps somewhat colourfully, meaning extracting some meaning. Since your prose (and often Colin's for that matter) often sounds like gibberish to me, I have to work at it, rather like bashing a lump of metal with a hammer. Sometimes I succeed, but other times I just have to give up. I most certainly didn't mean unwarranted critising of, or flaming. I am interested in learning, and I don't immediately assume that you (or anyone else for that matter) have nothing interesting to say. Sometimes conversations on the list feel more like talking past one another, and this in general isn't 'a useful exercise'. My comment to Brent was motivated by a perception that you'd been countering my 1-personal terminology with 3- person formalisms. Terminology is terminology, it doesn't have a point of view. Terms should have accepted meaning, unless we agree on a different meaning for the purposes of discussion. Consequently, as such, they didn't strike me as equivalent, or as genuine 'counterexamples': this surprised me, in Which counterexamples are you talking about? 1) Biological evolution as a counterexample to Colin's assertion about doing science implies consciousness. This started this thread. 2) Oxygen and hydrogen atoms as counterexamples of a chemical potential that is not an electric field 3) Was there something else? I can't quite recall now. view of some of the other ideas you've expressed. So I may
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
On 22/06/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP:
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
DN:
.and if they have babies, where the ortho-dimensional-hell are we going
to find baby-sitters? Seriously though folks, what I enjoy about such
speculations, pace more rigorous mathematico-physical investigation (of
which I am incapable), is to try to understand how they converge on the
implicit semantics we use to intuit meaning from the worlds we inhabit.
It's a bit like comparative philology, in the sense of reconciling
narratives coded in different symbols, to explicate a common set of
intuitions. But on the other hand this may just be what Russell, more
acerbically, calls gibberish (and he may be right!)
David
MN: 'If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
MP: Yes, the 'mutually inaccessible dimensionality' and that's
a lovely way to put put it now isn't it is exactly what I was
thinking about. Frictionless and 'ghostly', and yet it would be
the source of entropy, which I take to be the expansion of the
universe writ small.
one way to think of this is that what we call matter is where
_our_ mbrane predominates and what we fondly think of as empty
space and mysterious quantum vacuum is where the other mbrane
predominates.
Who is to say what mbranes really are, except that in this
interpretation of the idea, each IS its own existence; I assume
we can say nothing definite about how each such existence would
compare with others or anything much about 'where' they are,
i.e. are they in a 'higher dimensional' space, do they interact
in anyway apart from interpenetration, are they ontogenically
related, do they have babies?
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
David Nyman wrote:
On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that
relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but
relationships entail existence and difference.
I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish
whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of
a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I
suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno
usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification.
Particles of matter are knots,
topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their
properties depending on the number of self-crossings and
whatever other structural/topological features occur.
Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno
has had something to say about this in the past.
If an
mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide
differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure.
Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself.
'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to
imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff'
- i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of
orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality
David
DN: '
I meant here by 'symmetry-breaking' the differentiating of an 'AR
field' - perhaps continuum might be better - into 'numbers'. My
fundamental explanatory intuition posits a continuum that is
'modulated' ('vibration', 'wave motion'?) into 'parts'. The notion of
a 'modulated continuum' seems necessary to avoid the paradox of
'parts' separated by 'nothing'. The quotes I have sprinkled so
liberally are intended to mark out the main semantic elements that I
feel need to be accounted for somehow. 'Parts' (particles, digits)
then emerge through self-consistent povs abstracted from the
continuum. Is there an analogous continuous 'number field' in AR,
from which, say, integers, emerge 'digitally'?'
MP: This seems to me to be getting at a crucial issue [THE
crux?] to do with both COMP and/or physics:
Why is there anything at all?
As a non-mathematician I am not biased towards COMP and AR;
'basic physics' warms far more cockles of _my_heart.
As a non-scientist I am biased towards plain-English
explanations of
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to ensure that it doesn't. If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied by respect. The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up. The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true human strength; ethics is the foundation of civilisation; Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia; the application of scientific method is transforming the human species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the further application of the method, and so it will ever be. Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not trivial, and it is not going to go away. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno has had something to say about this in the past. If an mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality PS - Mark, what is CDES? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [SPAM] Re: Asifism
Mark Peaty wrote: History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to ensure that it doesn't. If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am wrong. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, What assertion? That history has not finished yet? I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, nor with trying to ensure that it doesn't. which of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied by respect. The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up.. You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific method banished slavery and tyranny and racism. Would that it were so. Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically the scientific method has been used to justify racism, Facism, Nazism, and Communism, as well as liberal democracy. One can point to those political movements now and regard them as experiments that demonstrated their faults, but that's not much help in shaping the future. I recently defended the global warming science in a public debate. The opposition came mostly from libertarians who were sure it was all a conspiracy to justify a world government with totalitarian powers. They weren't against science, but they feared an authoritarian government. Our unfortunate experience in the mideast over the last few decades is that given democracy, the citizens will vote to impose majority views on minorities in the most draconian fashion. So it is not only democracy that is needed, but *liberal* democracy, democracy that preserves individual autonomy and values. The problem is how to inculcate a scientific attitude of tolerance for disagreement and uncertanity in people. Brent Meeker The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true human strength; ethics is the foundation of civilisation; Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia; the application of scientific method is transforming the human species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the further application of the method, and so it will ever be. Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not trivial, and it is not going to go away. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. Yes, knot theory seems to be getting
Re: Asifism
On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote: History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to ensure that it doesn't. Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe that History has not finished yet. If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am wrong. I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't truly say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied by respect. You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of your assertion... but what you're saying are not all time certainty. Regards, Quentin The modern era is so because of the advent of scientific method. Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, KongZi, LaoZi, Socrates, Pythagoras, Archimedes, and the rest knew nothing of scientific method, certainly not as we know it. They lived and benefited from what were, essentially, slave societies in which the ascription of sub-human status was made upon the servant classes and unfavoured ethnic groups. To put it simply, most people, for most of the history of 'civilisation', have been treated as things, mere things, by their rulers. Ignorance, fear, superstition, have been the guardians of poverty and the champions of warfare for millennia, but we don't really have time for that any more, and it time for us all to grow up. The Buddha, Jesus, and many others made plain that compassion is not a symptom of weakness but a necessary attribute of true human strength; ethics is the foundation of civilisation; Karl Popper explained the intrinsic logic underlying the success of democracy in comparison with competing forms of government and those of us who live in democracies, imperfect though they are, we know - if we are honest with ourselves - that we don't really want to 'go back' to feudal authoritarianism with its necessary commitment to warfare and xenophobia; the application of scientific method is transforming the human species in a way unparalleled since the advent of versatile grammar. The changes wrought to us and this world we call ours, following the advent of science, can only be dealt with by the further application of the method, and so it will ever be. Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not trivial, and it is not going to go away. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ David Nyman wrote: On Jun 21, 8:03 pm, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always come back to the simplistic viewpoint that relationships are more fundamental than numbers, but relationships entail existence and difference. I sympathise. In my question to Bruno, I was trying to establish whether the 'realism' part of 'AR' could be isomorphic with my idea of a 'real' modulated continuum (i.e. set of self-relationships). But I suspect the answer may well be 'no', in that the 'reality' Bruno usually appeals to is 'true' not 'concrete'. I await clarification. Particles of matter are knots, topological self entanglements of space-time which vary in their properties depending on the number of self-crossings and whatever other structural/topological features occur. Yes, knot theory seems to be getting implicated in this stuff. Bruno has had something to say about this in the past. If an mbrane interpenetrates another, this would provide differentiation and thus the beginnings of structure. Yes, this may be an attractive notion. I've wondered about myself. 'Interpenetration' - as a species of interaction - still seems to imply that different 'mbranes' are still essentially the same 'stuff' - i.e. modulations of the 'continuum' - but with some sort of orthogonal (i.e. mutually inaccessible) dimensionality PS - Mark, what is CDES?
Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
Dear David. do not expect from me the theoretical level of technicality-talk er get from Bruno: I talk (and think) common sense (my own) and if the theoretical technicalities sound strange, I return to my thinking. That's what I got, that's what I use (plagiarized from the Hungarian commi joke: what is the difference between the peoples' democracy and a wife? Nothing: that's what we got that's what we love) When I read your questioning the computer, i realized that you are in the ballpark of the AI people (maybe also AL - sorry, Russell) who select machine-accessible aspects for comparing. You may ask about prejudice, shame (about goofed situations), humor (does a computer laugh?) boredom or preferential topics (you push for an astronomical calculation and the computer says: I rather play some Bach music now) Sexual preference (even disinterestedness is slanted), or laziness. If you add untruthfulness in risky situations, you really have a human machine with consciousness (whatever people say it is - I agree with your evading that unidentified obsolete noumenon as much as possible). I found Bruno's post well fitting - if i have some hint what ...inner personal or self-referential modality... may mean. I could not 'practicalize' it. I still frown when abondoning (the meaning of) something but consider items as pertaining to it - a rough paraphrasing, I admit. To what?. I don't feel comfortable to borrow math-methods for nonmath explanations but that is my deficiency. Now that we arrived at thequestion I replied-added (sort of) to Colin's question I - let me ask it again: how would YOU know if you are conscious? (Conscious is more meaningful than cc-ness). Or rather: How would you know if you are NOT conscious? Well, you wouldn't. If you can, you are conscious. Computers? Have a good weekend John Mikes On 6/20/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I don' think we can be *personally* mistaken about our own consciousness even if we can be mistaken about anything that consciousness could be about. I agree with this, but I would prefer to stop using the term 'consciousness' at all. To make a decision (to whatever degree of certainty) about whether a machine possessed a 1-person pov analogous to a human one, we would surely ask it the same sort of questions one would ask a human. That is: questions about its personal 'world' - what it sees, hears, tastes (and perhaps extended non-human modalitiies); what its intentions are, and how it carries them into practice. From the machine's point-of-view, we would expect it to report such features of its personal world as being immediately present (as ours are), and that it be 'blind' to whatever 'rendering mechanisms' may underlie this (as we are). If it passed these tests, it would be making similar claims on a personal world as we do, and deploying this to achieve similar ends. Since in this case it could ask itself the same questions that we can, it would have the same grounds for reaching the same conclusion. However, I've argued in the other bit of this thread against the possibility of a computer in practice being able to instantiate such a 1-person world merely in virtue of 'soft' behaviour (i.e. programming). I suppose I would therefore have to conclude that no machine could actually pass the tests I describe above - whether self- administered or not - purely in virtue of running some AI program, however complex. This is an empirical prediction, and will have to await an empirical outcome. David On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 03-juin-07, à 21:52, Hal Finney a écrit : Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas about consciousness. Various people here have proffered their own ideas, and we might assume that the AI would read these suggestions, along with many other ideas that contradict the ones offered here. It seems hard to escape the conclusion that the only logical response is for the AI to figuratively throw up its hands and say that it is impossible to know if it is conscious, because even humans cannot agree on what consciousness is. Augustin said about (subjective) *time* that he knows perfectly what it is, but that if you ask him to say what it is, then he admits being unable to say anything. I think that this applies to consciousness. We know what it is, although only in some personal and uncommunicable way. Now this happens to be true also for many mathematical concept. Strictly speaking we don't know how to define the natural numbers, and we know today that indeed we cannot define them in a communicable way, that is without assuming the auditor knows already what they are. So what can we do. We can do what mathematicians do all the time. We
Re: Asifism
QA: '... you can't assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe that History has not finished yet. MP: The fact of me making the assertion is logical; what I assert is not a closed prescription of thought and action, quite the opposite in fact. NB: 'prerequisites' are necessary but not necessarily sufficient This is not some academic argument or computer simulation in which the parameters can be changed and the program re-run. True history is 'once-off'. We in our culture and history are like fish in water but whereas the fish cannot change their water [they don't even see it] we who are capable of reflexive awareness and contemplation can, through work on ourselves and on communication media, change the 'world' as it appears to others and therefore potentially we can change our world for the better. I am not referring to some kind of Trotskyist 'end of history', I am referring to the real possibility of anthropogenic terminal catastrophe. CA: ' I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't truly say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are.' MP: But here we agree! This is an essential feature that democracy shares with science: its eternal incompleteness. [As folk are wont to say about the World according to Bill Gates: 'It's not a fault, it's a feature!' :-] What we can say is that democracy in most of its evolving forms is much better than all the alternatives. QA: '... Science has grown without democracy, ethics too, compassion too, moral basis too.' MP: Don't be so quick to dismiss the world-transforming power of science. 'Speciation' is what is happening to homo sapiens right now, but we want ALL members of our species to participate. Also, the seeds of science appeared in many parts of the world through history since, well 'the Bronze Age' I think, but germination required the printing presses and alphabet based writing systems of Europe to grow into real existence. My guess is the difficulties of learning to read and write Chinese [and I am well familiar with the difficulties] is what prevented the earlier growth of scientific method in East Asia where block printing had been known for centuries before the idea came to Europe. But the growth of good science needs real democracy, just like real democracy needs the profound cultural support of knowledge of scientific method. Remember, Athenian 'democracy' required a totally disenfranchised slave class to create the surplus value consumed by the warrior elite as members of the latter contested for status and power amongst their own class. in passing: 'history is one-off' is why Karl Popper excluded most aspects of history, 'sociology', psychology, etc, from his definition of science, but that is another story Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Quentin Anciaux wrote: On Friday 22 June 2007 20:38:50 Mark Peaty wrote: History has not finished yet, and I am proposing that we try to ensure that it doesn't. Agreed, but it was not what I meant to say... it is the opposite... you can't assert Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method. These are prerequisites for the survival of civilisation if you really believe that History has not finished yet. If you truly think I am wrong in my assertion, then you have a moral duty to show me - and the rest of the world - on the basis of clear and unambiguous empirical evidence where and how I am wrong. I don't think you're wrong nor you're right... least to say that I can't truly say our democratic system is the top of the art political system... It can't be or the top of the art has serious flaws. I can't point to you what better system could be but I can easily point what flaws there are. Without such evidence you have only your opinion, which of course is safe for you in a democracy, and that you have an opinion can be important, especially if it is well thought out. Agreeing to disagree is an honourable stance when accompanied by respect. You do not have evidence too... Science has grown without democracy, ethics too, compassion too, moral basis too. Maybe I missed your demonstration of your assertion... but what you're saying are not all time certainty. Regards, Quentin snip Hmm, I went on more than I intended here, but the issue is not trivial, and it is not going to go away. Regards Mark Peaty CDES Quentin Anciaux wrote: This is completely arbitrary and history does not show this. Quentin 2007/6/22, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: CDES = Compassion, Democracy, Ethics, and Scientific method These are prerequisites for the survival of
