Re: Temporary Reality
2009/5/7 daddycay...@msn.com: People here keep thinking that I am trying to convince people that God is a person and/or that there is a God. Let me give you a hint that that's not the kind of thing that I would think is worthwhile to try to convince people about my wife. (convince Wow, we westerners sure thing we have a lot of power.) And even if I thought that it was worthwhile, I certainly wouldn't go about try to accomplish that by doing an OPV with that person about my wife. The existence of your wife may at times may have to be proved objectively, for example through presentation of a marriage certificate for legal purposes. In any case, it's not something prima facie incredible, like God is for everyone who doesn't have a belief in that particular god. Someone who hates or is indifferent to your wife might believe in her existence and her personhood as much as you do, because the evidence demands it. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: On 06 May 2009, at 11:35, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: Someone unconscious cannot doubt either ... (A zombie can only fake doubts) Yes, you are right. I can only fake doubts... I suspect you are faking faking doubts, but of course I cannot provide any argument. I mean it is hard for me to believe that you are a zombie, still less a zombie conscious to be a zombie! I am a zombie that behaves AS IF it knows that it is a zombie. OK. Meaning you don't know that you are zombie. But you know nothing. It is a good thing to link consciousness and knowledge. When you say yes to the doctor, we assume the yes is related to the belief that you will survive. This means you believe that you will not loose consciousness, not become a zombie, nor will you loose (by assumption) your own consciousness, by becoming someone else you can't identify with. I can say yes to the doctor, because it will not be any difference for me, I will still be a zombie afterwards... I don't know if you do this to please me, but you illustrate quite well the Löbian consciousness theory. Indeed the theory says that consciousness can be very well approximated logically by consistency. So a human (you are human, all right? I look exactly as a human. When you look at me, you will not be able to know if I am a human or a zombie, because I behave exacly like a human. So you believe that human are not zombie, and you agree that you are not human. Where do you come from? Vega? Centaur? ) who says I am a zombie, means I am not conscious, which can mean I am not consistent. By Gödel's second theorem, you remain consistent(*), but you loose arithmetical soundness, which is quite coherent with your ultrafinitism. If I remember well, you don't believe that there is an infinity of natural numbers, right? Yes it is right. There is no infinity of natural numbers. But the natural numbers are UNLIMITED, you can construct as many natural numbers as you want. But how many numbers you construct, the number of numbers will always be finite. You can never construct an infinite number of natural numbers. This is no more ultrafinitism. Just the usal finitism or intuitionism. It seems I recall you have had a stronger view on this point. Ontologically I am neutral on this question. With comp I don't need any actual infinity in the third person ontology. Infinities are not avoidable from inside, at least when the inside view begins some self- reflexion studies. We knew already you are not arithmetically sound. Nevertheless it is amazing that you pretend that you are a zombie. This confirms, in the lobian frame, that you are a zombie. I doubt all ultrafinitists are zombie, though. It is coherent with what I tell you before: I don't think a real ultrafinitist can know he/she is an ultrafinitist. No more than a zombie can know he is a zombie, nor even give any meaning to a word like zombie. My diagnostic: you are a consistent, but arithmetically unsound, Löbian machine. No problem. An ordinary computer can never be arithmetically unsound. ? (this seems to me plainly false, unless you mean perfect for ordinary. But computers can be as unsound as you and me. There is no vaccine against soundness: all computers can be unsound soo or later. there is no perfect computer. Most gods are no immune, you have to postulate the big unnameable One and be very near to It, to have some guaranty ... if any ... So I am not arithmetically unsound. I am build by a finite number of atoms, and the atoms are build by a finite number of elementary parts. (And these elementary parts are just finite mathematics...) The inconsistency of this follows from the seven step. You are always under the spell of the galois Connexion between what you can be here and now and the space of possibilities there and elsewhere. The more you are 3-finite, the more you are 1-infinite. That is why you are quite coherent by saying that you are a zombie. Zombies lack first personhood. There are not many zombies around me, still fewer argue that they are zombie, so I have some questions for you, if I may. 1) Do you still answer yes to the doctor if he proposes to substitute your brain by a sponge? If the sponge behaves exactly in the same way as my current brain, then it will be OK. Why do you care about you behavior? This remains unclear for me. Well, you will tell me that you behave like if you were caring, but that you don't really care ... 2) Do humans have the right to torture zombie? Does an ordinary computer have the right to do anything? I don't think a computer has the right to cross a red stop, nor does a computer have the right to smoke salvia in my country. Now that you ask, I am not sure. If I am arrest for having some
Re: 3-PoV from 1 PoV?
Hi Bruno, I came upon the idea after considering how is it that the notion of an objective reality when we know for a fact that all of our knowledge does not come from any kind of direct contact with an objective reality, at best it is infered. Leibniz' Monadology can be considered as a way to think of this idea where each monad represents a 1-PoV. A synchronization of many such 1PoV, given some simple consistensy requirements, would in the large number limit lead to a notion of a common world of experience. The 3PoV would follow from a form of inversion or reflection of a 1PoV. For example, we form thoughts of or fellow humans from our own experiences of ourselves. BTW: it seems to me that consciousness, at least, requires some form of dynamic self- modeling process. This implies that there is no such a thing as a static consciousness. Re the UD Measure problem: The idea i have is that we either have our infinity within each Monad or try to find a way to derive a measure of the infinity without reference to the only source of definiteness that we have available: our conscious experience. Onward! Stephen - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:23 PM Subject: Re: Consciousness is information? On 05 May 2009, at 20:13, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno and Members, The comment that is made below seems to only involve a single consciousness and an exterior reality. Could we not recover a very similar situation if we consider the 1-PoV and 3-PoV relation to hold to some degree over a multitude of consciouness (plurality). In the plurality case, the objective doubtful but sharable possible reality would be composed of a large intersection of sorts of 3-PoV aspects that can be recognized by or mapped to a statistical or generic notion of a 1-PoV. No? Yes. May be. Why? You need something like that for the first person plural, but you have to extract it in some precise way for solving the UD measure problem. You could elaborate perhaps. Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Bruno Marchal skrev: On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: you are human, all right? I look exactly as a human. When you look at me, you will not be able to know if I am a human or a zombie, because I behave exacly like a human. So you believe that human are not zombie, and you agree that you are not human. Where do you come from? Vega? Centaur? I come from Stockholm, Sweden. I was constructed by my parents. In reality I think that all humans are zombies, but because I am a polite person, I do not tell the other zombies that they are zombies. I do not want to hurt the other zombies by telling them the truth. Yes it is right. There is no infinity of natural numbers. But the natural numbers are UNLIMITED, you can construct as many natural numbers as you want. But how many numbers you construct, the number of numbers will always be finite. You can never construct an infinite number of natural numbers. This is no more ultrafinitism. Just the usal finitism or intuitionism. It seems I recall you have had a stronger view on this point. Ontologically I am neutral on this question. With comp I don't need any actual infinity in the third person ontology. Infinities are not avoidable from inside, at least when the inside view begins some self- reflexion studies. I was an ultrafinitist before, but I have changed my mind. Now I accept that you can say that the natural numbers are unlimited. I only deny actual infinities. The set of all natural numbers are always finite, but you can always increase the set of all natural number by adding more natural numbers to it. An ordinary computer can never be arithmetically unsound. ? (this seems to me plainly false, unless you mean perfect for ordinary. But computers can be as unsound as you and me. There is no vaccine against soundness: all computers can be unsound soo or later. there is no perfect computer. Most gods are no immune, you have to postulate the big unnameable One and be very near to It, to have some guaranty ... if any ... OK, I misunderstood what you meant by unsound, I thougth you meant something like unlogical. But now I see that you mean something like irrational. And I sure am irrational. I do not want to be tortured, I behave as if I try to avoid that as strongly as I can. Because I behave in this way, I answer no to your question, because that answer will decrease the probability of you torturing me. Do you realize that to defend your point you are always in the obligation, when talking about any first person notion, like consciousness, fear, desire, to add I behave like . But if you can do that successfully you will make me doubt that you are a zombie. Or ... do you think a zombie could eventually find a correct theory of consciousness, so that he can correctly fake consciousness, and delude the humans? An intelligent zombie can correctly fake consciousness, and I am an intelligent zombie. 3) Do you have any sort-of feeling, insight, dreams, impression, sensations, subjective or mental life, ... ? I behave as if I have sort-of feelings, I behave as if I have insights, I behave as if I have dreams, I behave as if I have impressions, I behave as if I have sensations, I behave as if I have a subjective or mental life, ... As I said. But if you know that, I mean if you can behave like if you were knowing that, it would mean that such words do have some meaning for you. How can you know that you are not conscious? Why do you behave like if you are conscious, and then confess to us that you are not. Why don't you behave like if you were not conscious. Should not a zombie defend the idea that he is conscious, if he behaves like if he was conscious. If you ask me if I am conscious, I will reply yes. But I am so intelligent that I can look at myself from the outside, and then I understand why I behave like I do. I can see that all my behaviour is explained by chemical reactions in my brain, and there is no more than that. So when I talk about myself on the meta level, then I can say that I have no consciousness. But most people are not intelligent enough to realize that. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Hi, 2009/5/8 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se: Bruno Marchal skrev: On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: you are human, all right? I look exactly as a human. When you look at me, you will not be able to know if I am a human or a zombie, because I behave exacly like a human. So you believe that human are not zombie, and you agree that you are not human. Where do you come from? Vega? Centaur? I come from Stockholm, Sweden. I was constructed by my parents. In reality I think that all humans are zombies, but because I am a polite person, I do not tell the other zombies that they are zombies. I do not want to hurt the other zombies by telling them the truth. If we are zombie... you cannot hurt us, a zombie can't be hurt, a zombie is a thing, a zombie is totally like a rock from it's inner live pov. A zombie can't think, a zombie can't behave like from its point of view because a zombie has no point of view. Yes it is right. There is no infinity of natural numbers. But the natural numbers are UNLIMITED, you can construct as many natural numbers as you want. But how many numbers you construct, the number of numbers will always be finite. You can never construct an infinite number of natural numbers. This is no more ultrafinitism. Just the usal finitism or intuitionism. It seems I recall you have had a stronger view on this point. Ontologically I am neutral on this question. With comp I don't need any actual infinity in the third person ontology. Infinities are not avoidable from inside, at least when the inside view begins some self- reflexion studies. I was an ultrafinitist before, but I have changed my mind. Now I accept that you can say that the natural numbers are unlimited. I only deny actual infinities. The set of all natural numbers are always finite, but you can always increase the set of all natural number by adding more natural numbers to it. Then it's not the set of *all* natural numbers. You do nothing by adding a number... you don't create numbers by writing them down, you don't invent properties about them, it's absurd... especially for a zombie. An ordinary computer can never be arithmetically unsound. ? (this seems to me plainly false, unless you mean perfect for ordinary. But computers can be as unsound as you and me. There is no vaccine against soundness: all computers can be unsound soo or later. there is no perfect computer. Most gods are no immune, you have to postulate the big unnameable One and be very near to It, to have some guaranty ... if any ... OK, I misunderstood what you meant by unsound, I thougth you meant something like unlogical. But now I see that you mean something like irrational. And I sure am irrational. You're not, remember you're a zombie hence there is no *you*. I do not want to be tortured, I behave as if I try to avoid that as strongly as I can. Because I behave in this way, I answer no to your question, because that answer will decrease the probability of you torturing me. Do you realize that to defend your point you are always in the obligation, when talking about any first person notion, like consciousness, fear, desire, to add I behave like . But if you can do that successfully you will make me doubt that you are a zombie. Or ... do you think a zombie could eventually find a correct theory of consciousness, so that he can correctly fake consciousness, and delude the humans? An intelligent zombie can correctly fake consciousness, and I am an intelligent zombie. A zombie is not intelligent, a zombie simply isn't. There is no consciousness in a zombie by definition, so a zombie is not and can't be anything. 3) Do you have any sort-of feeling, insight, dreams, impression, sensations, subjective or mental life, ... ? I behave as if I have sort-of feelings, I behave as if I have insights, I behave as if I have dreams, I behave as if I have impressions, I behave as if I have sensations, I behave as if I have a subjective or mental life, ... As I said. But if you know that, I mean if you can behave like if you were knowing that, it would mean that such words do have some meaning for you. How can you know that you are not conscious? Why do you behave like if you are conscious, and then confess to us that you are not. Why don't you behave like if you were not conscious. Should not a zombie defend the idea that he is conscious, if he behaves like if he was conscious. If you ask me if I am conscious, I will reply yes. But I am so intelligent You're not, you are a zombie. There is no you. that I can look at myself from the outside, You can't, you have no self. and then I understand why I behave like I do. I can see that all my behaviour is You can't, there is no you and you can't see anything, you are a zombie. explained by chemical reactions in my brain, and there is no more than that. So when I talk about
