Fw: H+ Summit @Melbourne 25-26th of June 2011 (Australia)
From: Adam A. Ford Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 7:30 PM To: Wei Dai Subject: H+ Summit @Melbourne 25-26th of June 2011 (Australia) Hi Wei Dai, I saw your everything list, and wanted to post an event there, but I am not a member, and even if I became one would just be a newbie. So if you feel like this is appropriate to your list, please post it! --- The H+ Summit @Melbourne is Coming to Town (25-26th June 2011)! The H+ Summit @ Melbourne brings together an eclectic mix of rationalists, futurists, science fiction writers, AI experts, scientists, biotechnology experts, philosophers and theorists to pursue deep philosophical, scientific and technological inquiry, with the aim of being able to discern those changes which are likely to have profound impacts and those which are merely transient and or fashionable. Technological innovation permeates all aspects of society — from tiny water purification packets and 3d printers, to GPS tracking devices, wearable smart devices, decision support systems, replaceable body parts and personal genome tests. Because technology and society evolve together, it has become increasingly important to develop a greater understanding of how technology is shaping the course of our lives. We are faced with the challenge to continuously become innovative in harnessing and controlling technological development as it accelerates on many diverse fronts. The "pioneers of the future" are faced with the necessity to become ever more resourceful. Even the most conservative thinkers agree that we have already stepped into an era of a profound change. The good news is that our human diversity continues to spawn both inventiveness and novelty. This conference is brought to you by Humanity+ @ Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). Humanity+ explores how society might use and profit from a variety of creative and innovative thought. Join us for this adventurous journey into the future where you can make a difference! This conference will challenge and enhance your view of the future. Seating is limited, so Secure your tickets now! >> The conference will be held at the Melbourne Uni Graduate House. www.humanityplus.org.au Partial list of Speakers and subjects: a.. Sean McMullen – “Doing It Now” - (As of writing, a Hugo Nominee for short story) b.. Hugo de Garis – Nanotech, Femtotech – Lots of room at the bottom, | Quantum Topological Computing – Much More than Moore’s Law c.. Meredith Doig – “Rationalism, Transhumanism & the Singuarlity” – (President of the Rationalist Society Australia) d.. Colin Kline – “Logics - Boonlean (Pascalian) logic, Fuzzy Logic and Bayes” – Academic e.. Greg Adamson – “Technology and social control“ – (Chairman of the Society for Social Implications of Technology IEEE) f.. Binh Nguyen – “Evolutionary AI” – (PHD) g.. Lev Lafayette – “More Human Than Human: The Computation of Moral Reasoning” – Philosopher h.. Slade Beard – “Architecting the Future” (Complex Systems) - (IEEE) i.. Avatar Polymorph – “The ethics of boosting animals from sentience to self-aware consciousness” - Extropian from way back j.. Tony Smith – “The Plurality: Why everyting is all over the place” – (Chaos, Complex Systems) k.. Jon Oxer – “The Maker Revolution” l.. Andy Gelme – “The Internet of Things” m.. Jeremy Nagel – “Open Source Biotech” Feel free to pass this on. See you there! --- Kind regards, Adam A. Ford Singularity Summit Australia Coordinator H+ Australia, H+ @ Melbourne Summit Coordinator Mob: +61 421 979 977 | Email: tech...@gmail.com SinginstAU | Singularity Summit (AU) | Facebook | Twitter | Youtube | Singinst media (US) | H+ @ Melb Summit (AU) “The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them” – Albert Einstein Please consider the environment before printing this email -- 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: TIME warp
Hi guys, Time travel is actually possible, as long as you are consistent (i.e. Novikov self-consistency principle). Please consider the argument for it, beginning at: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hr4x2/physicists_what_do_you_think_of_the_following/ Continue the discussion there at reddit if you would like. Thank you! F.H. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Travis Garrett wrote: > Hi Roc, > > Sure. Let me go ahead and start by assuming that we need to exist > in an environment that began in a state of low entropy (so that life > can evolve during the "increasing entropy phase" - I could also > examine this assumption, but that's another discussion...). GR then > does some interesting things. First, gravity in GR couples to energy > and momentum, and everything has energy and momentum, so, er, it > couples to everything (binding them all together like the one ring I > suppose). It can thus essentially "get everybody on the same page" > when things are starting out - forcing "everybody" (all the particle > species) to "pay attention" and synchronize their behavior... > > GR can then do something quite cool. If you feed the Einstein > equations with a scalar field that happens to have much more potential > energy than kinetic energy, then the spacetime responds by growing > exponentially (i.e. the curvature is in the time direction - the > spatial directions are driven to be very flat (i.e. the angles inside > a triangle add up to 180 degrees), with the overall scale factor > growing exponentially (i.e. the overall size of the triangle is > growing exponentially in time)). Thus, consider some complex universe > with a lot of entropy. Entropy is an extensive quantity, and thus if > we consider some tiny volume element dV then there can't be much > "stuff" inside dV, and therefore there is very little entropy inside > dV. If we can get a scalar field inside that dV to satisfy the > condition that its potential energy is much larger than its kinetic > energy, then blammo, we get inflation and that dV region can grow > larger than our Hubble volume in a tiny fraction of a second (and then > scalar field can decay, ending inflation, to be followed by a > "standard" big bang...). > > It is by no means an open and shut case - there are lots of details > to be filled in - but I think the overall picture makes a lot of > sense... > > Sincerely, > Travis > > On Jun 2, 6:35 am, Roc wrote: >> nice answer. >> could you elaborate on this, though? >> >> Why then should spacetime be curved? There are at least 2 good reasons: >> >> 1) it allows for a big bang to happen, thus "starting things off" in a state >> >> > of low entropy. >> >> thanks > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
Fwd: Physics
Hi everything-list guys, does anyone have any suggestions for our friend Pete down here? He is eager to learn physics! Contact him directly if you have any suggestions. Stephen -- Forwarded message -- From: Felix Hoenikker Date: Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 PM Subject: Re: Physics To: Pete Hughes Peter, Please consider reading "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut. I think you'll find that this till be truly all that you need to know :) Also, as you read "Cat's Cradle," please post some messages at on the following discussion list: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hr4x2/physicists_what_do_you_think_of_the_following/ Best, F.H. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Pete Hughes wrote: > Dear Felix, > I was just reading your post about GR and QM and their unification, my eyes > glazed over somewhat, I do not understand 'superposition' or 'hubble > volume', I am somebody cursed with great epistemic hunger, a high > intelligence and a low academic rigour and I spend hours hating the fact > that I do not know the theory of everything. > I recently realised that we live in a mathematical inevitability and that > physics was approaching simply describing mathematics and saying 'it is > because it is'. > I just hoped that you can point me to a book which explains either general > relativity (I recently purchased 'why does E=MC^2' but I am not quite onto > it), quantum mechanics, many worlds and their implications for free will, > consciousness, dreams and death. > I am sorry to bother you, > Regards, > Peter -- 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: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi, JoMC is relatively new. My own institution (Unimelb) doesn't subscribe the Journal is very specialized as well The ISI search engine won't see it either. It takes time for the journals to earn enough cred to get visible and accessible... even the Journal of Consciousness Studies has eventually made it into ISI search... one day JoMC will, I hope. Those interested enough to send a private enquiry to me can get an earlier preprint version...close enough to the original to be readable. cheers Colin BTW I finally submitted my PhD thesis recently WOOHOO! meekerdb wrote: Even an affiliation doesn't seem to help. Brent On 6/7/2011 1:49 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Colin, Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy of your paper? Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Colin Hales Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: COMP refutation paper - finally out Hi, Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature', International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613 The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic! cheers Colin -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Dear Bruno, I agree with your assessment of that Wiki article. In most universities the prevalent ontological doctrine is “dialectical materialism” and such has no allowance for any competition in the realm of ideas. I have pointed out that your result is similar to solipsism but never as an insult. It was just that I do not see a means to extend it to being able to consider the appearance of interactions between many minds. As far as I have studied, it seems only to be able to make statements about itself. Until you can show how it can be individuated for many minds this problem will remains, with or without a solution to the measure problem. The difficulty is that the numbers, alone, do not have any of the properties that we would associate with a mind with the notable exception of self-referential logical structure. If we might extend comp with the idea of the isomorphism with topological spaces (via the representation theorem) then we might have a notion of concrete persistence over transitions that allows for a notion of memory – since a single logical algebra is isomorphic to an entire class of stone spaces when we consider the relation of diffeomorphism. The inclusion of topological spaces allows us a coherent notion of “inside” and “outside” that can be used to distinguish multiple minds from each other, if only by having the possibility of differing positions in space. The self-awareness that you mention would, in turn, allow for the expansion of the group of symmetries that can be considered as “internal” that they can be broken and mapped (via fiber bundles) onto the set complement of the stone spaces, that yields field theories. The “glue” that binds them all together is a combination of bisimulation chaining ( a form of homomorphism) on the abstract side and various other morphisms on the concrete “physical” side, all woven together by the wonderful natural contravariance of the stone duality. Onward! Stephen From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:31 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of "spiritualism" for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non-consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The "enemy" of "immaterialism" try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically "childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:31:35PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi Russell, > >I would like to be sure that I understand your point here. Would > you say that "true determinism", as opposed to "true indeterminism", > requires one-to-one mappings between any two adjoining links in the > causal chain of events, each of which is said to be uniquely > determined by its prior? > > Onward! > > Stephen That is what determinism means. I don't think there can be any meaning attached to false determinism, however, so the true is a little redundant. That is also the case of indeterminism, but some might think that ignorance is a form of indeterminism (which it needn't be). Hence my sticking the redundant "true" tag to make the point. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Self aware in what sense? On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Felix Hoenikker wrote: > Sorry again, but I want to add one thing: > > The broadest mathematical closure of "the existence of computation", > "the observation of consciousness anywhere" suggests the following, in > my mind: all possible numbers (including transfinite-ones) are, in > fact, self aware substructures in the mathematical universe, > recursively "communicating" to "each other" by exchanging bits in an > attempt to develop the algorithm which compresses themselves to a > single state, which represents the number "one", after which it > promptly forgets and starts all over again, everywhere, and all at > once. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Felix Hoenikker > Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM > Subject: The final TOE? > To: Everything List > > > Hi all, > > Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the > following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically > "the exact same theory", modulo the additional "bit" of information > that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is > the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about > singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every > respect, as it "necessarily must be" since it follows exactly from the > asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional > structure of "any" form (i.e. including string theory). > > Since no "true" gravitational singularities exist, then "every point > in space is an apparent black hole" because "no point in space is an > apparent black hole". Thus, at every point in space, a "bit" of > information (or a "photon") can escape from the "observable" universe > on our scale, "go into the past", and come out "in the future" in a > symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of > reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features > of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through > locally closed loops can look like "point" particles with some net > entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all > intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, > and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the > divergence and appearance of other "fundamental forces" early in the > inflating universe. > > It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the > contemplation of the "singularity", and that our inability to discover > the "true" laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of > knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and > the black hole. It follows that this fact was "exactly true" all > along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless > consequences of our "local" geometry of space, and our civilization > has, in fact, rather than been trying to "discover" the next laws of > physics, has in fact been struggling to "unlearn" the concept of > "Indeterminacy" and "quantum mechanics", since QM follows from GR, the > postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless > equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully > completed the "fully" deterministic general laws of physics. > > Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: > the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each > "observer" point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or > actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely > deterministic, and "you" for any defined "you" is getting non-random > information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be > added to you by the "rest of the universe" in some systematic fashion, > down to the tiniest quantum of "universe". This implies that there > "is" actually, some "quanta" of the universe, a "photon", and each > "photon" is having information added to "it" from the "rest of the > universe", in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every > "observer". This is actually a fully generic model for the universe, > and the absolute generalization of QM and SR. > > Next, consider the fact that you are "conscious" and possibly > "indeterminstic" (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do. > Therefore, I am not a "quanta" of information, or a "bit", but it was > "added to me" from "somewhere". No, consider the mathematical closure > of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic > principle and "fine tuning"? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does > this not mean that our "observable universe", for "some definition of > observable", from "any subjective observer's point of view", is > constantly being added non-random information from "outside". > > I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully. > > Please let me know what you think, > F.H. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker > wrote: > > Every "apparent" event ho
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of "spiritualism" for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. Well I am not even sure. Frankly, this is wikipedia's worst article. It represents well the current Aristotelian reconsideration or non- consideration of immaterialism. Among the Platonists were the Mathematicians, the ideal platonic worlds for them was either mathematics, or what is just beyond mathematics (like neoplatonist will distinguish the intelligible (the nous) from the ONE behind (and like all self-referentially correct machine will eventually approximate by the notion of theories and the (possible) truth behind). The "enemy" of "immaterialism" try to mock it by reducing it to solipsism (which is typically "childish), or to the naive believe in angels and fairy tales. But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. The early academical debate was more to decide if mathematics or physics was the fundamental science. Aristotelian's successors take primitive materiality as a fact, where the honest scientist should accept that scientists have not yet decide that fundamental question. Today physics relates observable to measurable numbers, and avoid cautiously any notion of matter, which is an already undefined vague term. The nature of matter and of reality makes only a re-apparition in discussion through the quantum weirdness. I argue that if we assume that there is a level of description of ourselves which is Turing emulable, then, to be short and clear (albeit not diplomatical) Plato is right, and physics becomes a modality: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. The quantum weirdness becomes quasi- trivial, the existence of Hamiltonians also, the precise form and simplicity of those Hamiltonians becomes the hard question. Comp does not yet explain the notion of space, although it paves the way in sequence of precise (mathematical) questions. Unfortunately, the computationalist philosophers of mind, as reflected at least in wiki, seems to ignore everything of theoretical computer science, including the key fact that it is a branch of math, even of number theory (or combinator theory, of creative sets, Sigma_1 complete finite systems, ...). Now I see they have a simplistic (and aristotelian) view on immaterialism. Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is "I am dreaming", where comp immaterialism is "all numbers are dreaming", and a real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those dreams/computations. You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkeley. Don't worry too much on the terms once you get the idea. We can always decide on vocabulary issue later. You sum very well the problem. The glue is really provably missing only in solipsism. There is just no reason to believe that numbers could miss the glue, that is more than quarks and waves. At least before we solve the (measure) problem. Math is there to see what happens. People seems to have the same reluctance to let math enter the subject than the old naturalists. Now, the only way for the numbers to win the measure problem is by self-multiplication, and coherent multiplication of populations, that is sharing stories/computations. The only reason why I can dialog with you must be that we share a 'big number' of similar histories, and those have to be observable below our substitution levels. If those did not exist, keeping comp could lead to solipsism. But then QM, or the MW understanding of QM, shows that we do share indeed big sets, if not a continuum of similar histories, saving comp, empirically, of solipsism. Gödel-Church-Tarski saves mechanism
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Even an affiliation doesn't seem to help. Brent On 6/7/2011 1:49 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Colin, Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy of your paper? Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Colin Hales Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: COMP refutation paper - finally out Hi, Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature', International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613 The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic! cheers Colin -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes wrote: > Jason, > > I found this compelling, are you saying that the difficulty of explaining > qualia is due to the language centre of the brain being able to access only > an abstract 'interface' (I'm a object oriented thinker) of the sensors? then > what about emotions? I'm trying to pre-empt your response to 'why don't you > put your hand in the fire and enjoy the information' and I just can't, I > like the way you talk so I will pester you with the question. > Peter, Thanks, I am happy to attempt an answer. The below is a conclusion from taking seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind which is supported by several pieces of evidence: 1. Anesthesia The naive view is that anesthetics work by turning off the brain or causing activity in it to cease. This is incorrect, there is still a great deal of activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished. The person is unable to move, remember, sense pain, etc. Yet other brain functions, such as regulating blood pressure or heart rate continue. The leading theory for why this is, is called cognitive unbinding. Anesthetics operate by confusing or dampening communication between neurons. Cognitive unbinding proposes that this causes disparate brain regions to become cut off from each other as neural signals can only travel so far given the interference of the chemicals. The result is different brain regions are cut off from each other, the pain processing part of the brain doesn't receive information from the touch processing part of the brain, the hippocampus doesn't receive information to encode as memories, the muscles don't receive signals to move which are under conscious control, yet independent brain functions (which don't require interaction with other brain regions) such as those that control breathing or heart rate continue to function. It is not the sheer will to survive which keeps the lungs breathing or heart pumping, as animals which are conscious breathers (such as the dolhpins and whales) will suffocate under anesthesia. This also forbids them from sleeping, they rest only one hemisphere of their brain at a time. 2. Different forms of brain damage Visual information is a cast collection of processed information. Before the image reaches your conscious awareness your brain has applied edge detection, depth and color perception, object recognition, motion sensing, and blind spot extrapolation, among other things. Each of these functions independently and can be impaired or lost without affecting other parts of the brain. There are cases where brain damage to the V5 section of the brain causes motion blindness (sufferers see the world as a collection of static frames, devoid of any concept of motion), likewise people can lose the ability to recognize faces, or recognize objects (these functions occur in different parts of the brain, so while someone might lose the ability to recognize objects they can still recognize faces and vice versa), finally there are people who have lost the ability to process colors. Not only can they no longer see colors, but they lose the ability to recall colors altogether. Since the processing is done in specific areas of the brain, these modules share only the high-level results of their processing with other brain regions. (This is the limited-access part of modularity). It is not possible for all areas of the brain to do everything independently of course, so if they interact with other brain regions, they must receive high level results, not the raw input that a particular module processed. 3. Pain perception This is getting close to your question on emotions and why people don't stick their hand in the fire. It's been found that the perception of pain is handlered in one part of the brain, but what makes pain painful (unpleasent) is handled by an entirely different part of the brain: the anterior cingulate cortex. Damage to this part of the brain (or severing nerves connected to it in an operation called a cingulatomy) brings about the curious phenomenon of pain dissociation. Someone with pain dissociation can provide specific information about the location and intensity of the pain, but it no longer bothers them or causes any distress. An example: Paul Brand, a surgeon and author on the subject of pain recounted the case of a woman who had suffered with a severe and chronic pain for more than a decade: She agreed to a surgery that would separate the neural pathways between her frontal lobes and the rest of her brain. The surgery was a success. Brand visited the woman a year later, and inquired about her pain. She said, “Oh, yes, its still there. I just don't worry about it anymore.” With a smile she continued, “In fact, it's still agonizing. But I don't mind.” To answer your question about emotion I think Marvin Minsky provides a good answer. You might say that given the above description of pain
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
Dear Bruno, From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation Hi Stephen, On 06 Jun 2011, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Rex and Friends, My .002$... [BM] No theories nor machine can reach all arithmetical truth, but few people doubt that closed arithmetical propositions are either true or false. We do share a common intuition on the nature of arithmetical truth. I have doubt on any notion of global mathematical truth. Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc. are simplifications of the natural numbers. They are convenient fictions, I think. If we are machine, it is undecidable if ontology is more than N. [SPK] I think that there is some differences in opinion about this but it seems to me that we need to look at some details. For example, there should exist a theory that could reach all arithmetic truth given an eternity of time or an unnamable number of recursions or steps. [BM] ? No this cannot exist. It is precluded by the incompleteness theorem. Eternity can't help. Unless you take a non axiomatisable theory, or some God-like entities. [SPK] Yes, you are correct. I miswrote. I had even developed an informal proof of this in my critique of Leibniz’ Monadology. But this still presents a challenge.. Umm, maybe this is where Cantor et al considered this idea in terms of unnamable cardinals... ** This by definition would put them forever beyond human (finite entity) comprehension. Whether or not there is closure or a closed form of some theory does not make it realistic or not. AFAIK, closed arithmetic propositions are tautologies, no? [BM] They are not tautologies, unless you mean by this "propositions true in *all* models of Peano Arithmetic. But then "tautology" means "theorem", and that would be an awkward terminology. Ax(0 ≠ s(x)) is not a tautology (it is already false in (Z,+), nor is Fermat last theorem. [SPK] Yes, I did mean it that way, as in “propositions that are true in *all* models” but not just of Peano Arithmetic. I was considering all Arithmetics, especially Robinson’s. Usually one thinks of tautologies as A = A. What I am trying to weaken is the way that the so called law of identity is usually defined. I am working toward a notion of equivalence that allows for not just strict equality but a more general notion of “bisimilarity”. In this way theorems would be tautologies in this weaker form of Identity. ** That we share a common intuition of truth may follow from a common local measure of truth within each of us. (Here the "inside" implied by the word "within" is the logical/Arithmetic/abstract aspect of the duality that I propose.) Additionally, we should be careful not to conflate a plurality of fungible individuals with a multiplicity of non-fungible entities. We can set up a mental hall of mirrors and generate an infinite number of self-images in it, but this cannot *exactly* map to all of the selves that could exist without additional methods to break the symmetries. I have been waiting a long time for you to state this belief of yours, Bruno! That "Sets, real numbers, complex numbers, etc." are simplifications of (mappings on/in?) the Natural Numbers. This seems to be the Pythagorean doctrine that I suspected that you believed. [BM] Would you take the time to study the papers, you would have understood that this is a result of comp. Comp transforms the very banal arithmetical realism in an authentic Pythagorean neoplatonist theology, i.e. with some use of OCCAM razor. [SPK] I am studying the papers, but I need to clarify some ideas by asking questions to the Professor. ;-) I do not think the way you do and must translate your mental language into my own to understand them. ** It has a long history and a lot of apostles that have quite spectacular histories. I think that there is a deep truth in this belief, but I think that it needs to be more closely examined. [BM] It can be derived from Church thesis and the assumption that "we" are Turing emulable. [SPK] OK, but would you allow me to say that it seems that you are considering a form of Turing emulation that is vastly more sophisticated and subtle than the purely mechanical one that Turing, for example, considered with his A machines? The fact that you are considering infinities of computations as “running” each instance of us, is pushing the idea of a recursive algorithm into places it is never been before. ** > > Perhaps there is just human belief. [BM] Jason said it. If you follow that slope you may as well say that there is only belief by Rex. You can also decide that there is nothing to explain, no theories to find, and go walking in the woods. Science, by definition, assumes something beyond (human) belief. [SPK]
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: > > I guess you mean some sort of "spiritualism" for immaterialism, which is a > consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the > idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. > Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA > is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 > complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified > from inside, including their incommunicability. > > > By immaterialism I mean the type espoused by George Berkeley, which is more accurately described as subjective idealism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaterialism I think it is accurate to call it is a form of spiritualism. > Okay, this makes sense given your solipism/immaterialism. > > > > I would like to insist that comp leads to immaterialism, but that this is > very different from solipsism. Both are idealism, but solipsism is "I am > dreaming", where comp immaterialism is "all numbers are dreaming", and a > real sharable physical reality emerges from gluing properties of those > dreams/computations. > > > You are right, I should find a less general term. It is the missing of the glue I think that differentiates the immaterialism of comp from the immaterialism of Berkely. > > >> > >> > If by representation you mean the representation of consciousness, then >> this >> > is the functionalist/computationalist philosophy in a nutshell. >> >> Computationalism says that representation *is* something you are. >> >> I say the opposite. Representation is something you do, which is so >> natural to you and so useful to you that you’ve mistaken it as the >> explanation for everything. >> > > > You should read this > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind) > > Functionalism is the idea that it is what the parts do, not what they are > that is important in a mind. > > Computatalism is a more specific form of functionalism (it assumes the > functions are Turing emulable) > > > I disagree with this. Putnam' functionalism is at the start a fuzzy form of > computationalism (the wiki is rather bad on those subjects). It is fuzzy > because it is not aware that IF we are machine, then we cannot know which > machine we are. That is why it is a theology, you need an act of faith > beyond just trusting the 'doctor'. In a sense functionalism is a specific > form of computationalism because functionalist assumes by default some high > level of comp. They are just fuzzy on the term "function", and seems unaware > of the tremendous progress made on this by logicians and theoretical > computer scientists. > > Note also that comp makes *1-you* different from any representation, from > you first person perspective. So, the owner of the soul is the (immaterial) > person, not the body. A body is already a representation of you, relatively > to some universal numbers. > > In a sense we can sum up comp's consequence by: If 3-I is a machine, then > 1-I is not. The soul is not a machine *from its point of view". He has to > bet on its own G* to say 'yes' to the doctor. Of course, once we accept > comp, we can retrospectively imagine that "nature" has already bet on it, > given that the genome is digital relatively to chemistry, and given the > evidences for evolution, and our very deep history. > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 07 Jun 2011, at 05:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: Rex, Is not what you attribute to Bruno just standard MWI (Many Worlds) thinking? Many Worlds usually assumes the existence of (a) physical world(s). The point is that digital mechanism *entails* already a testable form of many-worlds/many-dreams/many-computations. And there is nothing physical at the start. Physicalness is a quite special emerging pattern. Like with Plato, the physical reality is the border/shadow of something else. With comp, the physical reality is the border of arithmetical truth as seen by the (locally) arithmetical creatures. The first person is distributed on that border, preventing any intuitive picture of the relationship between soul and body. In fact each soul has a continuum of distinct bodies. So comp indeed leads to a very specific everything-like theory, which is confirmed (not proved!) by the quantum empiric MW. Bruno Richard On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:42:46PM -0400, Rex Allen wrote: >> >> How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in >> a deterministic computational framework? >> >> Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every >> belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. >> >> Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe >> it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and >> fixed in Platonia. > > This is provably false. What, exactly, are you claiming is provably false? > One of Bruno's important results is 3-determinism > implies 1-indeterminism. This is sort of anti-climactic after your initial statement. One of Bruno's important results is that if my future is determined, in some sense it's not determined "for me" as an individual. > It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your > while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents "me". Each of these paths looks like a "possible future" from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not "futures" they're a series of "nows". So, subjectively, I have the "illusion" of an undetermined "future". But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static "futures" are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes "me" is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. Rex -- 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 . -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rex Allen wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's >>> beliefs at this exact moment. >> >> Not obviously impossible. Thought not obviously necessitated either. >> >> Does the possibility that there are only Jason’s beliefs at this exact >> moment scare you? >> >> Would you prefer it to be otherwise? >> > > It makes the universe much smaller, less varied, less fascinating, etc. to > believe my current thought is all there is. It also makes answering any > questions futile (why does this thought exist?, can I change it? Am I a > static thought or an evolving thought? What determines or controls the > content of this thought?) How can any of those questions be approached if > only thought exists? How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. This is fatalism. By AR+Comp you will experience all possible experiences, perhaps an infinite number of times (recurring endlessly?). But this does not mean we are powerless to affect the measure of those experiences. A simple example: Some think that QM implies that in half the universes they put on the seatbelt and in half the others they don't. This is not true, if the person is conscientious enough they probably put on the seat belt in >99% of the universes. That depends entirely on them. A less safety- concerned individual may have the opposite probabilities. Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and fixed in Platonia. Further, nothing about computationalism promises truth or anything else desirable...or even makes them likely. In fact, surely lies are far more common than truths in Platonia. There are few ways to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong. If you think you exist in Platonia, then surely you also have to conclude that nearly everything else you believe is a lie. What is true in this universe may be false or meaningless in most of the universes, but there might be some things which are true in every universe (such as 2+2 = 4). If it is true in every universe, even in those having fewer than 4 things to count then by extension they are true even in universes with nothing to count, and correspondingly, would be true even if there was nothing anywhere. Math is self-existent (I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all) and it is much easier to see how math can be self-existent compared to observable physical universe. *** Computationalism’s answers to the questions you pose are: Why does this thought exist? There is no reason except that computation exists. Big whoop. Computationalism (mechanism, functionalism) is a theory of mind, which I believe is superior to its contenders (immaterialism, interactionalist dualism, epiphenominalism, biological naturalism, mind-brain identity theory, etc.) which all have big flaws. While immaterialism cannot be disproved, it explains nothing and therefore fails as an explanatory or scientific theory. It I guess you mean some sort of "spiritualism" for immaterialism, which is a consequence of comp (+ some Occam). Especially that you already defend the idea that the computations are in (arithmetical) platonia. Note that AR is part of comp. And the UD is the Universal dovetailer. (UDA is the argument that comp makes elementary arithmetic, or any sigma_1 complete theory, the theory of everything. Quanta and qualia are justified from inside, including their incommunicability. Can I change it? No. Then why bother to get food when you are hungry? Am I a static or evolving thought? Neither. Your are computation. What determines or controls the content of this thought? The brute fact of computational structure. *** Why did your momma love you? It was computationally entailed. Why did Jeffry Dahlmer kill those people? It was computationally entailed. Why 9/11, Auschwitz, AIDS, famine, bigotry, hate, suffering? They are computationally entailed. This is just reductionism taken beyond the level where it should be taken. You might as well answer: It is physically entailed, chemically entailed, biologically entailed, etc. I don't see the point of the argument. Neither do I. Nor do I see what Rex is proposing, except perhaps abandoning research, meditating or what? Platonia actually sounds like more hell than heaven. You base that on the small part of Plat
Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation
On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish > wrote: On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:42:46PM -0400, Rex Allen wrote: How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in a deterministic computational framework? Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake you’ll ever make, every belief you’ll ever have is already locked in. Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad - but both the destination and the path to it are static and fixed in Platonia. This is provably false. What, exactly, are you claiming is provably false? One of Bruno's important results is 3-determinism implies 1-indeterminism. This is sort of anti-climactic after your initial statement. One of Bruno's important results is that if my future is determined, in some sense it's not determined "for me" as an individual. It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your while trying to understand. I think I understand this already. The whole teleporting moscow-washington thing, right? In Platonia, there are many computational paths that branch out from the current state that represents "me". Each of these paths looks like a "possible future" from my subjective standpoint. But, they're not possible, they're actual. In Platonia, they all exist. And they do so timelessly...so they're not "futures" they're a series of "nows". So, subjectively, I have the "illusion" of an undetermined "future". But...really, it's determined. Every one of those paths is objectively actualized. So how does this prove what I said false? All those static "futures" are mine. They're all determined. I'm still on rails...it's just that the rails split in a rather unintuitive way. Even if we say that what constitutes "me" is a single unbranched path...this still doesn't make what I said false. I'm one of those paths, I just don't know which. But ignorance of the future is not indeterminism. Ignorance of the future is ignorance of the (fully determined) future. This is an argument against any determinist theory, or any block- universe theory. It is an argument again compatibilist theory of free will, and an argument against science in general, not just the mechanist hypothesis. Just to make things clear, although I have not yet seen an evidence against digital mechanism, my point is just that IF mechanism is true then the physical reality is an arithmetical emerging phenomenon, and physics is a branch of machine's theology. Given that theology and physics is derivable by the self-reference logic, my point is that mechanism is Popper refutable. Now anyone pretending that comp (digital mechanism) is false has to say what is not Turing emulable in their (generalized) brain, above its constitutive matter and its consciousness, which comp makes already non Turing emulable, or they have to prove that nature refute the physics of comp (but up to now, thanks to QM, it is much more confirmed than refuted). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi Colin, Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy of your paper? Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Colin Hales Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: COMP refutation paper - finally out Hi, Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature', International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613 The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic! cheers Colin -- 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. -- 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.
COMP refutation paper - finally out
Hi, Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature', International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613 The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic! cheers Colin -- 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.
