Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything"
Le 28-juil.-05, à 06:20, Marc Geddes a écrit : O.K, perhaps I should clarify that and state that I think 'binary numbers' (0's and 1's) are the ultimate 'stuff' of reality. Pure binary maths by itself is not quite 'computation' is it? I think 'computation' requires that some minimal *meaning* be assigned to the 0's and 1's. So I could agree that the universe is not a computer. It's just pure binary math. So what do you think of the idea that the ultimate fabric of reality is pure binary math? Perhaps. Any math in which you can represents the computable functions will do (assuming comp). But that will only be the initial decor. The point now is to explain the aroma of coffee from it, and not only that, but to get the biggest part of the (first person) plenitude. And also the (probably first person plural) charge of the electron (just to convince the physicist!). Courage! Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything"
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then you should avoid saying "Scientists believe > that the universe is > one giant computer." > Not only many scientist disagree, but actually this > is in contradiction > with the comp. hyp. (the computationalist hypothesis > which asserts that > "I" am simulable by a computer). I know it is often > confuse but I have > propose an argument according to which if I am a > computer then whatever > the "physical universe can be" it cannot be a > computer (perhaps even it > cannot be, at all). > (But of course the comp hyp could be false.) > O.K, perhaps I should clarify that and state that I think 'binary numbers' (0's and 1's) are the ultimate 'stuff' of reality. Pure binary maths by itself is not quite 'computation' is it? I think 'computation' requires that some minimal *meaning* be assigned to the 0's and 1's. So I could agree that the universe is not a computer. It's just pure binary math. So what do you think of the idea that the ultimate fabric of reality is pure binary math? --- THE BRAIN is wider than the sky, For, put them side by side, The one the other will include With ease, and you beside. -Emily Dickinson 'The brain is wider than the sky' http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything"
Hi Imo, I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in this :P My reacent outburst is an example! I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit of Feyerabendian anarchy and chaos is a wonderful part of the discourse on the way to the real answer. FIRSTLY I can give you a hint as to how to evaluate your ideas. Put it to the following test: If I _built_ a machine that followed my metaphor, a) would it necessarily have a knowledge model based on it's own determination due to experience of the world, or what I bestow on it? b) would it have a phenomenal consciousness? If not, why not? If so why so? Is it important or not to have a pheneomenal consciousness? As wondeful example is to apply the same logic to Gerald Edelman's model in Edelman, G. 2003. 'Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework', Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 100 Wonderful metaphor. Build onewould it necessarily be conscious (have a phenomenal consciousness)? SECONDLY Don't be too fussed about Bruno's 'contradiction to COMP HYP'. It's only a hypothesis! For the same reasons given above. No matter what level of mathematical cogency exists, the maths _does not exist_ and a machine acting like it exists is no substitute unless something that does exist is there to acknowledge it and understand it. The mathematics appears to have 1st person handled but it doesn't because nothing is actually reified. Puting a bunch of symbols in a computer substrate does not reify anything. This is a wonderful fire we all dance around. It looks so different to each observer. It's what makes it such a stimulating topic. enjoy! Colin Hales
Re: A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything"
Nice try, imo. I would say I agree with you except I don't follow your "precise math" at all. Your old/young lady analogy is rather weak and could be misleading, also. Then you should avoid saying "Scientists believe that the universe is one giant computer." Not only many scientist disagree, but actually this is in contradiction with the comp. hyp. (the computationalist hypothesis which asserts that "I" am simulable by a computer). I know it is often confuse but I have propose an argument according to which if I am a computer then whatever the "physical universe can be" it cannot be a computer (perhaps even it cannot be, at all). (But of course the comp hyp could be false.) But I like very much the fact that you see that different thing like matter and qualia can be the same things viewed differently. Modal logic is very well suited for making statements like that utterly precise (but then not so many people can play modal logic alas ...). Don't hesitate to develop (perhaps on some web page). Bruno Le 27-juil.-05, à 07:57, Marc Geddes a écrit : --- Qualia and Matter --- The riddle of the relationship between Qualia (which I define as raw experience) and the Physical World (which I'll call 'Matter' and define as geometrical relations) seems to be one that ties people in mental knots. The solution is amazingly simple and dazzling in its beauty. I do think I have the solution. And yes, I think it's the answer to FAI, life, the universe and everything as well ;) I shall try one last time to carefully explain why I think I really do understand everything (in the sense of basic conceptual principles at least). I don't hold out much hope that people will grok , but you never know. So what is the relation between Matter and Qualia? Before explaining my solution, I shall begin with an analogy. People really seem to tie themselves in horrible mental knots over this and my explanations just don't seem to be getting through, so I'll try starting with an analogy first. Take a look at the picture at the URL given below. My question: What scene is it? You have two choices: (1) The scene is that of a Young Woman (2) The scene is that of an Old Lady Here's the picture: http://www.killsometime.com/illusions/Optical-Illusion.asp?Illusion- ID=33 The entertaining feature about this picture of course, is that the scene you see depends on the way your brain interprets the picture. The key point is that the scene you see depends not just on the actual nature of the picture, but also on the cognitive interpretation your mind gives to it. So the scene is an *interaction* between (1) The nature of the picture and (2) The Mental interpretation in your mind. Call this mental interpretation a 'Cognitive Lens'. If you interpret the picture through one Cognitive Lens you'll see an Old Lady. If you interpret the picture through another Cognitive Lens, you'll see a Young Woman. Let the multiplication sign (x) simply mean 'an interaction between'. So: Young Woman = Picture x Cognitive Lens 1 Old Lady = Picture x Cognitive Lens 2 Two points to bear in mind. There is only *one* actual picture, but there are *two* equally valid but different ways to interpret it as a coherent scene. Neither 'Old Lady' nor 'Young Woman' is separate from each other. They are both referring to the same picture. The key point is the idea that the scene you see is an interaction between the picture and a 'Cognitive Lens', which I defined to be a mental interpretation, or the way your brain goes about coding the *meaning* of the raw visual data its receiving. Make sure you understand this before proceeding. Are you all with me so far? Now my actual solution to the Qualia/Matter puzzle. Here it is: Qualia = Reality x Cognitive Lens a Matter = Reality x Cognitive Lens b I'm suggesting that Reality itself is neither Matter NOR Qualia. In order for Matter or Qualia to appear, Reality has to be *interpreted* through a *mental process*. It's analogous to the picture example I just gave. Think of Reality as like the picture, Qualia as like the 'Young Woman' and Matter as like 'The Old Lady'. There's only *one* reality, but whether you see it as Matter or whether you see it as Qualia depends on the way your brain interprets the raw data it's receiving. Both 'Matter' and 'Qualia' are equally valid interpretations of some part of reality. Neither is more fundamental than the other. See how elegant this solution is? Qualia and Matter are both real and Qualia is not Matter. But there is nothing mystical going on. Qualia are not separate from matter either. There is only one reality, but whether you see it as 'Qualia' or 'Matter' depends on the cognitive lens through which your brain chooses to interpret reality. Qualia and Matter are simply different 'modes of cognition'. At first it seems dangerously like solipsism, but I'll show you how to avoid solipsism in a moment, by addin
A solution to the Qualia riddle and a coherent explanation of my 'Theory Of Everything"
--- Qualia and Matter --- The riddle of the relationship between Qualia (which I define as raw experience) and the Physical World (which I'll call 'Matter' and define as geometrical relations) seems to be one that ties people in mental knots. The solution is amazingly simple and dazzling in its beauty. I do think I have the solution. And yes, I think it's the answer to FAI, life, the universe and everything as well ;) I shall try one last time to carefully explain why I think I really do understand everything (in the sense of basic conceptual principles at least). I don't hold out much hope that people will grok , but you never know. So what is the relation between Matter and Qualia? Before explaining my solution, I shall begin with an analogy. People really seem to tie themselves in horrible mental knots over this and my explanations just don't seem to be getting through, so I'll try starting with an analogy first. Take a look at the picture at the URL given below. My question: What scene is it? You have two choices: (1) The scene is that of a Young Woman (2) The scene is that of an Old Lady Here's the picture: http://www.killsometime.com/illusions/Optical-Illusion.asp?Illusion-ID=33 The entertaining feature about this picture of course, is that the scene you see depends on the way your brain interprets the picture. The key point is that the scene you see depends not just on the actual nature of the picture, but also on the cognitive interpretation your mind gives to it. So the scene is an *interaction* between (1) The nature of the picture and (2) The Mental interpretation in your mind. Call this mental interpretation a 'Cognitive Lens'. If you interpret the picture through one Cognitive Lens you'll see an Old Lady. If you interpret the picture through another Cognitive Lens, you'll see a Young Woman. Let the multiplication sign (x) simply mean 'an interaction between'. So: Young Woman = Picture x Cognitive Lens 1 Old Lady = Picture x Cognitive Lens 2 Two points to bear in mind. There is only *one* actual picture, but there are *two* equally valid but different ways to interpret it as a coherent scene. Neither 'Old Lady' nor 'Young Woman' is separate from each other. They are both referring to the same picture. The key point is the idea that the scene you see is an interaction between the picture and a 'Cognitive Lens', which I defined to be a mental interpretation, or the way your brain goes about coding the *meaning* of the raw visual data its receiving. Make sure you understand this before proceeding. Are you all with me so far? Now my actual solution to the Qualia/Matter puzzle. Here it is: Qualia = Reality x Cognitive Lens a Matter = Reality x Cognitive Lens b I'm suggesting that Reality itself is neither Matter NOR Qualia. In order for Matter or Qualia to appear, Reality has to be *interpreted* through a *mental process*. It's analogous to the picture example I just gave. Think of Reality as like the picture, Qualia as like the 'Young Woman' and Matter as like 'The Old Lady'. There's only *one* reality, but whether you see it as Matter or whether you see it as Qualia depends on the way your brain interprets the raw data it's receiving. Both 'Matter' and 'Qualia' are equally valid interpretations of some part of reality. Neither is more fundamental than the other. See how elegant this solution is? Qualia and Matter are both real and Qualia is not Matter. But there is nothing mystical going on. Qualia are not separate from matter either. There is only one reality, but whether you see it as 'Qualia' or 'Matter' depends on the cognitive lens through which your brain chooses to interpret reality. Qualia and Matter are simply different 'modes of cognition'. At first it seems dangerously like solipsism, but I'll show you how to avoid solipsism in a moment, by adding a big twist. I'm going to elaborate on this idea and add two huge twists which are the secret to my 'Theory Of Everything'. But make sure you fully understand the above suggestions first. So far I haven't actually said anything really original, just given an elegant way of looking at the Qualia/Matter puzzle. But an existential warning though: what I'm going to say next, if you understand it, may just change your entire world-view! ;) --- The Theory of Everything - Basic ideas --- O.K. Let me just explain the idea of a 'Cognitive Lens' a bit more fully. I said above that a cognitive lens was a particular 'mental interpretation' that the brain can give to 'raw data'. What is 'raw data'? In computational terms it's all just a string of binary - that's '0's and 1's'. So for instance, for the picture example, the brain is taking in visual data in the form of long strings of 0's and 1's, and assigning meanings to those 0's and 1's. The meaning assigned to those 0's and 1's of raw data is a 'Coding System'. And it's the 'Coding System' that the brain selected that
