Hi Roger Clough,
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps I am misguided, but I thought that comp was moreorless
a mechanical model of brain and man activity.
Not really. Comp is the hypothesis that there is a level of
description of my brain or body such that I can be emulated by a
computer simulating my brain (or body) at that level of description.
Comp is neutral on the level. It might be a very low level like if we
needed to simulate the entire solar system at the level of string
theory, or very high, like if we were the result of the information
processing done by the neurons in our skull.
Comp entails that NO machine can ever be sure about its substitution
level (the level where we survive through the digital emulation), and
so comp cannot be used normatively: if we are machine, we cannot know
which machine we are, and thus "saying yes" to the digitalist doctor
for an artificial brain demands some act of faith. It is a theological
sort of belief in reincarnation, even if technological. It is
theotechnology, if you want. No one can imposes this to some other.
Then I show that comp leads to Plato, and refute Aristotle
metaphysics. There are no ontological physical universe. the physical
universe emerges from a gluing property of machines or number's dream.
The physical universe appears to be a tiny facet of reality.
The proof is constructive and show how to derive physics from
machine's dream theory (itself belonging to arithmetic); but of course
this leads to open problems in arithmetic. What has been solved so far
explains already most of the quantum aspect of reality, qualitatively
and quantitatively. The approach explains also why from the number's
points of view, quanta and qualia differentiate.
The work is mainly a complete translation of a part of the 'mind-body
problem' into a 'belief in matter problem' in pure arithmetic.
I obviously need to peruse your main idea .
Do you have a link ?
The more simple to read in english is probably the sane04:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
best,
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-31, 09:56:27
Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being
(Erlebnis)
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
According to Einstein, space doesn't exist per se.
Remarkably, Leibniz also came this conclusion back in the 17th
century.
I agree. And with comp nothing physical exists per se, as some
platonists and mystics often asserts.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 18:16:32
Subject: Re: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being
(Erlebnis)
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:00:49 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is
nothing
> but experience.
Hi Craig,
I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The
order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space.
I can go along with that. It's hard to know whether that sequencing
arises as a function of space. It takes us years to develop a
robust sense of time and it is hard to know how much of that is
purely neurological maturation and how much has to do with the
integration of external world events. For example, if you had a
dream journal and I read you five dreams randomly from 1982 until
now, I don't think you would be as successful in putting them in
order as you would if I read you five journal entries of yours that
were from your spacetime experience.
I think that time as you mean it, in the sense of sequence, is
imported from our interactions in public space into conceptual
availability as memory. The actual 'substance' of time, as in a
universal cosmological force is nothing but experience itself. It
is more the ground from which sequence can emerge than a fully
realized sequential nature of experience. It's more like dreamtime.
Memories can appear out of nowhere. Timelines can be uncertain and
irrelevant.
>
> Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience.
Agreed.
>
> The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior
realism as
> a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in
those
> terms.
The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations.
Exactly. The voyeur habit is the hardest to kick.
> In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your
eyes
> closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real
part
> of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space
because
> you are the subject of the experience.
Exactly!
> If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric
> perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private
> time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations,
etc.
> Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm,
> realms come from thought.
Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order
categorization.
Yeah, I like that. The 'in the sense of' sense of sense. In one way
it is the closest to pure sense, in another way it is the most
aloof and unreal. The paradox of surfaces and depth.
Craig
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RlYnMe1_CIYJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[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
.
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 [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
.
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 [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.
