On 06 Feb 2014, at 17:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:00:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
An important rule is the modus ponens, for example; A, A -> B / B
Who are "we"? What is "allow"? What is "prove"? What is a
"proposition"?
That is the subject of logic.
I'm not trying to learn logic,
I see.
I'm trying to show that logic cannot
You have to learn something, be it logic or comp, to pretend that it
cannot do something. Usually proof of impossibility are very demanding.
be used to take us all the way to understanding consciousness - and
therefore logic cannot be used to understand why it cannot be used
either.
Logic cannot even explain the natural numbers. Nobody pretends that
logic can explain anything. But arithmetic can, when we assume comp,
and logic can help a lot.
So my question is what does need to be explained in the axioms of
arithmetic that I have given? For most people a first order logic
axiom like
0 ≠ s(x) (for all x) is simpler to understand that any statement
involving terms like "sense" or "aesthetic".
It's not simpler for me, or someone who doesn't know the language of
mathematical notation.
It is conceptually simpler. I could have written instead:
"0 is not equal to the successor of any number".
What are "not" and "equal" and "successor" if not aesthetic
qualities in our imagination?
They are simple 3p concept shared by all scientists.
"simple 3p concepts shared by all scientists" refers to consensual
abstractions that are subject to revision.
Yes.
"aesthetic qualities in our imagination" refers to 1p.
Yes. Just like everything we that we can experience is the 1p of our
skin, eyes, tongue, brain, molecules...
So your non-comp *is*panpsychist?
it might be that they live through us in the form of "aesthetic
qualities in our imagination".
We know that they do.
We know nothing. Or if we know something, we keep it for us. We can
only reason from belief that we can share, even if temporarily.
What we do not know is that they live anywhere else. Once you take
the omnipotence and omniscience that you lend to numbers,
Where. You again attribute to me something I have never said. Actually
all I do is based on the limitations of numbers.
and translate them into sensory-motive capabilities, then you have
the much more reasonable, non-magical property of permeability of
nested aesthetic acquaintance.
?
That is even plausible with comp, and we can talk about that in some
possible thread. nevertheless, the meaning of "aesthetic qualities
in our imagination" is far more complex that the meaning of "not",
"equal" and "successor", when applied to natural numbers.
You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing in judging a book
by its local cover. Not, equal, and successor are simple to *you*,
No, they are simple to everyone between 7 and 77 years, old.
but what those concepts point to is a theoretical understanding
which is not shared by infants. Infants would not understand the
terms "aesthetic..." but they are experiencing them directly and
understand that they are.
Some rumors is that a biilions cells colony has some responsibility in
this.
Some concept can be simple. The understanding of those simple thing IS
NOT simple.
Or write a longer sentence. It is intuitively trivial with the
intended standard intuitive notion of numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
Whatever you are thinking is intuitively trivial is probably exactly
where I am saying that everything meaningful to consciousness must be.
You talk again like the universal soul (S4Grz). Yes, from its point
of view, consciousness is trivial. Indeed. But that's a "fact of
reality", not a theory capable of explaining that fact.
Not sure what you mean. I'm not saying that consciousness is
trivial, I am saying that the aspects which I am saying are critical
are those which you view as trivial.
If you have a problem with 4+1=5, you need to revised a bit.
The fact of reality is where we should start all explanation from.
If only I could find a way to motivate you to do the "hard work".
What if understanding consciousness requires "easy play"
instead?...or even "absurd inevitable idling"?
Why not, but that is not obvious.
I have to figure out what is meant by s(x), which distracts me from
the question of whether s(x) is actually fictional and derived from
a whole history of philosophical formulation.
You confuse the intended notion with the relation between the humans
and that notion. We can always come back on this, but you should
appeal to such side notion only when you think that it invalidate
the reasoning. If not you do what we call in french "un procès
d'intention", that is, you attribute to your opponents statements
that he never did.
I wasn't trying to say anything intentional, but the framing of the
question in mathematical terms automatically buries the roots of
mathematics itself,
Not necessarily.
Because...?
Because math is very large, and with comp you know that it contains
all dreams and subjective experience, including what you live here and
now.
And the way I proceed in the UDA guaranties that we don't lost the
first person, as the questions are all addressed to her. Then the
same is done in AUDA, except we need some help from the 3p (sharable
notion) self of the machine to define the first person (in the
Theaetetus' way).
Sounds good, but I don't know what it means.
In UDA the probabilities are asked to the first person, and bears on
the first person.
(Same in AUDA, except a 3p layer above where the first person notion
is defined).
which is what I am saying is already sense and consciousness (not
human of course).
You are correct on this, for the 1p view. That is, crazily enough, a
theorem in arithmetic.
But that truth is not communicable by the machine itself, it can
even, in some sense, become false if asserted.
Once you know how to read the language, the sense making that it
took to get there, such as all of the childhood wiring of tactile
and visual metaphors crafted by patient teachers, are elided into
the sub-personal awareness.
We do that all the time. Again, if you are willing to argue, you
must invoke the elision only if it invalidates the argument.
It does invalidate the argument. I'm explaining why it might seem to
you, and to many people, that mathematical abstractions could be
primitive. I'm saying that mathematical thoughts emerge from much
simpler feelings and expectations which are perceptual and tangible
rather than conceptual.
Unfortunately that is refuted.
All you can do is to find some other universal Turing system who
primitive will look like being simpler than addition and
multiplication, but you cannot explain the natural numbers with
anything less than a Turing complete system.
Natural numbers are mereological qualities within sense.
You talk to yourself.
So if your theory *explains* the laws of addition and
multiplication, it has to be a Turing complete system, or more. Not
less.
Sense is both more and less than Turing complete.
Then sense is a inconsistent notion.
It's Absolute. Arithmetic or laws are not absolute (which is what I
think clearly Gödel is about).
You are wrong, but of course, you also vindicate not learning logic.
But then what do you do such statement.
Gödel was not only realist on numbers, but also on set and mathematics
in general. That is a much stringer realism than the one used in comp,
which is shared by almost all scientists (even those who pretends the
contrary at the pause-café).
Don't you see that more people agree on the meaning that "17 is prime"
than on the meaning of "aesthetic" or "sense"?.
With the bulk of the iceberg of sense making metaphor safely under
water, yes the tip seems much simpler than talking about something
for which a formal language has yet to exist.
I discovered formal language in biology. As far as Nature exists, it
exploits arguably the formal and the multiplicable all the times. A
formal system, fundamentally, is just a system defined by its form.
I'm explaining why it seems simpler to talk about math (an
established formal language developed over thousands of years by
billions of people) than it is to talk about aesthetic phenomena
(which has no formal language except for the ad hoc one that I am
trying to give it). I would say that Nature only exploits the
formal, as part of Nature, we exploit the informal as well.
We exploit the informal, sure. But we communicate today, informally,
but in a way such that on complex technical matter, we can avoid the
confusion, and translate the relevant parts in accepted formal ways.
Beneath that formality is another level of informality though. To
translate means to remove the formal semiotic casing and absorb it
into the oceanic/para-monadic informality of our privacy.
Could you please remove the formal semiotic casing and absorb it into
the oceanic/para-monadic informality of my privacy of your last
sentence?
I like the reference to "oceanic", though, it reminds me that lovely
series "Lost".
Now, in cognitive science, like in the foundation of math, we have
discovered the role of the informal, and with comp+Theaetetus we
have a done a tour-de-force; we listen to the machine, and she
offers us a formal theory of informal provability! (S4Grz).
I don't doubt that,
You should!
The whole point is there. You must do enough of the work to get the
idea, and accept it without any appeal to any authoritative argument.
Of course, you need to be personally OK with the fact that 17 is
prime, and related facts.
but I think that the theory offered is a reflection of generic and
impersonal pseudo-informality, not an intentionally informal
personal presence.
1004.
The axiom here says 0 is not a successor of any natural number. A
FAQ is "is not 0 the successor of -1 ?", and the anwer is that we
just accept "0 ≠ s(x)" to eliminate the negative numbers, in which
we are not interested because we want a very simple Turing universal
base. We could use all integers, as they are also Turing universal
with addition and multiplication, but we have chosen the natural
numbers.
Beyond that type of explanation, at this stage, asking for more is
obfuscation.
It would be obfuscation if we were asking about computation or math,
but I'm only interested in the relationship of consciousness to
physics and information.
Then *you* should stay mute about comp. You can't say that comp is
false and computer science irrelevant for sense and consciousness,
and make negative statement like my sun is law (who get an artficial
brain) is a zombie, without us asking to justify your point, without
appealing on "real", "true", "feel", "obvious", etc.
I don't use 'zombie', your sun in law is a doll or puppet.
That is a 1004 precision in the insult.
Hah. I realized that yesterday that your view is really the more
racist. You are judging the character of your sun in law by his
behaviors - the color of his 4D skin as it were, not the content of
his privacy.
Are you joking?
My attitude on my sun-in-law has not changed, before and after his
digital brain transplant operation.
You are the one telling us that the operation has transformed it into
a zombie, worst a doll.
You are the one depriving the machine of to support a person and its
private content with respect to you.
I don't understand why I'm supposed to stay mute about comp.
Nobody asks you to stay mute. Simply don't pretend to have a
refutation of comp if you don't have one.
I have the only refutation of comp that comp can have. That's
because comp is a closed circuit nilipsism.
It is the entire contrary. It is the discovery of more than one thing
incredible in arithmetic. Computer land = Wonderland.
I try to lead you to the divine music song by some numbers, and you
are the one plugging your ears and say "nihil".
You have a prejudice on numbers and machine, so you take "man =
machine" has diminishing man. But if you trust man, you can see "man =
machine" as just ameliorating machines, and indeed treat my sun-in-law
better than a doll.
It sounds like 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." to
me.
It is the contrary. It is more "pay attention to the 1p person
behind the machine clothes.
He is invisible though. He is the Emperor's clothes.
The human one is invisible too. The spider one is invisible.
The soul, root of observation, is not an observable.
But that's the kind of thing that comp explains quite well (I think),
if you dare to study the case.
Comp does not eliminate the magic, it cleans it from the obvious and
less obvious superstitions, I think.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
