Hi Kim,
On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 28/11/2008, at 3:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> I have just finished the explanation of an argument
>> (the movie graph argument, MGA) showing that Mechanism (the idea that
>> I am machine) is incompatible with Materialism, the idea that there
>> is
>> some primitive stuffy universe from which consciousness would have
>> emerged. This was an explanation of a last step in a longer proof,
>> the
>> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which shows that if we assume
>> mechanism, eventually Physics is a branch of Machine's psychology, or
>> better perhaps, machine's "theology", or less provocatively:
>> machine's
>> computer science
>
>
> Dear Bruno
>
> for years now I have been trying to grasp this idea. I am an intuitive
> - a composer, an aesthete. The only thing that makes sense to my
> intuition is the beautiful.
That makes sense.
> I believe that there is religious
> knowledge, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge AND artistgic
> (ie aesthetical knowledge.) You MUST try to make this idea accesible
> to somebody like me. I believe you can do it. I have enormous faith in
> your powers of expositiion. I believe I am very close to understanding
> it - grokking it - feeling it dans mes couilles si tu me pige mon pote
Gosh, well, thanks.
>
>
> I think this idea is so momentous that I actually wish to compose a
> piece of music - possibly a symphony - which seeks to represent this
> idea in music.
My computer (my "universal machine") did interpret some of your music
recently.
>
>
> Et pourquoi pas? Most of the great composers attempted to represent
> the TRANSCENDENTAL in music. I believe you, more than any human whose
> mind I have frotté (grazed? Rubbed against?) has a representation of
> ultimate things. The mind of the MUSICAL CREATIVE LOGICIAN desires to
> know this. Pense Bach - Beethoven, even Boulez (who will never be
> popular.) But they had to have a leading idea - une idee fixe, sit tu
> veux - qui les amenait a une representation interieure des choses dite
> fondementale, voire primitives ....
>
>
> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
> substratum of primitive physical materiality?
Hmmm.... yeah, perhaps one day you could think about *you* proving me
there is such a substratum ...
Keep in mind also, that, perhaps, you are NOT a machine ...
Now, ok, if you want I can try to explain this, to a "layman". UDA has
been created for the layman, not for reason of compassion but because
it is good preparation for making it comprehensible by *any* universal
machine. But then they found this before us, and I am, with you the
humble learner, really.
It is true that now that MGA has been done, a good recap on UDA could
be used ....
>
>
> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour une fois je te
> serais infiniment reconnaisant
Je vais essayer. I will make a try. Be patient. First lesson probably
Sunday :)
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Nov 28 2008 - 14:41:54 PST