On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Indeed assuming comp I support Arithmetic -> Mind -> Matter
> I could almost define mind by intensional arithmetic: the numbers when
> studied by the numbers. This does not work because I have to say:
> the numbers as studied by the numbers relatively to their most
> probable local universal number, and this is how matter enters in the
> play: an indeterminacy bearing on an infinity of possible universal
> machines/numbers.
>
>
Bruno, I was wondering if there are anyn concrete examples to help
clarify what you mean by numbers studied by numbers. Are there things
for example, that 31 could know about 6, or are such things only
possible with or between very big numbers?
>
>
> Take it easy, and don't hesitate for asking any question. I am aware
> that some people confuse computations and description of computations.
> It is an intrinsically hard and confusing matter. Mathematical
> logician have an advantage, because it is a kind of confusion they
> study in detail. But eventually, in the arithmetical translation of
> the UDA, you can even understand why the nuance between computation
> and description of computation are normal. There is a sense why even
> self-referentially correct machine get easily trapped here. What save
> the machine from the trap is the inescapable gap between self-
> referential provable statement and the true one.
>
I still have a confusion as to what you label a computation and a
description. Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
universe that it could be made conscious, or do you count all
appearance of matter to be only a description of a computation and not
capable of "true" computation? Do you believe that the only real
computation exists platonically and this is the only source of
conscious experience? If so I find this confusing, as could there not
be multiple levels? For example would a platonic turing machine
simulating another turing machine, simulating a mind be consicous? If
so, how does that differ from a platonic turing machine simulating a
physical reality with matter, simulating a mind?
Thanks,
Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 May 22 2009 - 11:25:09 PDT