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 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 determines whether you saw 'Young Woman' or 'Old
> Lady'. I pointed out that both coding systems were
> equally valid - both gave rise to a coherent scene.
>
> Then I used the picture example as an analogy for
> reality. I suggested that whether you see 'Matter' or
> 'Qualia' depends not only on reality, but also on the
> 'Cognitive Lens' through which the brain chooses to
> interpret it. As far as we know, reality itself is
> binary in nature. Scientists believe that the
> universe is one giant computer. So anything in
> reality is just a string of 0's and 1's. And I'm
> suggesting that the meaning the brain chooses to
> assign to the raw stream of 0's and 1's will determine
> whether something appears to be 'Qualia' or whether
> something appears to be 'Matter'. Both coding systems
> used by the brain are equally valid, in the sense that
> both are giving consistent and complete
> interpretations of reality. There is an objective
> reality, but it's just all 0's and 1's. In order to
> see those 0's and 1's as 'Qualia' or 'Matter',
> requires that we use a coding system to assign meaning
> to the 0's and 1's. So you see how both 'Qualia' and
> 'Matter' can be equally valid interpretations of
> reality, once you understand that they're just 'modes
> of cognition'?
>
> Now here's the first big twist! There's a difference
> between the picture analogy I gave and my actual
> solution for Qualia/Matter. It's important to
> understand that I'm suggesting that *objective reality
> itself* has more than one valid interpretation, not
> just someone's subjective interpretation of it. I'm
> saying that *right down in the core of mathematical
> objective reality* there's still more than one valid
> way to interpret reality. Even when viewing reality
> *with 100% scientific precision*, I'm saying, there's
> still more than valid mathematical description of it.
> This can be very hard to grok, and is a difference
> from the picture analogy.
>
> To understand this, the key point is that there is
> *nothing outside reality*. Reality is, by definition,
> everything that exists. So there is no brain sitting
> outside reality somewhere observing it. Your brain is
> *itself a part of reality*. Recall the discussion
> above, where I pointed out that all reality was just
> strings of 0's and 1's. I then said that the way
> these 0's and 1's are *interpreted* (the 'coding
> system' used to interpret them) determined whether
> something appears as 'Matter' or something appears as
> 'Qualia'. What is 'interpreting' reality as whole
> then? I just pointed out that there is nothing
> outside reality. There is no giant brain observing
> the whole universe. So what gives reality to things
> when on one is looking at them? The solution is to
> *dispense with the need for a brain to interpret
> reality altogether*. Reality can 'interpret itself'!
> What do I mean? Recall again reality is just a giant
> computation - a long string of 0's and 1's. So even
> inanimate objects could play the role of a 'Cognitive
> Lens'. The 0's and 1's of one object can interpret
> the 0's and 1's of another object. No sentients
> required. Therefore, the 'coding systems' for
> 'Matter' and 'Qualia' can be *built into the fabric
> of reality itself*.
>
>
> To summarize again:
>
> The suggested solution to the Qualia/Matter puzzle was
> initially:
>
> Matter = Reality x Cognitive Lens a
> Qualia = Reality x Cognitive Lens b
>
> Both the Matter and Qualia interpretations are equally
> valid, but which you see depends on the coding system
> (Cognitive Lens) your brain uses to interpret the
> meanings of the 0's and 1's making up reality. Now
> I've added a big twist, by pointing out that brains
> are not required. Since all of reality is just a
> string of 0's and 1's, and reality is computational,
> *the coding systems for matter and qualia can be built
> into reality itself*... even inanimate objects (which
> are just computations remember.. strings of 0's and
> 1's.... can 'interpret' (code) the meaning of 0's and
> 1's making up other objects.
>
> This 1st 'big twist' can be very hard to grok at first
> but it does makes sense. Re-read all the discussion
> above until you grasp the points. Make sure that
> you've grasped the points above first, because there's
> another big twist coming up. Do you all agree that in
> fact, it does make sense so far?
>
> Now for the 2nd 'big twist'. I'm going to give
> another analogy here first. Remember those 3-D movies
> you used to go to? Now for 3-D movies, what they do
> is, they shoot two slightly different versions of the
> same scenes, then they're recombined. Each version is
> shifted slightly in space. The two versions are
> *almost* consistent with each other, but not quite.
> And it's the recombination of the two versions by your
> eyes that let's you interpret the result as a 3-D
> scene.
>
> Now here's the 2nd promised 'big twist' for my theory.
> Recall the suggestion so far: that reality has two
> separate, but equally valid 'coding systems' for
> interpreting itself: one interpretation is 'Qualia',
> the other is 'Matter'. Suppose these two
> interpretations are *almost*, but *not quite*
> consistent? Say there are *minuscule* inconsistencies
> in the fabric of objective reality itself, so that the
> picture of the world as 'Qualia' doesn't quite match
> up with the picture of the world as 'Matter'.
>
> If you think about, this would have to be the case in
> order to get separate equally valid interpretations of
> objective reality in the first place. If the ‘Qualia’
> and the ‘Matter’ views really were logically
> equivalent, there couldn’t be any difference in our
> cognitive awareness of them. So it’s reasonable to
> suppose that the minuscule logical inconsistencies
> between them are there.
>
> Recall the suggestion so far: that reality has two
> separate, but equally valid 'coding systems' for
> interpreting itself: one interpretation is 'Qualia',
> the other is 'Matter'. Suppose these two different
> coding systems are *almost* consistent, but not
> *quite*. In order for reality as a whole to be
> consistent and complete, we need enough different
> coding systems to enable reality to 'complete itself'.
> Clearly if the ‘Qualia’ and ‘Matter’ coding systems
> are *almost* complete, there must be tiny things
> missing from them. So perhaps there are more than 2
> different coding systems? After all, if there are 2
> separate coding systems both equally valid, why stop
> there? Why not more?
>
> Recall the analogy of the 3-D movie. Each coding
> system that reality uses to interpret itself can be
> used to help correct the slight flaws in the others.
> By superimposing the coding systems, each of which
> *almost*, but *didn't quite* match up; we can obtain a
> complete picture of reality. Reality has to have a
> way to 'interpret' itself which doesn't require
> anything outside itself. Remember that there is
> nothing outside reality. Reality has to be a closed
> loop. And this can only be achieved by 'splitting
> reality' into separate binary coding systems, each of
> which is *almost* consistent but not quite. Each
> system can then be used as a meta-language enabling
> reality to understand (i.e. 'interpret') the other
> systems. So the coding systems can appear as both
> objects (things observed) and languages (mental
> processes). Think this through carefully.
> ---
>
> The Theory Of Everything - The 7 fundamental Coding
> Systems of Reality
>
> ---
>
> Now I'll back up the suggestions I've made by giving a
> small amount of actual precise mathematics. I won't
> give the reasoning here, but take it from me that you
> need 7 different coding systems in order to fully
> 'complete' reality. Remember that all of these coding
> systems are equally valid ways to interpret any part
> of reality. Recall, all of reality is just a string
> of 0's and 1's. It's the *meaning* that is assigned
> to that string which determines how any part of
> reality will be perceived. The summary below
> describes what I believe to be the sorts of entities
> any part of reality appears as, once the given
> meanings are assigned to the '0' and '1's. What
> follows is truly extraordinary....
>
> Matter -
>
> Basic essence: Gestalt.
> Background: Space
> Kernel binary states: 0 Empty, 1 Occupied
>
> This says that we can interpret anything as
> geometrical relations (Matter) by letting a '0' mean
> Empty, and a '1' mean Occupied. The idea that
> everything can be interpreted as matter is already
> accepted by virtually all scientists. Obviously, it
> forms the basis of materialism.
>
> Measure -
>
> Basic essence: Proposition
> Background: Comparison
> Kernel binary states: 0 Different, 1 Same
>
> This says that we can interpret anything as
> propositional logic (raw mathematics) by letting '0'
> mean different and '1' mean equivalent. The idea that
> everything is mathematics is a form of mathematical
> Platonism - assigning concrete reality to mathematical
> entities. Mathematical Platonism is quite popular
> among scientists today, but still doesn't have general
> acceptance.
>
> Mentality -
>
> Basic essence: Experience
> Background: Causality
> Kernel binary states: 0 , Unrelated 1 Associated
>
> This says that we can interpret anything as 'Qualia'
> by letting '0' mean events which are unrelated, and
> '1' mean events which are associated (this is similar
> to David Hume's idea that cause and effect are just
> statistical associations). It's a radical idea,
> because it means that there would be some degree of
> consciousness in everything. Panpsychism is gaining
> in popularity among computer scientists, but its
> definitely still related as fringe by the mainstream
> today.
>
> Meaning
>
> Basic essence: Interaction
> Background: Action
> Kernel binary states: 0 Not Affecting, 1 Affecting
>
> This says that we can interpret anything as 'Force' or
> 'Interaction' by letting '0' mean not affecting and
> '1' mean 'affecting'.
>
> Model
>
> Basic essence: Information
> Background: State
> Kernel binary states: 0 Off, 1 On
>
> Everyone is familiar with this one! :) It's just the
> beginning of the theory of Universal Computation. It
> says that we can interpret anything as 'Computation;
> by letting '0' mean an 'Off' state and '1' mean an
> 'On' state. The idea that everything is computation
> is now accepted by most (but not all) scientists.
>
> Morality
>
> Basic essence: Agency
> Background: Choice
> Kernel binary states: 0 Discarded, 1 Selected
>
> Wow! This says that we can interpret anything as part
> of a volitional agent (a morality in other words) by
> letting '0' mean a choice which is discarded and '1'
> mean a choice which is selected. If such a coding
> system was proved to exist this would be proof of
> objective morality. If we can interpret anything as
> part of a morality, even inanimate objects, then
> obviously morality has an objective basis.
>
> Mind
>
> Basic essence: Episode
> Background: Possibility
> Kernel binary states: 0 Unrealized, 1 Actualized
>
> The most amazing system of the lot (this final coding
> system is what 'completes' reality by the way). This
> says that we can interpret anything as part of a
> 'Universal Mind' by letting '0' mean a possibility
> which was unrealized and '1' mean a possibility which
> was actualized. Note that quantum physics agrees that
> reality is at root 'a wave of possibility' so there is
> definitely some scientific support for the idea. But
> obviously if this coding system was proven the
> implications would be incredible, since something like
> Pantheism (the idea of a universal mind pervading the
> universe) would be proven.
>
> Let’s make it clear again what these coding systems
> imply. By applying the above codings, any part of
> reality can be interpreted as the entities named. So
> anything at all (a rock, the computer, a desk you name
> it) is all of these at once: a physical thing, a
> mathematical thing, a qualia thing, a force, a
> computation, part of a universal morality and part of
> a universal mind! It’s just like the picture analogy.
> Just as we could equally interpret the picture as
> either an Old Lady or a Young Woman, so too we can
> equally interpret anything in reality as either
> physical, mathematical, qualia, force, computation,
> part of a universal morality and part of a universal
> mind.
>
>
> ---
>
> 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
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Jul 27 2005 - 10:14:00 PDT