[Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning (OFF-LINE)

[Alex Hankey]

Karl,
I am simply astonished that an intellectual of your quality
is capable of such a statement. You do not flatter yourself
by being flippant about a subject, on which you are
obviously as blithely ignorant as, say, Daniel Dennett.
I suggest that you consider:
1. The depth of knowledge in the ancient Indian Sciences
and their astonishing accuracy in many subject areas.
2. The centrality of 'consciousness-qua-consciousness' to
their whole system, and the brilliant, penetrating statements
that they made concerning it in their various
'Systems of Philosophy'.
Respectfully,
Alex Hankey

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 09:27, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well, it depends on one's fascination by food, birds, cats, paintings,
> poetry or dancing, or any other personal preference, what is "important" in
> one's eyes.
> Your opinion is
>  the far more interesting question is, "What self-referencing procedure
> produces consciousness??"
>
> In your opinion, consciousness is a subject that raises your engagement.
> For others, it is sex, speaking dirty, desecration of holy items or simply
> being irreverent against authority or something else, that is far more
> interesting than consciousness.
> What makes you eroticized about consciousness? (was it an additional
> thrill that Mme Pelicot was unconscious while being raped?)
>
> What is the difference between an unconscious and an alert person?
> Specifically in terms of physics or data processing, is it of interest
> whether the janitor in the building where the database is working, is
> drunk, high or sober like a judge of peace?
>
> Please elaborate on your feelings for unconscious, as opposed to conscious
> things, machines, natural phenomena or cybernetic dependencies.
>
> Karl
>
> Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 28. Jän. 2025, 02:48:
>
>> But Karl, the far more interesting question is, "What self-referencing
>> procedure produces consciousness??"
>> It is not achievable by any procedure that involves classical physics,
>> and your procedures (and von Neumann's, as far as I can tell) only require
>> classical physics for their implementation.
>> Best wishes to all,
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Jan, 2025, 15:11 Karl Javorszky, <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Lou,
>>>
>>> You assert:
>>>
>>> "If you wish to have an actual self-referential entity such as yourself,
>>> there is at present no schema the can be filled in to produce it."
>>>
>>> The task of creating a self-referential entity can be solved by using
>>> the collection of all forms of the sentence
>>> *a + b = c*, with *a, b <= 16, a <= b*. This is called the *etalon
>>> collection *and is 136 elements strong.
>>>
>>> If the collection is in order alfabeta, a change into order gammadelta
>>> is a self-referencing procedure.
>>>
>>> One needs only to reorder 12 books from author - title into title -
>>> author orders (these are the alfabeta resp gammadelta orders).
>>>
>>> The existence or not of an observer, and whether the observer is alive
>>> or clairvoyant, is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The self-referencing quality of assemblies of which the members are
>>> related to each other is a logical consequence of the elements being
>>> related to each other. This is why the phenomenon can't be present on
>>> assemblies of more than 136 integer, or equivalent to that, 137.03.... as a
>>> non-integer value of consistency of the assembly.
>>>
>>> The self-referencing quality of members of groups is available for us in
>>> the form of a numeric table, in which the value of belonging to a group or
>>> not, is a numeric constant. The sentence *a + b = c* implicates many
>>> rules about self-referencing in closed groups. The cross-section of time
>>> can be agreed to be less than infinite in extent, leaving diplomatically
>>> the question unanswered, whether anything in Nature can be of an infinite
>>> extent. The "now" is within the Eddington habitat and is a closed
>>> collection. The system of self-referencing rules is what we call Nature.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>
>>>
-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) DSc. (Hon Causa) Professor Emeritus
of Biology,
MIT World Peace University,
124 Paud Road, Pune, MA 411038
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
WhatsApp: as for Mobile, India
_________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250128/a4472448/attachment.html>