Continued thread on fundamentals of mathematics (Assuming R=NSD)

Bruno,

Some clarification  regarding you saying I assume physical reality... My prior (long) reply was truncated. Perhaps just as well.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <marchal@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

Hi Ralph,

..snip..

[bm] It [the approach/trial theory rf advocates] assumes something physical, which is what I want to explain without assuming this. From my view, you start with the answer. Your idea might help to pursue my investigation, but you would need to make it much more precise. If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”.

[rf]  

I do start with the answer, but I don't "assume something physical".  The difference, though, I think, is 

(1) you are assuming math and logic artifacts (~mental things) so you can logically derive ~physical things as features of the arithmetic reality as ~proved/able if someone survives the comp/digital mechanism substitution... while you also delegate to supposedly friendly and humane Turing devices for them to scribble out  the or an associated model of consciousness,  

whereas,

(2)  I am assuming reality is nested structured~duality  (R=NSD),  which prompts me to start with a specific structured~duality and then scribble out analog math that  ~verifies the assumption  by/while demonstrating the capacity to convey physical intuition about physical reality and our ontology while also  illuminating structural coding as an improved  replacement for (substitution of) the term and features we previously labeled and know as "consciousness". 

Thus, in your comp storyline, you assume AR and aim to derive, or have your Turing devices derive  ~physical reality (carbon, electron), whereas in my NSD storyline I assume NSD and use ~physical reality/analog math, aiming toward a "model of consciousness" while verifying my (R=NSD) assumption, and doing some other things, synergistically, along the way.

Then, where you say, """If a physical reality is *necessarily* assumed to be primitive, then your theory is incompatible with “Mechanism in the cognitive science”."""...

Firstly, I am assuming NSD as primary (primitive). 

Secondly, magnetic tetrahedron analog math certainly seems to me to be a mechanism that  is recognizable/familiar  within patterns in (applied) computer science, so if there is an incompatibility, isn't it more so with the digital mechanism or due to slowness in its emulation?

I get the vague impression that in you assuming I am starting by assuming physical reality, I am seeing "my result"  as potentially already at the intermediate intersection of your ~two-step program, say, where the digital substitution step has (finally) been, or is to be  achieved. 

Rather than say  I assume the answer/~physical reality, notice how fast my first step passed by and and then how  "my analog math result" approximates the digital/comp result that your herd of Turing devices will/may/is supposed to finally settle on. Then, in my next step of the development, magnetic tetrahedron has already output physical intuition on physical reality, and, as you might logically expect from the CompSci POV,  intermingling with our ~biology  it describes a model of structural coding rather than, and in place of, the anticipated  "model of consciousness".  (Potentially relegating the term "consciousness" into the same bin containing "phlogiston".]

So, I encourage you to notice I am not starting out assuming physical reality as primary or a primitive. I'm starting out with a different tenet or set of tenets (R=NSD), and that intersects, or more precisely,  when I get around to my analog math in my second step, that analog math intersects with the end of your theory's first step, if or when,   where you have evidence or ~proof of digital mechanism equivalence with physical reality (because the (proposed future) electro-mechanical-comp device inducing the substitution to occur and the person surviving).  

Thus, at that point, your Turing devices would have allegedly derived carbon, electron, and ~physical reality for you and the devices could then chew on or begin developing or outputting instances of physical  intuition as "proof of consciousness" to go along with the Turing devices  completing their assigned (delegated) task to scribble out a model of consciousness -- for you.

So, I am not seeing a mechanism incompatibility issue you are referring to unless you are meaning a digital mechanism incompatibility. I do see some speed or rather slowness issues with the digital mechanism, in its current state, but that likely can be improved. 

Also, might I suggest that conveying increments of physical intuition might have some value as "proof of consciousness" or as an AI test/demonstration, if it is not already included in the current list? This seems to work pretty well in (~6^n) analog and it seems to me  like it could or should work in clever 2^n digital.  Or, perhaps that can be an intermediate or provisional digital comp test  -- if you catch my drift.  (And, you folks have not already passed by that marker.)

Thoughts?

Best regards, 

Ralph Frost, Ph.D.

Changing the scientific paradigm.

https://magnetictetrahedra.com

With joy you will draw water

from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3