Peter Soderqvist
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Messages
- 305
Can consciousness be formalized in a system?
TO DR MATT
Soderqvist1: What do you mean?
Soderqvist1: I see what you mean, but your sentence has said something else!
Your sentence is made up of two explicit entities; I am a body, which has a mind, and your sentence has an implicit entity too, namely ("my" body) which indicates that you as owner are not the owned body, nor the owned mind! This is what I mean with the soul concept is intrinsic in our language, and I have not yet met any soul denier who is free from contradictions in terms! Consciousness appears to be paradoxical even when we try to formalize it in our language, the system of terms!
Soderqvist1: my former TV behaved strange too, weird picture and sound, but that is not evidence that the origin of the soup opera consists of component parts in the TV. All you have done is pointed out the correlation between consciousness and brain! Two correlated things are plural, not singular!
Soderqvist1: Not truth!
The conscious pattern has resisted every attempt to be localized according to Alan Turing as quoted earlier, and it is still a mystery according to Susan Greenfield's book The Human Brain. Localization consists of some finite velocity of speed, with momentum and its positions! I have two evidences from David Bohm, and Godel why consciousness cannot be localized in a system! The question I want to ask in a Turing test is; can Godel's incompleteness theorem be formalized in your system? If your answer is yes, how does such a pattern look like? If you answer is no, why not?
David Bohm
Is there evidence of the quantum nature of the mind? Yes, there is. The physicist David Bohm noted long ago that we cannot simultaneously follow both the content of a thought and the direction the thought takes. This is like the quantum uncertainty principle — you cannot simultaneously ascertain both the position and the momentum of a material object (or thought).
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Spring97/9701goswami.html
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem from his Biography
He proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In particular the consistency of the axioms cannot be proved. Godel's results were a landmark in 20th-century mathematics, showing that mathematics is not a finished object, as had been believed. It also implies that a computer can never be programmed to answer all mathematical questions. Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine. ...a consistency proof for [any] system ... can be carried out only by means of modes of inference that are not formalized in the system ... itself.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Godel.html
"You will know that no doctrine can, without committing the unpardonable sin of circularity, undertake to define all of the terms it employs but that every doctrine must employ one or more terms regarded as being, without definition of them, sufficiently intelligible for the purposes of clear discourse. You will know that for a like reason no doctrine can furnish proof of all its propositions but that every doctrine must contain one or more propositions which it takes for granted, using them without demonstrating them. And you will know that a doctrine can have maximum clarity and cogency when and only when it has the minimum of undefined terms and undemonstrated propositions."
— Cassius J. Keyser, TAT
http://www.esgs.org/uk/und.htm
Soderqvist1: If you add something to the system in order to give it consistency, what you have added will end up incomplete too, the same it is with more adding, and so on in an infinite regress! This "takes for granted" is not formalized in the system, therefore; a human mind is something more than a machine system!
TO DR MATT
Soderqvist1: What do you mean?
Soderqvist1: I see what you mean, but your sentence has said something else!
Your sentence is made up of two explicit entities; I am a body, which has a mind, and your sentence has an implicit entity too, namely ("my" body) which indicates that you as owner are not the owned body, nor the owned mind! This is what I mean with the soul concept is intrinsic in our language, and I have not yet met any soul denier who is free from contradictions in terms! Consciousness appears to be paradoxical even when we try to formalize it in our language, the system of terms!
Soderqvist1: my former TV behaved strange too, weird picture and sound, but that is not evidence that the origin of the soup opera consists of component parts in the TV. All you have done is pointed out the correlation between consciousness and brain! Two correlated things are plural, not singular!
Soderqvist1: Not truth!
The conscious pattern has resisted every attempt to be localized according to Alan Turing as quoted earlier, and it is still a mystery according to Susan Greenfield's book The Human Brain. Localization consists of some finite velocity of speed, with momentum and its positions! I have two evidences from David Bohm, and Godel why consciousness cannot be localized in a system! The question I want to ask in a Turing test is; can Godel's incompleteness theorem be formalized in your system? If your answer is yes, how does such a pattern look like? If you answer is no, why not?
David Bohm
Is there evidence of the quantum nature of the mind? Yes, there is. The physicist David Bohm noted long ago that we cannot simultaneously follow both the content of a thought and the direction the thought takes. This is like the quantum uncertainty principle — you cannot simultaneously ascertain both the position and the momentum of a material object (or thought).
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Spring97/9701goswami.html
Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem from his Biography
He proved fundamental results about axiomatic systems showing in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system. In particular the consistency of the axioms cannot be proved. Godel's results were a landmark in 20th-century mathematics, showing that mathematics is not a finished object, as had been believed. It also implies that a computer can never be programmed to answer all mathematical questions. Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine. ...a consistency proof for [any] system ... can be carried out only by means of modes of inference that are not formalized in the system ... itself.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Godel.html
"You will know that no doctrine can, without committing the unpardonable sin of circularity, undertake to define all of the terms it employs but that every doctrine must employ one or more terms regarded as being, without definition of them, sufficiently intelligible for the purposes of clear discourse. You will know that for a like reason no doctrine can furnish proof of all its propositions but that every doctrine must contain one or more propositions which it takes for granted, using them without demonstrating them. And you will know that a doctrine can have maximum clarity and cogency when and only when it has the minimum of undefined terms and undemonstrated propositions."
— Cassius J. Keyser, TAT
http://www.esgs.org/uk/und.htm
Soderqvist1: If you add something to the system in order to give it consistency, what you have added will end up incomplete too, the same it is with more adding, and so on in an infinite regress! This "takes for granted" is not formalized in the system, therefore; a human mind is something more than a machine system!
