RE: Bruno's argument

From: Colin Hales <>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:32:01 +1000

John M
> Colin,
> the entire discussion is too much for me, I pick some remarks of yours and
> ask only about them. I am glad to see that others are also struggling to
> find better and more fitting words...
> (I search for better fitting concepts as well to be expressed by those
> better fitting wods).
> You wrote:
> >... *the rest of the universe that is not 'us' behave in a way with
> respect
> >to us that we label 'physical'...<
> Do I sense a separation "us" versus the 'rest of the universe'?
> I figure it is not a relation between "them" (the rest of the universe)
> and
> "us" (what is this? God's children?) especially after your preceding
> sentence:
> > *whatever the universe is we are part of it, made of it, not separably
> 'in
> > it'.<
> I am looking for distinctive features which help us 'feel' as ourselves in
> the total and universal interconnectedness. The "closeness"
> (interrelation?)
> vs a more remote connectivity.
> The 'self', which I do not expropriate for us.
> I have no idea about 'physical', it reflects our age-old ways of
> observing
> whatever was observable with that poor epistemic cognitive inventory our
> ancestors used reducing mindset, observation and explanation to their
> models
> (level of the era).
40 or 50 orders of spatial magnitude down deep, space and matter merge into
their common organisational parent. There is no 'separateness', we have
never justified that, only assumed it and seen no convincing empirical
evidence other than a failure of science to sort out consciousness because
of the assumption. Whatever the depth of structure, we humans are ALL of it.
The existence of consciousness (qualia) is proof that the separateness is
virtual (as-if).

IMO the separation is merely a delineation - a notional boundary supported
by our perception systems. Just because a perceived boundary is closed does
not mean that it is not 'open' in some other way down deep in the structure
of the universe.

So I guess we are in agreement here.

> Then again is the 'as - if' really a computation as in our today's
> vocabulary? Or, if you insist (and Bruno as well, that it IS) is it
> conceivable as our digital process, that embryonic first approach, or we
> may hope to understand later on a higher level (I have no better word for
> it): the analog computation of qualia and meaning? Certainly not the
> Turing
> or Church ways and not on Intel etc. processors.
> John M

Not sure I follow you here. All abstracted computing everywhere is 'as-if'.
None of the input domains of numbers or anything else are ever reified. We
simply declare a place to act like it was there and then behave as if it
were. The results work fine! I'm writing this using exactly that process.
Looks 'as-if' I'm writing a letter no? :-)

Qualia requires that form of computation executed by the 'natural domain'...
IMO it's just doesn't fit neatly into our limited idealized
mathematics done by creature constructed of it from within it. The natural
world does not have to comply with our limited abstractions, nor does the
apparent existence of an abstraction that seems to act 'as-if' it captures
everything in the natural world. Abstractions are just abstractions...
ultimately it's all expressed as patterns in the stuff of the universe...

IMO If there's any property intrinsic and implicit to the reality of the
universe (whatever it is, it is it!) then the abstraction throws it away.

Colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 22:34:08 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST