Bruno, I 'may' come back to your (appreciated) remarks, to the last 'why' I
respond:
"Because I feel my head in all these ideas - back-and-forth - like looking
at a busy beehive and trying to follow ONE particular bee in it."
John
On 2/9/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 08-févr.-07, à 00:10, John M a écrit :
>
> > Mark:
> > fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself.
> >
> > On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was:
> > "everybody knows it" from a prof-fessional.
> > (Yes, but everybody knows it differently).
> >
> > Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would
> > resort to "the process (we think) we are in." What process? I can't
> > see it from the inside.
>
>
> See my posts to Mark and Torgny.
>
>
>
> >
> > With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance:I consider it
> > epistemological over our past history, to put primitive and
> > unsatisfactory experiences (observations?) into position of the
> > premature image we formed about the world in the past (including now).
> > Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, even in E~m relations.
> > Sensorial - in it- still has the upper hand over mental.
>
> Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that
> idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely
> not yet falsified).
>
>
>
> > I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the
> > reverseorder. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized
> > enough to form an educated guess.
>
> I think a excellent "epistemization" has been done from Pythagorus to
> Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500
> years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of
> theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist
> that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part
> of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where
> they agree with the atheists.
>
>
>
> > *
> > If I combine the two: "physical existence" (no 'primitive' included,
> > rather implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted
> > complexity of 'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported
> > remnant of 'us' sounds impossible without 'all' of the
> > combinedingredients we are part of.
>
> Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well).
>
>
>
> > *
> > I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the
> > churnings"hereand now" and a BIG"complexity-view" as a
> > spaceless-timelessmultiverse
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> > BY the 'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I
> > allow a 'small' complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this
> > I violate my scepticism against the Big Bang fable - and consider our
> > universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution.
>
>
> Hmmmm..... To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say
> anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big
> bang could be a "beginning", with comp.
>
>
>
> > I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.
>
> I'm not sure why.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> >
> > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
> >
> > John M
> >
> > and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???)
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Mark Peaty
> >> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
> >>
> >> Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have
> >> understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having
> >> figure this out by themselves.'
> >>
> >> MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to
> >> understand 'it' to be able to exist within it!
> >>
> >> SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'?
> >>
> >> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
> >>
> >> These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb'
> >> questions for sure, but without some clarification on how people are
> >> using these words, I don't think I can go any further.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Mark Peaty CDES
> >>
> >> mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
> >>
> >> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
> >>
> >> "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica [Rugrat]
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruno Marchal wrote:Hi Mark,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I
> >>>> look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up
> >>>> back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is
> >>>> that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I
> >>>> have to take this at too levels:
> >>>> 1/ firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I
> >>>> am', although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say
> >>>> something like: 'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if
> >>>> I say I don't exist it doesn't seem to sound quite right',
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but
> >>> useless proof of the existence of Descartes' "first person". It is
> >>> useless because He knew it before his argument.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2/ the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just
> >>>> mentioned is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just
> >>>> seems to be plain wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find
> >>>> myself in - beset as I am with ceaseless domestic responsibilities
> >>>> and work related bureaucratic constraints, the clearest simple
> >>>> intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether I know
> >>>> it or not.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that "even me"
> >>> has a strong belief in the existence of a universe, "even" in a
> >>> physical universe. But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is
> >>> correct, then materialism is false, and that physical universe is
> >>> neither material nor primitively physical. I am just saying to the
> >>> computationalist that they have to explain the physical laws,
> >>> without assuming any physics at the start.
> >>> It is a "technical point". If we are digital machine then we must
> >>> explain particles and waves from the relation between numbers,
> >>> knots, and other mathematical object.
> >>> Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the
> >>> whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out
> >>> by themselves.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere
> >>>> now, and even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be
> >>>> wonderfully effective at representing many aspects of things going
> >>>> on in the world, there seems to be no way of knowing if the
> >>>> universe should be described as ultimately numeric in nature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are right. Actually if comp is correct, what you are saying here
> >>> can be justified.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep
> >>>> and meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer
> >>>> Hubble's view of the universe; the threads and discourses seem to
> >>>> be expanding away from me at great speed, so that every time I try
> >>>> to follow and respond to something, everything seems to have
> >>>> proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out of reach!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Keep asking. Have you understood the first seven steps of the UD
> >>> Argument ? Look at my SANE paper. I think this makes available the
> >>> necessity of the reversal physics/math without technics.
> >>> Most in this list were already open to the idea that a "theory of
> >>> everything" has the shape of a probability calculus on "observer
> >>> moment". Then some of us believe it is a relative measure, and some
> >>> of us accept the comp hyp which adds many constraints, which is
> >>> useful for making things more precise, actually even falsifiable in
> >>> Popper sense.
> >>>
> >>> I must go. I am busy this week, but this just means I will be more
> >>> slow than usual. Keep asking if you are interested. Don't let you
> >>> abuse by possible jargon ...
> >>>
> >>> Just don't let things go out of reach ... (but keep in mind that
> >>> consciousness/reality questions are deep and complex, so it is
> >>> normal to be stuck on some post, etc.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Mark Peaty CDES
> >>>> mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
> >>>> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
> >>>>
> >>>> John Mikes wrote: Bruno:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> has anybody ever seen "numbers"? (except for Aunt Milly who
> >>>>> dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Where is the universe" - good question, but:
> >>>>> Has anybody ever seen "Other" universes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl & Ar?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past
> >>>>> days.
> >>>>> Where are they indeed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
> > >
> >
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Feb 09 2007 - 15:59:58 PST