Bruno, Craig and Learned discussion partners:
it is hard even to "read-in" into the endless back-and-forth you exude. At
least for me - pretending that I still retain may subjectivity (don't
misunderstand: I deny anything 'objective' if not adjusted by our own sub).
We are not capable of even following the infinite complexity of which we
got little morsels to chew on. ---- Now I have a question:
What would you call *- S E N S E -* ?
Craig: *the Absolute*.
We cannot know anything 'absolute', only a humanly adjusted shadow of it.
Bruno states that the *arithmetic* 'truth' *can* (or rather *could?*)
express the absolute - but never showed - even tried how to DO IT. Not even
hinted to a method HOW to attempt it. ( Comp? or using many-many numbers???)
*"In your brain"*??? WHO is there pretending to be the SELF ("I") ?
whatever is in our brain (matter, physiological energy, motion and
connectivity) has been accounted for in reductionist sciences
- no *'sense'* sowed up.
If we detect 'something like that', it is self-referential* thinking* and
changes from era to era (maybe only in days). No 1st person. We just think
of it.
And *feel so*.
And: talk about it.
So: what are we talking about?
John M
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 29 Oct 2013, at 16:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Oct 2013, at 14:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:05:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >
>> > On 28 Oct 2013, at 19:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What do you call "ANY PHYSICS"? is there a "God given" marvel
>> >>> (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable "PHYSICS"?
>> >>
>> >> I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable
>> >> lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic.
>> >>
>> >> Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense
>> >> contradict such deterministic law.
>> >>
>> >> That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts
>> >> a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding
>> >> anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into
>> >> sense: "Laws", "Forces", "Fields", "Wavefunctions",
>> >> "Probability"...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all
>> >> primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-
>> >> constellation.
>> >
>> > Looks like a sense-of-the-gap to me.
>> >
>> > Not at all. What we have now is a force-of-the-gap, field-of-the-
>> > gap, etc.
>>
>> No. This has been solved. Indeed, so precisely that it is only a
>> question of solving diophantine equation to compare the physics of
>> machine and the physics we infer from observation. Primary matter is a
>> matter-of-the-gap, OK. But not the matter as described by the
>> introspective machine.
>>
>> Not the matter (because that actually is concretely sensed),
>>
>
>
> You might be dreaming.
>
>
>
>
> but forces, fields, and laws because they are magical ideas that appear
>> out of nowhere and do things without any tangible presence. It's just
>> haunted space. That the haunting of the space can be precisely mapped and
>> deconstructed mathematically does not give it the power to change matter.
>> What has been overlooked is the possibility that matter is an appearance
>> within experience, of experience which has alienated itself - followed
>> different histories in parallel or phase-shift.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am merging all of the empty bubbles and finding that none could be
>> > anything more or less than sense.
>>
>> This cannot satisfy me, as I am looking to some understanding of what
>> is sense, where does it come from, why does it provide non justifiable
>> feature like consciousness, etc.
>>
>> There is no understanding needed to what sense is - it is the most
>> self-evident phenomena possible as it is self-evidence period, full stop.
>>
>
> Yes, you are right. But it is not evident in any communicable way, if only
> because it escapes definition.
> So we can't use it to do a theory of 1p. It is an important data, and its
> immediacy and obviousness is certainly a clue.
> Then, if you do the math, you can intellectually understand why machines
> looking inward describes something which looks very much like that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All that is, is because it has been made evident within some sensory
>> context.
>>
>
> You bet. It is OK.
>
>
>
>
> There is nothing there to be evident except for this relativity of
>> presence shared with the contents and contexts of eternity. Justification
>> is nothing but a sense of comparison among subordinate sense experience.
>> You are looking for something that you have already found but won't accept
>> it.
>>
>
> I found it in my head, and I show that all universal machine "looking in
> their head" can find something quite similar.
>
> You are just insulting the machine, by what looks like prejudice, as you
> admit not trying to study them.
>
>
>
>
> I am showing you *all of this* is sense, and you are responding that you
>> are looking for something *else*.
>>
>
> Not really. I want to understand the origin of sense.
>
>
>
>
> If you accept the premise however (yes, doctor of primordial identity
>> pansensitivity) then you must accept that it is ontologically impossible
>> that there could be anything *else*, by definition.
>>
>
> I want my proof to be mechanically checkable. I play the game of science,
> you don't.
> I have no problem with that, except when you draw negative conclusion.
> Humans are used to make negative prose on possible others. To make prose
> and get negative proposition is, with all my naive frankness, bad
> philosophy.
> Jewish, Black, Indians, Women, Gay, Marijuana smokers, are often victims
> of that type of philosophy.
>
>
>
>
>> Unlike Comp, it does not assert the supremacy of arithmetic truth, but
>> then add in dreaming numbers, resurrection by mechanical incantation,
>> duplicated persons, machines emulating other machines which think they
>> aren't machines (even though Comp prohibits any possibility of what else
>> there would be besides machines.).
>>
>
> Not at all. Arithmetical Truth is full of gods, and daemons, which are
> non-machines. Comp is a vaccine against the reductionism of the finite, and
> the infinite. To understand comp is to understand the abyssalness of the
> mindscape. Comp prohibits nothing, not even 0=1, although we better should
> hope it is not the case.
>
>
>
> Comp may mistake self referential logic for a self,
>>
>
> Comp does not mistake the self-referential logic for the self. There is no
> reason why comp would do such a big mistake.
>
>
>
>
> but I don't. I have no problem a sentence that we read as "this sentence
>> is lying" as a trivial syntactic contradiction rather than a profound
>> puzzle that reveals the ontology of consciousness.
>>
>
> That's Tarski. You need both Gödel and Tarski to get the Bp & p versus Bp
> nuances.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> To start from sense is like to start from God. This answers nothing
>> (even if there is a God).
>>
>> It is to start before God, and before arithmetic, truth, and even before
>> 'starting'. Your are still vastly underestimating the hubris that I intend.
>> Sense = the Absolute, means that there has never been anything else, and
>> there can never be anything else.
>>
>
> It looks like the arithmetical truth.
>
> What makes you so sure that it is not arithmetical truth?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On the contrary, comp explains 100% of matter, and 99,9% of sense, but
>> explain 100% of why it remains 0.01% of a necessary non comprehensible
>> aspect of the inside first person view.
>>
>> The entire universe fits in the 0,1% of sense that comp fails to find.
>> Everything else is a reflection of that sense. Comp is inside out.
>>
>
> Meaning it is the same thing. Except with comp the sun in law enjoy the
> steak, where with your sense "theory" he does not, sadly.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Anyway, the solution is testable, so you should be happy that we might
>> refute comp.
>>
>> Comp may be testable (using consciousness) but consciousness is not
>> testable using comp.
>>
>
> Consciousness is not testable, using what you want.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> To post to this group, send email to
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> .
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>
> .
> For more options, visit
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
