The Fool wrote:
>No. Which exactly my point. If I can't prove my own existence I also
>can't prove god's existence. Math exists whether god, the universe,
>consciousness, I, etc. exist. Math is the only thing that is
>transcendent. And those math proofs do exist.
Yes, but, as Searle and Merleau-Ponty are both so fond of pointing out,
no one seriously questions that they exist. It's simply that conciousness
cannot be proven via scientific method because the scientific method
relies on objectivity and conciousness is by its very nature subjective.
I'd also question the mathematical point. One arguement is that math
proofs only exist because we have a concept of mathematics, and so only
exist because we are concious, and so are in fact based in a subjective
assumption. <GRIN> But that's me, and therefore shaky. Let me refer you
to Immanuel Kant:
"It might at first be though that the proposition 7 + 5 =12 is a mere
analytical judgment,
following from the concept of the sum of seven and five, according to
the Law of
Contradiction. But on closer examination it appears that the concept of
the sum of 7 + 5
contains merely their union in a single number, without its being at all
thought what the
particular number is that unites them. The concept of twelve is by no
means thought by
merely thinking of the combination of seven and five; and analyse this
possible sum as we
may, we shall not discover twelve in the concept."
Therefore, Kant concludes, math is *not* transcendant; it requires
reference to the material world and expression through it, and is
therefore, as Merleau-Ponty will argue a century or so later, affected
and defined, like all things, by our worldview and our subjective
conciousness. It's no more "real" or transcendant than anything else.
Kat Feete
-------------------
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is
that people will insist on coming along and trying to put
things in it.
--Terry Pratchett
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
