George Levy wrote (in the everything list): >Excellent, Bruno. Thank you for the explanation of computational >indeterminacy >for the first person point of view.
Thanks. >Most of the disagreement here originates from the failure of some >participants >to appreciate the distinction bewteen first vs third person perspectives. Yes. I hope Juergen will understand the distinction or at least, like Jacques Mallah, explicitely tell us he does not make that distinction. >James Higgo even manages to see it both ways without being explicit about the >facts that perspectives can be relative. He says > >"All that exists of 'you' is this very present thought," > >he is right .... from the first person perspective.. His earlier comment > >"Consciousness - a flow of related thoughts in time - does not exist, any >more >than time itself exists," I believe, attempts to address the issue of >consciousness from the third person perspective. He comes to the obvious >conclusion that first person consciousness as seen from the third person does >not exist. His lacks of awareness of the relativity of these issue leads to >confusion. Yes. I guess James is aware of that, and that is why he makes poems most of the time. This is the "correct" move from a computationalist point of view. This confirm a post by Anna M* in the FOR Deutsch List. (And that is why I send the post also to the FOR-LIST). Anna M* wrote <<That's what art is for and always has been even if not viewed as such. Art is just another information tool which allows for objectivization of a "subjective reality".>> I would insist it is only partial objectivization. But, with the notable exception of the pure finitist part of mathematics (where you can completely communicate statements like "17 is prime" or "42" is not the double of 24") the objectivization, even in math, is partial. Logical theorem like Lowenheim Skolem, or godel's incompleteness objectivizes that partialness. > [...] >In addition to the distinction between first and third person points of >views, >I do agree with Russell Standish and his quotes from Stanislas Dehaenne that >there can be several kinds of consciousness. It can vary qualitatively >depending on what mental processes are involved. Sure. And most interesting altered states of consciousness can be observed in dreams, which I take, like many others---from Descartes to Tibetan buddhist---as *the* royal road for metaphysical studies. But dreams are not necessary today. Video-games, imagination and math seems to be enough ... Cautious use of drugs can help too. Contemplation of the sky also. Bruno PS I apologize for merging the two discussion lists again, but these parallel realities do interfere, you know :-)