1Z wrote:
> If the universe were deterministic, then consicousness would have to
> be epiphenomenal. 

I generally agree with you position that there is no reason to suppose that all 
mathematical structures are instantiated and that being instantiated is just 
what distinguishes physical and mathematical.  Howerever I don't think it is 
necessary that consciousness be epiphenomenal in a deterministic universe.
I would say that consciousness is *identical* with the material processes of 
brain and nerevous system - whether the universe is deterministic or not.

However, the evidence is that the universe is not
> deterministic.

I don't think the randomness of QM helps consciousness divorce from material 

>> >>> "Epistemic objectivity of maths" means "every competent mathematician
>> >>> gets the same answer to a given problem". It doesn't say anything about
>> >>> the existence of anything (except possibly mathematicians).
>> >> Well, if "every competent mathematician gets the same answer
>> >> to a given problem", "competent mathematicians" do not have
>> >> much freedom about what they might find as an answer to some
>> >> given problems. So there must "exist" "something" that
>> >> "constrain" them.
>> >
>> > Yes: rules, the principle of non-contradiction.
>>So. These exist for you too? Are they physical objects?
> I don't need to hold that they have any existence separate
> form mathmaticians or textbooks.

You would appreciate "The Evolution of Reason" by William Cooper.

Brent Meeker

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@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to