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 the 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 processes. >> >>> "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 firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---