Mark:
fascinating. I like to ask such stupid questions myself.

On my question 'what is consciousness' the best answer I got was: "everybody 
knows it" from a prof-fessional. 
(Yes, but everybody knows it differently).

Existence??? I wonder how the honored listers will vote, I would resort to "the 
process (we think) we are in." What process? I can't see it from the inside. 

With 'physical' I take a more primitive stance: I consider it epistemological 
over our past history, to put primitive and unsatisfactory experiences 
(observations?) into position of the premature image we formed about the world 
in the past (including now). Matter-concept is still an imprtant part of it, 
even in E~m relations. Sensorial - in it - still has the upper hand over 
mental. 
I try to include ideation into matterly. And (after Planck) in the reverse 
order. My firm opinion is: I dunno. We are not yet epistemized enough to form 
an educated guess. 
*
If I combine the two: "physical existence" (no 'primitive' included, rather 
implying it to ourselves) I visualize the unrestricted complexity of 
'everything' (already known or not) so any teleported remnant of 'us' sounds 
impossible without 'all' of the combined ingredients we are part of. 
*
I carry an intrauniverse view as a human, product of the churnings "here and 
now" and a BIG "complexity-view"  as a spaceless-timeless multiverse  BY the 
'plenitude' about which we cannot know much. In between I allow a 'small' 
complexity-view as pertinent to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism 
against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation, 
the entire history, as evolution. 
I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.

I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.

John M

and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Peaty 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
  Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error


  Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the 
whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by 
themselves.'

  MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 'it' 
to be able to exist within it!

  SO, yes I will ask: What do you mean by 'physical'?

  And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 

  These are very basic questions, and in our context here, 'dumb' questions for 
sure, but without some clarification on how people are using these words, I 
don't think I can go any further. 


  Regards   
  Mark Peaty  CDES

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ 

  "I think therefore I am right!" - Angelica  [Rugrat]




  Bruno Marchal wrote: 
    Hi Mark, 



    Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : 



      John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at 
the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place 
[and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else 
is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 
      1/   firstly as sloganised by Mr R Descartes: 'I think therefore I am', 
although because I am naturally timid I tend more often to say something like: 
'I think therefore I cannot escape the idea that if I say I don't exist it 
doesn't seem to sound quite right', 



    That is good for you. I would say that Descartes gives a correct but 
useless proof of the existence of Descartes' "first person". It is useless 
because He knew it before his argument. 




      2/   the macroscopic corollary of the subjective microcosm just mentioned 
is that it I try to assert that nothing exists that just seems to be plain 
wrong, and if I dwell on the situations I find myself in - beset as I am with 
ceaseless domestic responsibilities and work related bureaucratic constraints, 
the clearest simple intuition about it all is that the universe exists whether 
I know it or not. 



    Nobody has ever said that nothing exist. I do insist that "even me" has a 
strong belief in the existence of a universe, "even" in a physical universe. 
But then I keep insisting that IF the comp hyp is correct, then materialism is 
false, and that physical universe is neither material nor primitively physical. 
I am just saying to the computationalist that they have to explain the physical 
laws, without assuming any physics at the start. 
    It is a "technical point". If we are digital machine then we must explain 
particles and waves from the relation between numbers, knots, and other 
mathematical object. 
    Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole 
point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves. 




      In short, being anything at all seems to entail being somewhere now, and 
even though numbers and mathematical operations seem to be wonderfully 
effective at representing many aspects of things going on in the world, there 
seems to be no way of knowing if the universe should be described as ultimately 
numeric in nature. 



    You are right. Actually if comp is correct, what you are saying here can be 
justified. 




      I must say too, that I am finding this and other consciousness/deep and 
meaningful discussion groups somewhat akin to the astronomer Hubble's view of 
the universe; the threads and discourses seem to be expanding away from me at 
great speed, so that every time I try to follow and respond to something, 
everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little bit further out 
of reach! 



    Keep asking. Have you understood the first seven steps of the UD Argument ? 
Look at my SANE paper. I think this makes available the necessity of the 
reversal physics/math without technics. 
    Most in this list were already open to the idea that a "theory of 
everything" has the shape of a probability calculus on "observer moment". Then 
some of us believe it is a relative measure, and some of us accept the comp hyp 
which adds many constraints, which is useful for making things more precise, 
actually even falsifiable in Popper sense. 

    I must go. I am busy this week, but this just means I will be more slow 
than usual. Keep asking if you are interested. Don't let you abuse by possible 
jargon ... 

    Just don't let things go out of reach ... (but keep in mind that 
consciousness/reality questions are deep and complex, so it is normal to be 
stuck on some post, etc.). 


    Best, 


    Bruno 




        
      Regards 
      Mark Peaty  CDES 
      [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
      http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/  

      John Mikes wrote: Bruno: 


        has anybody ever seen "numbers"? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up 
the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). 

        "Where is the universe" - good question, but: 
        Has anybody ever seen "Other" universes? 

        Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl & Ar? 

        It is amazing what learned savant scientists posted over the past days. 
        Where are they indeed? 

        John 




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to