Le 08-févr.-07, à 00:10, John M a écrit :

> 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.

See my posts to Mark and Torgny.

> 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.

Then, all what I say, is that comp would be false. I am open to that 
idea, and that is why I try to show comp being falsifiable (but surely 
not yet falsified).

> 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.

I think a excellent "epistemization" has been done from Pythagorus to 
Proclus, but then on this matter (!) we have been brainwashed by 1500 
years of authoritative aristotelianism. the scientific field of 
theology has regressed, but at the same time I would like to insist 
that even christian theology has been able to keep intact a large part 
of Plotinus. Alas, christian theology is incorrect on the part where 
they agree with the atheists.

> *
> 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.

Yes. That is provably comp-correct (if I understand you well).

> *
> 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.

Hmmmm.....  To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say 
anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big 
bang could be a "beginning", with comp.

> I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.

I'm not sure why.


> 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
>> 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
>>>> 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 

Reply via email to