Bruno, I 'may' come back to your (appreciated) remarks, to the last 'why' I respond:
"Because I feel my head in all these ideas - back-and-forth - like looking at a busy beehive and trying to follow ONE particular bee in it." John On 2/9/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Le 08-févr.-07, ŕ 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 > > reverseorder. 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 > > combinedingredients 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"hereand now" and a BIG"complexity-view" as a > > spaceless-timelessmultiverse > > > OK. > > > > > 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. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. > > > > John M > > > > and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Mark Peaty > >> To: [email protected] > >> 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, ŕ 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
