Hi Marc,

Le 28-mars-08, à 08:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :

> Hi guys,
> Well, Bruno may be interested to know that I've finally come around to


> I do now agree, everything emerges from mathematics.  Nevertheless,
> the mathematical world does *appear* to seperate into three different
> domains; *physical* (material), *teleological* (goal directed) and
> *abstract math*, which *look* very different to each other.

Sure. I would add psychology, theology, sociology, etc.

> My
> misunderstanding was based on the fact that I couldn't (and still
> don't fully) see how they could be the same.

They are not. When I want to be very short about the consequence of 
comp (through UDA, say), I say that the "physical reality" is the 
border of the mathematical reality, as seen from inside mathematics. 
But it is more the border of the "lobian ineluctable ignorance".
The difference with Tegmark, here, is that, although the physical 
reality can still be a mathematical (but a priori non computable) 
object, such object has to be derived from Turing machine's 
(and then the interview of the lobian machine gives, thanks to the 
nuances brought by the incompleteness phenomenon, all the needed 
nuances (the arithmetical hypostases).

> But yes, I'm now
> convinced of COMP.

Be careful. Comp needs some act of faith ... (even an infinitely 
reiterated act of faith, coffee can help in the morning, tea too ...).

> The relationship is subtle, but I'm now think that the *Mathematical*
> domain is primary (most general), the *Teleological* domain is less
> general, and the *Physical* domain is least general.

I agree.

> So Math is the bedrock, which supercedes Teleology, which in turn
> supercedes Physics.
> ---
> As regards the Consciousness discussion, there are three things you
> need to remember about it;
> (1) It's not a thing, it's a process

Hmmm... I am not sure it can even be a process. I would say it is a 
mind state, but this not saying much. I would say it is the mind state 
of someone believing in a reality, like a cat believing in an invisible 
(because hidden) mouse.

> (2) It's not just a *physical* process, it's also a *mathematical*
> process
> (3) It's not just what the process *does* (it's function), it's what
> the process *signifies*


> I think if you just bear in mind these 3 simple points about
> consciousness, you won't go far wrong.
> After about 6 years of ganashing my teeth and nearly going insane
> thinking about these issues, I have now reached my own tentative (in
> principle) answers on most of the big questions, to my own
> satisfaction.
> ---
> I don't think *any* of the current scientific or philosophical
> persepctives on consciousness are quite right.
> Consciousness *is* physical, but it's not *just* physical, it also
> extends into the mathematical domain.

It is highly ambiguous to say that consciousness is physical, imo.

> So I think that none of the
> materialist or dualist positions are correct.


>  I was fooled by
> *functionalism* for a while, but I don't think that's quite right
> either.  See point (3) above - it's true that consciousness is a
> process, just as the functionalists say. but it's not what the process
> *does* (functionalism) that is identical to consciousness, but what
> the process *signifies* - consciousness is a *logical representation*
> of the meaning of a concept - it is a *language* for representing
> concepts - this is NOT the same thing as functionalism.





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 

Reply via email to