On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:35, David Nyman wrote:
> > 2009/9/17 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>: > >> Then for the inside/personal views, the whole of human math including >> Cantor paradise cannot be enough to describe the human mind. It is >> more general: > > In that case, what light does the comp approach shed on the 'causal > significance' of the inside view - i.e. with reference to the presumed > 'causal closure' of the physical narrative and the supposed > epiphenominalism or over-determination of consciousness with respect > to behaviour - Chalmers' zombies etc? I have the feeling in advance > that you may say something that will re-define or negate the question > rather than answer it directly, but no matter, I'm still interested. > I suppose I'm asking what comp says about the relation between direct > first person experience (as opposed to formulations of belief and > other propositional or dispositional factors) and action in the third > person sphere. The direct phenomenal experience belongs to the non communicable or non believable part of the gap between G and G*, or their intensional variants. This is close to Descartes' idea that (put in a modern way) consciousness is the fixed point of the doubt. There is of course no closure of the physical, given that the physical does not exist "ontologically": it is a production of the mind of the universal numbers (relatively to addition and multiplication). In particular consciousness is not epiphenomenal at all: its role is in self-speeding up universal being relatively to their most probable (normal) computational computation. This can be related to Gödel and Blum speed-up theorem in computer science. Your question is very vast. Hope this can help. We may come back on this if we progress in the seventh step serie thread and beyond. I search a way to explain this without being technical, but when I do that, I realize Plato and Plotinus has already done that, in a way; and today, it just look a bit shocking because it is hard to abandon the Aristotelianist constructions. I know that what I say is unbelievable. Indeed I show why it has to be unbelievable. That is why I insist so much on the fact that saying yes to the doctor ask for an act of faith, then all what I say becomes relatively explainable from that act of faith. Bruno 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
