Rex Allen wrote:
>> Where could the explanation begin?
> I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
> said...it's descriptions all the way down.
I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal
explanation. In a sense our life and our experiences are explanations of
something, don't you think so?
It is true though, that our lifes (all the content of conciousness and the
way it evolves) itself then can have no complete explanation. So what life
"wants" to explain then?
I think it seeks to explain that it *needs* no explanation beyond itself,
because it is good and nobody *absolutely* needs an explanation for what is
good. If it is good enough, you will except it without explanation - because
this is the ultimate explanation.
Who could ever disagree with "The world is perfect, it is just here to
experience ever increasing joy and learn something exciting about
ourselves?" when it really comes down to it? So how could it be a wrong
explanation for anyone?
I see no way.
Though I certainly see it as "too good to be true" sometimes, but maybe it's
just part of the game? It's the subgame "what is good is likely too be true,
too - there is nothing akward about this even intellectually!".
Rex Allen wrote:
>> have you some doubt about the validity of the UDA? Let me know, to see
>> what needs to be still clarified.
> My only doubt about UDA is that it seems to make the same assumption
> as physicalism...that consciousness can't be fundamental. That
> something else must underlie it, and "cause" it.
> But if numbers can "just exist", and matter can "just exist", then why
> can't conscious experiences "just exist"?
I agree here. But I would add that conciousness can conceivably make
independent sense for me, while numbers or matter can't.
For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of matter,
too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
reffering to some "real" (in the sense of every day usage) object.
So I find it unconvincing that conciousness "arises" out of numbers, since
it is inconceivable for me what numbers mean independent of me or even the
world I perceive.
I think everything becomes much clearer if we postulate "arithmetical truth"
is simply "the" truth, and so in effect numbers are just reflections of
parts of this unnameable and untouchable truth (which comes "before"
numbers), which may be conciousness together with its infinitely infinitely
... ... infinite possible content.
So numbers don't give rise to arithmetical truth, but truth gives rise to
(expresses as) numbers. Though ulitmately this may be a matter of
perspective ;)... It's just that the second perspective is more meaningful
Rex Allen wrote:
> But, again, there seems to be no way to know for certain what *really*
> exists, a la Kant.
Maybe "what really exists" is not a meaningful thing to ask in first place,
because if something "really" exists, it certainly cannot be expressed with
words. So why aks a question that can't be answered with words at all?
Probably we generally should take words less serious (especially with
regards to fundamental questions) and expect no satisfying answers from
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at