benjayk wrote:
> Rex Allen wrote:
>>> Where could the explanation begin?
>> I'd say there is no explanation.  It just is what it is.  As Brent
>>'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.

Well if you were dying of AIDS, your husband had his hands hacked off by 
militias, and your child was starving to death you might see  a 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.  
But can you conceive of a meaning for 10930702499?

> 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
> to me.
> 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?
But we can ask for true descriptions about it.  Isn't it true that you 
are reading a computer screen?  Of course we can't be sure about this, 
but we don't have to give up betting on it.

> Probably we generally should take words less serious (especially with
> regards to fundamental questions) and expect no satisfying answers from
> them.
What do you propose - that we remain silent as mystics?  Or do think 
mathematical words are different and we should take "2" and "successor" 
more seriously than "chair" and "dog"?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to