On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2010, at 03:15, rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I agree in theory, though I still hold to my "consciousness is
>> fundamental and uncaused" mantra!
> Would you agree that the distribution of prime numbers is "uncaused".

I would say that anyone starting with the same assumptions and using
the same rules of inference would reach the same conclusions.

I would not go so far as to say that the assumptions, rules of
inference, OR conclusions exist, except as objects of thought.

> I can understand that consciousness is fundamental, and "uncaused". Yet it
> is explainable in term of simpler things, like numbers and elementary
> operations, in term of high level self-consistency.

I agree that I can use numbers to represent and model aspects of what
I perceive, but this falls far short of "explaining" consciousness.

> In the DM theory, consciousness is fundamental, yet not primary. You can
> 'almost' define consciousness by the unconscious, or instinctive, or
> automated inference of self-consistency, or of a reality (it is more or less
> equivalent in DM).

Fundamental but not primary.  Hmmmmmmm.  That sounds interesting, but
I'm not sure what you mean by it.

If you only know numbers as they appear in your conscious thoughts,
how is it possible to conclude that they are more "primal" than the
only medium in which you know them to exist?

If only two things exist, numbers and consciousness, in some
relationship to each other, how do you decide which is first and which
is second?  Numbers cause thought.  Thought causes numbers.  Why
prefer one over the other?

If they're co-equal, then it's two sides of the same coin...

> It is the whole coupling consciousness/realities which can be explained by
> addition and multiplication (or abstraction and application, etc.) once we
> bet on DM.

Again you use the word "explained".  But I think you mean "described".

> Privately, by contrast, we can know some truth (like I'm conscious), but we
> can never communicate them as such.

Can anything fundamental ever be communicated to someone not already
possessing knowledge of it?

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 

Reply via email to