On Nov 30, 10:10 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2010, at 16:51, Pzomby wrote
> > On Nov 29, 7:25 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 28 Nov 2010, at 21:18, Pzomby wrote:
> >>> On Nov 27, 10:49 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen
> >>>>> <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The same goes for more abstract substrates, like bits of  
> >>>> information.
> >>>> Rex
> >>> Assuming that by using the term ‘abstract’ it means ‘non-physical’,
> >> But abstract does not mean non physical. "F = ma" is physical yet
> >> abstract. It is a true (say) abstract relation that we infer from  
> >> many
> >> observation, and which can be instantiated in some concrete
> >> relationship between bodies, for example.
> > Would not the context of this discussion, referring to ‘abstract
> > substrates’, as opposed to physical substrates (quarks and electrons)
> > indicate that ‘abstract’ (in this case) is not of the physical?  Some
> > of the contents of human consciousness are non physical (not of the
> > five senses). ‘Curiosity’ for example is a non physical trait.
> >http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/abstractnoun.htm
> Not bad :)
> But as you might guess, such a difference between abstract and  
> concrete can be theory dependent.
> Is time, or even a moment, an abstract or a concrete: I cannot see it,  
> I cannot hear it, I cannot smell it, I cannot taste it, and I cannot  
> touch it ... unless there is particle of time (chronon, that  
> exists ... in some theories!).
What if we discover 'curiositon' :)
 If a ‘curiousaton’ and a beliefiton are ever discovered a biological
TOEton may not be far behind. : )
> >>> is
> >>> it possible for information or anything to be ‘more’ or even ‘less’
> >>> abstract.  Are not the physical and abstract realms pure unto
> >>> themselves with no possibility of being more or less abstract or
> >>> physical?  In other words ‘abstract substrates” could be
> >>> incongruous.
> >> This is theory dependent. Natural numbers are usually considered by
> >> number theorists as being very concrete (yet immaterial) objects.
> >> Relations between numbers are more abstract, and relations between
> >> those relations are still more abstract. In math, algebra is
> >> considered as more abstract than arithmetic. category theory is known
> >> as very abstract. Lambda calculus contains a "concrete" abstraction
> >> operator (indeed "lambda") capable of constructing more and more
> >> abstract objects. It replace concrete/token immaterial object like
> >> numbers (or strings) by variable one.
> >> Bruno
> > Yes, ‘theory dependent’ human constructs.  No doubt number theorists
> > have agreed upon terminology and understandings that describe the
> > functions and results. Are what they are really referring to, is that
> > which is ‘finite’ (having natural boundaries or limitations) rather
> > than concrete?
> The basic objects of number theorist are the numbers, but they are  
> interested in functions, properties, relations, which are always  
> infinite objects.
> > Are not category theory, algebra, etc. representing
> > things that have ‘finite’ rather than ‘concrete’ properties?
> No their objects are usually infinite. The category of sets is so big  
> that it is not even a set. It is bigger than all the Cantiorian  
> infinties. That *very* big.
> > If a
> > mathematician or scientist presumes the brain is the mind
> That is a direct category error. I can see, smell touch, ... a brain.  
> Not so for a mind. yet a mind can be said concrete like whenh I talk  
> about my mind, or some precise people mind in some situation.
> > as in
> > physicalism, materialism etc.,
> They do association. identity theses are not all category errors.
> > he of course, will have little choice
> > but to describe everything (including human consciousness) as
> > concrete.
> That is the reason to make distinct the duality abstract/concrete from  
> immaterial/material.
> My mind is concrete, moments are concrete, numbers can be considered  
> as concrete, more generally the object of the structure are concrete,  
> as opposed to their possible relations.
> My (human) consciousness is concrete, (even if it is immaterial and  
> different from my brain).
> Human conciousness in general is an abstract notion.
> Notions are abstract, dispositions are abstract, and concreteness will  
> depends on theories, current paradigm, ontological choice or reality,  
> etc.
> Brunohttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
Your response raises a few more questions but I will state only a

I believe I follow your comments but am having trouble with the
description of human consciousness (in general) as a ‘notion’.  The
word means vague or unclear and an antonym of ‘notion’ could only be
described as a precise description or understanding of human
consciousness (even a concrete reality).

As this is more a discussion of semantics. What would be the antonym
of notion?
Abstract / Concrete, Immaterial / Material, Infinite / Finite,
Notion / ______
Could human consciousness (in general) be correctly described as
being: abstract, immaterial, infinite and a notion?  Other than
“notion’, there would be no ‘more or less’ of any of the above, as in
alive or dead, on or off, up or down.  They are or they are not.


> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

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