On 06 Dec 2010, at 00:02, Rex Allen wrote:

Math causes experiences of math.

Hmmmm.  I don't see how or why that would be.

If you assume Mechanism, the idea that the brain is Turing emulable, then it is a theorem.

And if you assume the classical theory of knowledge, then you can even understand how that happens. It happens because universal numbers, relatively to infinities of universal numbers, cannot see the relationship between they representable proofs and their private and non representable truth.

You talk like if Gödel's and Tarski's theorems don't exist. You are confusing all the time the notion of mathematical truth, which is not representable in any way, with the notion of proofs, which are formalizable and can be represented.

Anyway, your "theory" (which is really only a personal phenomenological report) needs to presuppose that "we" are not Turing emulable. This means that "we" cannot accept a digital brain or body substitution. I respect that opinion, but I am still waiting what is your non-mechanistic explanation of consciousness, matter and why a majority of humans believe in prime numbers. To say that consciousness just exists and nothing else is not better than to say that God created it all. That explains nothing.

You did not reply to my objection, that if your "accidental idealism theory" is correct, I can only accept it accidentally, making even absurd your attempts to convince us. Your very attempt to reason with us seems to me to contradict your "theory".



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