On 05/03/11 14:46, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I skipped over the details because I was don't want to be repeating
paragraphs of stuff each time I make a point. Not sure about the
On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote:
I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on
the idea that "everything" is simpler than "something".
If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a
perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything, and you
can't get much simpler than that.
Can you elaborate. What are their assumption? What do you mean by
"perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything". Almost
all words here needs a clear context to make sense. Which everything?
I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as
fundamental ... we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature
of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. (1995, p. 216)
Clearly it is a universal property of the system in which we find
ourselves, physical or arithmetical.
Bitbol concludes his section One mind, many points of view with
Mind is by itself point-of-view-less, just as it is placeless and
timeless. The aporia is the following: Mind is not within the world
since, even if it can identify itself to any available point of view, it
is not identical to this point of view. Nor does Mind stand outside the
world, since it has no point of view of its own, independent from the
points of view the world can offer. Wittgenstein would say that Mind is
the limit of the world.
More formally, Mind can be considered as an empty space in the triadic
relation: "point of view of ( ) on a 'real universe'". This scheme
provides another way of seeing why Mind retains its necessity, even
though the "real universe" gathers all that falls under the categories
of knowledge: Mind plays a key role in the very constitutive relations
of this knowledge. Its closest philosophical equivalents are Husserl's
and Sartre's Transcendental ego; or, even better, Wittenstein's subject
which "(...) does not belong to the world: rather it is a limit of the
world" (Tractatus 5.632).
It is the same Mind, phenomenal conciousness, in all places and at all
In Logical Types in Quantum Mechanics I show that it is necessarily an
emergent property of the unitary totality, Russell's 'Everything', which
fits this concept precisely. It is also necessarily, from the
perspective of any specific framework, perfectly symmetrical.
Other points answered in separate posts to try and keep things simple
enough for me.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at