I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology.... have you read
Plotinus...... wasn't he a transcendentalist and ecstatic .... he wanted to
think or will his way into some transcendent eternity or something.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:00 AM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. "
>
> That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote:
>>
>> indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an
>> anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of
>> us, is an anthropomorphization...
>>
>>
>> But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more deeply a
>> universal-machinization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal
>> numbers have an existence in and of themselves and are being apprehended...
>> not necessarily appreheneded or ascertained as such, nor in theory.... but
>> are you asserting that  beings in themselves in the abstract and theological
>> sense are being reflected to your thought in shadow form?
>>
>>
>> I start from the fact that humans and machines can agree on simple
>> assertion about them. A theory exists when enough people share some amount
>> of intuition.
>>
>> To be clear and avoid misunderstanding, I am not doing philosophy. I do
>> cognitive science/theoretical physics, or theology in the prechristian
>> sense.
>>
>> My starting hypothesis is that my brain (or my generalized brain) is a
>> finite things which can be substituted by a digital machine. I don't know if
>> that is true or not. I just derive the consequences.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
>>>
>>>  is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self',
>>>> necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view...
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you
>>> need to remain alive/conscious.
>>> Then there is the 1-self, you as conscious person. The mind body problem
>>> is the problem of relating those two things. It is not yet solved, but I
>>> think some progress have perhaps been done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  an
>>>> essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any
>>>> objective independent existence, or any determination as such..... and
>>>> is not the negation of such an assertion assumed to be so and
>>>> predicated on your human-being-ness and indirection... therefore
>>>> proving the fact that "man is the measure of all things",
>>>>
>>>
>>> IF we are machine, then the universal numbers (in the sense of
>>> theoretical computer science) are better candidate for being the measure of
>>> all things. They create the coupling consciousness/realties.
>>> It is an open question if they dreams/computations glue sufficiently well
>>> to define physical realities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  and all
>>>> things are relative to himself and have the status of third-person
>>>> entities and nothing more except as projected by man.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why "by man"? Is that not an anthropomorphism?
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 4, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
>>>>>>> computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of
>>>>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>> propositions is as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Most would agree that a statement such as "8 is composite" has an
>>>>>>> eternal
>>>>>>> objective truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Assuming certain of axioms and rules of inference, sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But everyone agree on the axioms of arithmetic. And we could take any
>>>>> universal (in the Turing sense) system instead. The physical laws
>>>>> cannot depend on the choice of the "universal base". Lat us continue
>>>>> with (N, +, *), because it is taught in high school.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  But isn't that true of nearly anything?  How many axiomatic systems
>>>>>> are there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Likewise the statement: the Nth fibbinacci number is X.
>>>>>>> Has an objective truth for any integer N no matter how large.
>>>>>>> Let's say
>>>>>>> N=10 and X = 55.  The truth of this depends on the recursive
>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>> the fibbinacci sequence, where future states depend on prior
>>>>>>> states, and is
>>>>>>> therefore a kind if computation.  Since N may be infinitely large,
>>>>>>> then in a
>>>>>>> sense this mathematical computation proceeds forever.  Likewise one
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> say that chaitin's constant = Y has some objective mathematical
>>>>>>> truth.  For
>>>>>>> chaintons constant to have an objective value, the execution of all
>>>>>>> programs
>>>>>>> must occur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Simple recursive relations can lead to exraordinary complexity,
>>>>>>> consider the
>>>>>>> universe of the Mandelbrot set implied by the simple relation Z(n
>>>>>>> +1)= Z(n)^2
>>>>>>> + C.  Other recursive formulae may result in the evolution of
>>>>>>> structures
>>>>>>> such as our universe or the computation of your mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Is extraordinary complexity required for the manifestation of "mind"?
>>>>>> If so, why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Is it that these recursive relations cause our experience, or are just
>>>>>> a way of thinking about our experience?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Is it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Recursive relations cause thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  OR:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Recursion is just a label that we apply to some of our implicational
>>>>>> beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are confusing computability, which is absolute (assuming
>>>>> Church thesis), and provability, which is always relative to theories,
>>>>> machines, entities, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason is right, computation occurs in "arithmetical platonia", even in
>>>>> a tiny part of it actually, independently of us. This tiny part is
>>>>> assumed in the rest of science, and comp makes it necessarily enough
>>>>> (by taking seriously the first and third person distinction).
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  The latter seems more plausible to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Rex
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**
>>>>>> com <everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/**
>>>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to