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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%[email protected]> >>>>>> . >>>>>> 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<[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> 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<[email protected]> >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%[email protected]> >>> . >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
