On 05 Jul 2011, at 00:29, B Soroud wrote:

Bruno, damn, this is heavy.... give me a moment to reply:

you see. I can be very sure that my body exists.... a 100% sure... but I can't be sure that anything else exists.

The old dream argument already refute this. It is the beginning of science and philosophy. I have no clue how you can be sure that your body exist. You can only assume this.





you say: " Just now, you can hardlmy doubt you are... you know that you are conscious. You know that you ...but you know you are living it here and now."

I can doubt that "I am".... but I can't doubt that "x is". But what does x mean?

Anything objective. Anything which admit a third person description. That is always doubtable, and can only be based on a theory (created consciously, or selected by evolution).




" You know that you are conscious. You know perfectly what it is. It is what makes pain painful. "

false! false! I don't know what pain is.... I know what the word refers to.... but once I try to pay close attention to it and figure out what it is.... I don't know what it is.... it just is....

You confuse knowing a first person fact, and understanding a theory accounting for that fact. In your sense we should say that we know nothing.




You think you know what these "things" are but once you play close attention they slip through your fingers...... they just become unintelligible names..... because "sensation" is a name...... the "thing itself" is not the word..... and the "thing itself" is unknowable.

In which theory?




I can say that I am but I cannot say what I am or what is is........I can just say..... x is. but I know neither what x or is is. (take this seriously, I am not sophisticating)

"I think that you assume the existence of a physical primitive universe."

Do you mean I assume some substantial and objective reductionist state of affairs? I don't assume anything.

Just reread you post. You assume humans have bodies. You assume time and space, etc. If you are not aware of your assumption, you will take time to progress. We always do assumption.



"Mind construction are some definable, and some non definable number relation"

I define any conception or notion of mind, and even the notion of mind-construction.... as by definition a "mind-construction".

And how do you define "mind construction", and from what assumption?




What on earth do you mean by number... it sounds like it is your way to make a pure abstraction out of concrete determinations. It sounds like your use of the word number is your way to transcendentalize things out of existence and convert them into pure abstract identities.

As I said I do assume simple first order logic axiom: like
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
etc.
I refer you to the papers for details. I have never met scientist having any doubt on those formula. In science we are never able to define what we are talking about, but we can share starting statement and make proof from there.





".It is the belief in a form of technologically possible reincarnation"

Have you seen ghost in the shell.... if you really believed this... you should scrap or hide the theory all together. We are too corrupt and perverse for it.... we would simply stain another space of existence.

So you do object comp. It is your right. I am agnostic. All what I prove is that IF comp is true, THEN physics is verifiably a branch of machine's theology/number theory.




Now this self-introspection that you speak of...

what introspection.... what is being observed? what is the form of observation?

what is observing what?

An immaterial machine is reasoning about itself in the manner discovered by Gödel, and clearly explained in his 1931 paper, and enormously exploited since then.




what causes or constitutes or conditions the observation?

Machine's interactions. Eventually, after understanding the UD reasoning, it is special number relations.




When you close your eyes, are you seeing some "inner space", the inside of your skull? or the back of your eyelids?


I don't want to follow you into your sci-fi salvationist technocratic world-vision.

Not even for the sake of a reasoning? You are just saying: I don't like this so I will pray for it to be false. This is not the usual method in the scientific enterprise.

Bruno


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.

Reply via email to