" If reality = a physical universe" Personally, I don't believe that. Here is the catch, I don't believe its antithesis or any alternative.
"My point is that if we assume mechanism" Unfortunately, since I am new to this... I don't know what you mean by mechanism. "physical reality emerges from something else" Perchance, but what exactly is this "something else"... and where do "we" fit into all of "this". "I want nothing. I am just pointing on the fact that mechanism is not compatible with materialism, and I suggest or illustrate that we can remain cold on those questions, and improve the clarity so that the question mechanism versus materialism leads to testable empiric consequences." Fair enough. But unfortunately I can't fully follow you as we don't have the same intellectual background in the sciences... we have studied a different body of literature. I am not entirely sure what you mean by mechanism versus materialism..... and I don't see why it has to be a either/or. How about neither/nor? If you are anti soulless and vulgar materialism... and propose a more spiritually fair and philosophically sophisticated position... what exactly is that position? a species of Monadology? neo-objective idealism? There is something compelling in Objective Idealism... but what does it mean to me beyond just an interesting speculative idea... and why do I have the creeping suspicion that our notions of reality are all too heavily dependent on our whim and fancy and conceptual contingencies.... furthermore.... why do I have sufficient reasons to be very skeptical and critical of human psychology and its manifestations in every domain of action and thought? read: Nietzsche, the Will to Power. "OK. At least it looks like we share some anti-dogmatism." We share more, I just don't follow your branch and line of thought, and the system you've built... from my standpoint of ignorance perhaps I completely misconstrue you, but it all strikes me as kind of a computerscientists/mathematicians dream-baby. How could I possibly approach your branch of thought, what are the background readings and building blocks? "if comp is correct then you are stuck in "consciousness" for ever" forever? forever ever? does forever even exist? How can you prove infinite time or eternal duration exists.... last time I checked, you can't. Infinity is at best a mathematicians symbolic fiction, he misconstrues it, it is pure imagination/pure theory... if you ask me. But anyways, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.... but read Kant's critique of Infinity... its similar to the Kabalistic critique... i.e. imagining expanding a circle until it reaches a point of termination (its limit) beyond which you can imagine no further, in other words... infinity is inconceivable. I think for me to properly understand you guys I need background reading and building blocks.... you guys abbreviate words and assume a common body of knowledge and a certain proficiency in mathematics and theoretical computer science/cutting edge cogni-sci etc. (for example, I haven't even read Godel).. So what do you recommend I read to learn about "comp"? "The discovery of the universal machine, by Post, Turing, Church, etc. shed a lot of light on the mind body problem, if only to explain it, and to show that it is not yet solved." Okay, I know nothing about this... never read any of these guys... any recommended readings... should I read them? I know not a thing about universal machine. "Now, you are right: some tradition develop clerical habits, and some period can see the religion used to manipulate gullible people. But that happens everywhere, even in academies." I am surprised by your sympathy towards religious tradition, it is a very unusual position that I am not used to. I mean I am sympathetic to certain aspects of some... like how the Jewish tradition has a very sophisticated argumentative tradition.... rife with debate and open to it.... and it seems generally no one thinks they have the final word or that things are one-dimensionally straight forward. "Without humans, no human will state "galaxies have many stars", but the galaxies does not need the humans to have many stars." Bruno, the funny thing is, I question that.... I seriously do. I seriously seriously do. I believe our understanding of galaxies is uniquely our understanding of galaxies... and if we didn't exist there would be no such cognition as the one we have... and our cognition = the galaxy in so far as we are concerned. It is our cognition... one point of view on the matter... I don't believe there is an objective and disembodied point of view on the matter. So the way in which we understand this system of many stars is the way in which we understand it... and if we go, the meaning, perception, concept, formation or formulation, and cognition goes. We see it in light of our own relative position and limitations... we see our own form of "it"... which has no independent objective existence in so far as anyone can conceive in actuality. That's my view. I firmly believe this is an undercontemplated and subtle insight: ""Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not". "Likewise, the truth (not its human expression) of Ex(x=x) might not depend on the humans." It might not, but... I wonder.... because it seems to be a disembodied abstraction... what does it point to, where does it find concrete actuality or particularity? In other words, what is it really saying, what is it really pointing to or pointing out? It might just be a simple statement of fact, a kind of pointless duh that isn't actually independent of concrete phenomena, of concrete particulars. Perhaps it is just a funny symbolical and generalistic way to speak or view actual particulars... I don't really buy logical truths in the abstract sense (I think they are getting lost in our ability for abstract thought).... I don't think they exist in and of themselves... i think they are human constructs... many have thought this.... in fact, you know I haven't really read much on logic, not even one book.... because I have always felt while reading it and learning about it.... that it was illogical! I honestly feel a lot of logic is illogical or somehow meaningless and artificial! "I have evidence that the moon was the moon before life appeared on the planet" It may have been.... but it was not the moon as it appears to us... We have our own particular point of view on the moon... and we can't know the moon apart from that... not in a literal and actual sense... or a truly objective one if that even exists. " and I have evidence that 17 was already prime a long time before the first human realized it is the case that 17 is prime." well I don't want to push this point or dwell on this.... but I personally see it as either a) irrelevant b) not absolutely apriori c) kind of how do I say.... fake... meaning.... it works in a certain system of axioms rules and truths and definitions, but not a system that exists apriori in some cosmic sense and that has any real value. I don't believe its like a absolute of the demiurge or has any objective existence from its own side or any pre-human use or conscious existence or self-transcendental reality. "lol, Bruno, lets not argue... we will eternally disagree. The fun is when we disagree. Nothing is more boring than a conversation between people who agree. If we disagree eternally, we will have fun eternally. Cool :)" Yeah, don't you feel that thought is inherently dialectical? like how it most go on and on and is in a sense dynamic radical and endless? Once thought becomes static and crystallized... it becomes dogma, creed, system... perhaps that is some forms of religion? "With (N,+,*)" frankly, no clue what this means, nor do I know what universal numbers are. nor was I aware I was one. " But we can relate to realities that we feel non temporal. This happens when we listen to music, do love, do drugs, and, formidably, when we do mathematics. Sometimes we can feel that eternity in anything, even driving a car, or paying taxes" see here I don't follow you.... I don't see how anything human could truly be eternal. Mathematics serves humans, it is at least in part our invention, no? Mathematics would have value to no one else but us humans on this earth. And I don't think we or this earth will be here forever. Plus if the realm of independent truth has to be approached through math.... that seems like a pretty dry and weird realm... it doesn't hold up to our aesthetical needs... like music and nature and color does.... our emotional aesthetics needs of fulfillment. we crave form and color and sound and diversity. Math is heartless. and math is too cold and disembodied. "Since Gödel, we know that simple truth really hide an unimaginable amount of complexity. An object like the Mandelbrot illustrates that too, and the notion of computer per se can help to understand where the complexity come from: they do some mess in Platonia, a mess which was unexpected by them, although intuited (see the chapter on Numbers by Plotinus, for example). At least we comp we can explain ho we related to them, because our bodies and mind result from an infinite competition among them. The higher reality is both simpler than us, and more complex than us. It is amazing, but explainable by the distinction between the points of view, and those distinction are not human made, they are universal machine made. This extends Everett relativity to arithmetic. There is no much choice in the matter, beside abandoning comp for taste prejudice." I lost you here.... you are obviously coming from another field of thought then me....... This higher reality you speak of, is it aware of us, does it think of us and hypothesize about us? Does it desire and feel? Does it love and appreciate aesthetic phenomena? Does it plan for us? Because if it is not as conscious as us, if it does not have our same ability to think and understand and feel and love.... if it does not have higher faculties or powers then us... then I wouldn't call it higher. I can't see how there could be a "higher" reality then the one we are aware of or a higher being then us... But your Platonia strikes me as empty.... it feels like a heartless world devoid of flesh and blood. "You just don't know, especially as a scientist. If human continue to feel superior, God might invest on a more humble creature" I say we are the most "advanced" or the "highest" because we are the one here doing all this thinking, all this creative imaginative thinking and reasoning and understanding and debating... it is our play and our enjoyment... I am not aware of anyone else doing this.... and in so far as I am aware of them it is my thought or thinking that makes me aware of hte possibility of concept of "them"..... therefore I see everything depending on my or our thinking.... thinking brings everything into being in a certain sense.... thinking plays the god of creator and destroyer (in a certain sense).... and I just can't seriously conceive of a being of my conception being superior to me (the one who conceives this being and argues about it). What evidence? Just the endless play of thought. "Only, the phenomenal world is not all what is." I don't follow you here. To me the phenomenal world is the main event, the whole point. and I can't conceive of some other world... "I assume digital mechanism, then I explain why consciousness preceded matter, in some sense." But this must be practically indemonstrable, right? Even if it was true... and there is some notion of some form of pre-terrestrial consciousness..... does it still exist... in the here-and-now.... and what relevance does it have to us as mortal beings... as ordinary human beings. And what of this "consciousness" what its destiny or teleology, what its purpose or place.... and how does it explain the "scheme of things" and the point of our being? "From inside we confuse temporal evolution and the logical deduction. That is why I do follow Pratt, and King, on the dualism between set (3-person in Pratt) and boolean Algebra. It is already a sort of points of view distinction in math (mathematically hard, or not, to directly apply in the comp frame, for technical reason). I think that stable measure makes us very rare in reality branches, and the branches being very numerous, in at least an intuitive rendering of the measure problem. But that is a good and important question which we have to work on." I lost you here Brun's "I love you Pseudonymous. You confirm so well my feeling that materialists are religious about this. So I sin? So just proposing a theory is a sin?" Those son-of-a-bitches are religious about this.... but I am -not- a materialist..... I am a agnostic/quarter Nietzschean.... but I find materialism 75% compelling and 25% problematic or perplexing and dissatisfactory. At the same time I find eternalists highly suspect. "That's an idolatry of nature. I do give her just a more solid base: the natural numbers. Pun included." Once again, frankly, i am unable to follow you. p.s. I do believe in spiritual forces, or at least a more rarefied and psychical variety of forces not spoken about by present day physics. Or at least I think I do. "I "resurrect" it from what any universal computer (including you)" Surely you can think of a more romantic metaphor for my identity then universal computer.... Also, I find this "looking inward" to be a form of psychic confusion.... I don't believe in an actual inward, especially in terms of inside the physical body.... nor do I believe in a actual "inner space" or "mind-space"? I think to "look inward" is to become confused, incredibly confused.... it is an enigma. I think the majority of what we "see" when we "look inward" is the figment of our imagination. Perhaps "inward" is something we imagine... I am very convinced of this. "we can already listen to the machines." not sure what you mean here again... unfortunately. I don't know if its my fault or your fault or both our fault. p.s. what is this UDA that you speak of which doesn't need math or compsci and has 7 steps? " It is a bit like the effect of drug, and there too, some headache can happen." I hope you don't take too many of these drugs Bruno! I have taken them but I am skeptical of them. I prefer the "analytical meditation" of the Buddhists as giving a more clear and sharp and undeluded awareness. "and I look on the origin of physics "in the head" of the universal machine (the key computer science object), as the thought experiences/experiment (the 1 and 3 views) suggests" eww... I am warry of thought-experiments.... It seems to me that you are on the cutting edge of super-theoretical comp sci.... I want to emphasize super-theoretical. But that's cool I guess. "You might take a look to zooms on the Mandelbrot set. Here too, a very simple relation z_n+1 := z_n^2 + 1, in the "complex number" leads to a super-fractal, which is not just similar, but more and intricate and complex." lol, lost you again.... I guess Plato was right..... I am doomed to not understand you unless I learn all the stuff you know. But we can still argue in other ways..... "Soroud, but you will become a mathematician if you enter. And if comp is correct, you already entered, so strictly speaking we have just to remind you of some things and different things." good lord! "To be frank, you look a little bit like you forget that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. If you agree you know next to nothing, how can you be so quick in evaluating the works of the others, especially in a complex if not taboo fields?" Because I have struggled to grasp those guys..... and I have found them ultimately lacking, just like everything else I've studied. They didn't bring me any consolation of understanding or edification. DESIGN QUESTION: why would the "fundamental reality" be outside of human experience.... what is the point of that? We are the only ones that care or concern about it, hey it might even be a figment of our imagination.... so why should it be so utterly elusive and transcendent and out of reach and a reversal of naturalism? That seems ridiculous. "But it needs observable feature to be a reality, at least a human reality" how observe? "The more correct we are on our probable universal environment, the more we get free of it, and free to explore many dimensions of reality." Ah ha, now this is where you get real and get interesting.... so you talk about exploring many dimensions of reality.... how so? what dimensions? where? what for? how long? etc. etc. etc. > > "It seems like any reality is assumed to not be us and we are assumed >> to be related to it... therefore it is separate and either conceived >> of as blind and inferior to us, our super conscious and superior to >> us. >> >> and why are we seemingly superior to this other... >> > > And are we?" doesn't it feel that way..... as far as I know this is all a figment of our imagination.... all these thoughts we are having are historically conditioned and of a historical moment...... If there is anything outside this bodily awareness system..... especially any superior intelligence.... why are we the ones philosophizing about it, and in search of it. it seems that we are the creators here. I haven't found any superior intelligence... and personally I am amazed and impressed by our intellectual creativity and sophistication.... so that is why I say we are. Its like even when people talk about God as a force.... it seems to me that it is a blind force, an impersonal force..... While we are the hyper aware thinking beings making various evaluations and affirmations and negations and giving everything its name and label. "It might depend on which One." this is funny.... many One's?------- "You say that you know nothing, why don't you do a bit of research and > reflexion?" > > okay, let me see if I can try, If I have an affinity for it, If i find it > not boring, dry, trivial, far-fetched etc. so you are saying I can just read your paper without a extensive background in math and cog-sci and comp-sci and physics and symbolic logic etc.? Is your paper what you are referring me to research or something else, like some other papers, articles, books or somehting? > > -- 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.
