Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jul 2011, at 18:24, benjayk wrote: > >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Arithmetic just happens to be powerful enough to point towards it. >>>> All other >>>> universal systems accomplish the same. So to say just number >>>> relations exist >>>> and all else is an "epistemological view" on that is a very narrow >>>> interpretation. >>> >>> Arithmetical truth contains fortranic truth, lispic truth, >>> combinatoric truth, etc. >>> It does not contains theological truth, nor physical truth, except in >>> the 'epistemological' points of view of the creature they have all. >> How exactly do we know that these epistemological truths are >> secondary / not >> ontological? I don't really see how COMP does tell us that, as it >> could well >> be that the assumptions COMP makes (including "consciousness >> exists", in >> order to say "yes, doctor") are in some sense equivalent to the >> "epistemological" points of view whose existence we "derive" from the >> assumptions of COMP. I can't prove this (I don't think it can be >> proven), >> but for me it seems like this is the case. > > It is just that we don't need to assume them. It is like the invisible > horses pulling a car. >
True, but consciousness is there without being assumed. The theory cannot just ignore that. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32164844.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.