Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> All I can say to the debate whether your TOE is dependent on
>>>> consciousness
>>>> is that it may not assume consciousness, but this doesn't mean it's
>>>> independent of it, or prior to it.
>>> I would say of course, except that "independent" and 'prior" are a  
>>> bit
>>> fuzzy.
>> I can only to invite you to be skeptic of this "of course". For me  
>> it isn't
>> obvious at all.
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> And the fact that it derived from numbers
>>>> within the theory still doesn't mean that it is in actuality the
>>>> reason for
>>>> it.
>>> Logically you are right. But remember the invisible horses.
>> From a scientific standpoint this remark makes sense. But I believe  
>> this
>> point is beyond science. From my intuition the simple difference is  
>> that
>> invisible horses are not primary or necessary and consciousness is.
> Necessary with logic and numbers: yes.
> Necessary as a primitive ontological entity? I am not sure.
It depends on what we mean with primitive ontological entity. For me it is
just so integral to everything that I can't see how calling it primitive
could be wrong. It's a bit like saying that existence isn't primitive. What
would that even mean? Deriving the existence of existence, or consciousness
seems quite meaningless to me.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> But obviously I can't prove that it isn't. I am just stating a
>>>> (strong)
>>>> intuition. I guess there is no point argueing over that.
>>> Especially that the comp theory, + the classical theory of knowledge,
>>> suggests clearly that machine's intuition will conflict with the
>>> correct self-referentially provable, and true, propositions.
>> This may be a strong point against COMP.
> Why? On the contrary, it mirrors the emergence of a mind-body problem  
> in the discourse of the universal numbers.
> Once I say "yes" to the doctor, I lost the option of taking those  
> discourses as zombies one.
The problem is that we rely on our intuition to say yes and then have a
theory that calls our intuition heavily into question, so that from the
theory itself it makes sense to reject it.

It might be that all good theories about reality as a whole show that it
makes sense to reject them, as they are always incomplete, and if they are
good they will reflect that.
In the limit this could lead us to reject theories as such, in accordance
with what they say!

Maybe making formalized theories is just a transitory phenomenon, it may
ultimately be a dead end. The mind showing itself its own limits, even, to
some extent, proving its own limits (like Gödel did). Quite a powerful way
of showing the reality and necessity of transcendence.
Speculatively, once humanity becomes enlightened, science and mathematics
may become less important, and may ultimately be superseded by more direct
and involving ways of knowing (but it is definitely extremely important to
integrate the many useful aspects and insights of them).
Personally I think that theoretical reasoning is inherently boring
(notwithstanding the fact that it can be interesting for quite a while), so
I certainly would like it to be this way.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> So the needle falling in the forest not only does not make any  
>>>>> noise,
>>>>> but it makes also no vibrations in the air? I doubt it.
>>>> It makes a noise, and it makes vibrations. We are just not very
>>>> aware of it.
>>>> It is part of our sub-conscious.
>>> Hmm... then all arithmetical truth is part of our subconscious I'm
>>> afraid.
>> Is that bad? Why not? Indeed I would say all mathematicians do is  
>> bringing
>> things from their subconscious into their awareness in a formal form.
> No problem. It makes the physical universe the observable border of  
> the subconscious, which may seems a bit stretched.
OK, depends on your perspective. I think what you said is a really good
formulation of how it is!

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> ...I don't think the vatican would like me proclaiming that WE are
>>>> all God,
>>>> though. :D
>>> They will burn you, but in some century they will sanctify you, and  
>>> of
>>> course censor the discovery.
>>> It can make sense when you see how far some are able to misunderstand
>>> the statement.
>>> In comp you are true, and all machine can discover that, but if
>>> assert, or even if taken as an axiom, it transform itself into
>>> bewesibar ('0 = 1") which is the arithmetical version of BS.
>> Hm, I don't see why it shouldn't be taken as an axiom.
> Because you will become inconsistent.
So? We need formal consistency only in math, apart from math inconsistencies
are abundant, and acceptable. Even in science. General relativity and
quantum mechanics are quite inconsistent with each other!

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That it is
>> paradoxically may be acceptable, if we accept that on some level  
>> reality is
>> paradoxical.
> It is true but not communicable. That is paradoxical, but noneless  
> true and non contradictory.
Yes. The problem is, if the ultimate truth is incommunicable, but also is
all that is, we can't communicate about anything. So, if we choose to
communicate, we really only can communicate about the incommunicable. The
incommunicable is just ultimately incommunicable, it can be pointed to,
symbolized, metaphorized - and this may help to see the truth of that which
is uncommunicable.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> That is extreme relativism which leads to instrumentalism.
>>>>> Fundamental
>>>>> science is driven by the search of knowledge. To say yes to the
>>>>> doctor
>>>>> cannot be just a useful story. Either you die through it, or you
>>>>> survive. That *can* make a difference.
>>>> I guess I am to near to a transpersonal view to accept this. It
>>>> doesn't
>>>> ultimately really matter whether I die or survive.
>>> The irony of comp: once a machine has the cognitive ability to
>>> understand that she can survive through a digital functional
>>> substitution, then she has the ability to understand that she will
>>> survive no matter what.
>>> But then she understands that the real goal is not surviving, the  
>>> real
>>> goal is making high the probability of seeing the near soccer cup
>>> nearby. For which an artificial brain can be handy. Of course it is a
>>> little ego affair, like life, dreams and realities.
>> OK, this makes sense. But I don't think what you mentioned as ego  
>> affairs
>> are ego affairs. They are just ego affairs through the lens of ego.  
>> God
>> seems to be very much interested in life, dreams and realities,  
>> after all
>> this is what pretty much all of his experience revolves around!
> I am not sure about that. I don't know.
It doesn't seem like the answer to this is knowable in an intellectual
sense. We can just trust that our love of (or at least interest in) life,
dreams and reality is in accordance with God.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> (as long as you promise to not abandon your
>>>> responsibilities) :D.
>>> Ah Ah! The key point!
>> But really I believe it comes naturally with awakening. God is happy  
>> to take
>> on whatever responsibilities he presents himself with. Just ego has  
>> problems
>> with it, understandably. The ego can't understand why and how, and  
>> suffers
>> from the problems that go with responsibilites, etc...
>> Wanting to abandon responsibilities and feeling to have to take on
>> responsibilities may both be forms of ego.
> Not sure. In buddhism, in Chan and Zen, they describe often the  
> awakening as the penultimate spiritual stage. The last stage is the  
> coming back "in the village", which seems to be the hardest task for  
> many.
OK. It's really delicate. It can be both ways. Enlightenment also means the
realizations that responsibility is relative, and that in some sense nothing
needs to be done, or can be done (as everything is doing what it does
already automatically). But I think once we see the sense in taking on
responsibilities, we become more efficient at it, and see more deeply what
is really important. We also may abandon things that the ego felt deeply
responsible for, though.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to