On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote:

I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and
without using numbers, though.

I am not sure this makes any sense. Addition of what?
In scientific theories we don't pretend to explain everything from
nothing. We can only explain complex things from simpler things. The
rest is playing with word.

Why is it playing with words? We can explain simple things from
complex things too.

You can do that from a logical point of view, but an explanation is not a logical thing, but a pragmatical thing, and it makes no sense to explain what we already understand from things that we do not understand. If that was the case, we might be able to explain everything with just one three letter word: GOD. But that kind of explanation, sometimes propose by some people, is a mockery of both GOD and reality.

I decide to move my hand, and a lot of complicated
physiological change happens.

This has nothing to do with the idea of explanation.

Anyway, even if I completely agree on these principles, and you derive
something interesting from it, if you ultimately are unable to
define what
numbers are, you effectively just use your imagination to interpret
something into the undefinedness of numbers, which you could as well
interpret into the undefinedess of consciousness.

Here yo are the one talking like a 19th rationalist who believe that
we can dismiss *intuition*. Since Gödel's rationalist knows that they
can't. In particular we need some undefinable intuition to grasp
anything formalized, be it number, or programs, or machines, etc.
I chose the numbers because people already grasp them sufficiently
well, so that we can proceed.

I disagree. I understand what he is saying exactly. What makes numbers
any more deserving than awareness of a primitive status, exempt from

In that case I prefer the pseudo-virtually deep impetus, exempt from definition.

OK. But what else is 0?

Nobody knows. But everybody agrees on some axioms, like above, and we
start from that.
So why is it better to start with "nobody knows"-0

Nobody starts with "nobody knows 0".
We start from "0 ≠ s(x)", or things like that.

and derive something from
that than just start with "nobody knows"-consciousness and just
what consciousness means to us?

Because 0, as a useful technical object does not put any conceptual
problem. Consciousness is far more complex.

Consciousness isn't complex, it's as simple or complex as whoever it
is that is the subject.

See my answer to what you said about the simplicity of "yellow". You confuse levels.

In order to have 0, you have to have something
that is aware of 0,

You confuse "0" and 0.

but you don't need to know 0 to have awareness.

What makes you sure of that? In which theory will you argue?

If there is 0€ in a bank account, this is sad, but is not very
mysterious. If someone is in a comatose state, the question of
consciousness is much more conceptually troubling. Humans took time to grasp zero, but eventually got the point. For consciousness, there are
still many scientist who does not believe in it, lie some people does
not understand the notion of qualia. Is consciousness related to
matter, is it primary, ... all that are question still debated.

That's only because they aren't thinking about it the right way. They
are trying to fit a who and why into a what and how. That can't be

I agree, but It is even worst. They believe that the fact that consciousness is not 3p, that it cannot be studied with 3p theories. This is a vary grave error, because it prevents the use of the scientific attitude on it. The same mistake is done with theology since the closure of Plato academy. This has given the free way for abusing of authority, and the lack of rigor in the human sciences, and we are paying the big price in the 20th and 21th centuries.

for 0, there is no more problem. Everyone agree on any different
axioms rich enough to handle them in their application.

There is agreement because 0 is nothing but an agreement.

You continue to confuse "0" and 0. Only "0" needs an agreement, not 0.

It's a word
for an idea,

The idea is independent of the word. It precedes the word. 0* 7 = 0 has nothing to do with the word "0", "7", "times", "=", for the same reason that the ring of Saturn would exist even if the letters "r", "i", "n", "g" were not existing.

which has meanings in relations to other words and ideas
of the same arithmetic type.

1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its
cardinal denotation.
OK. But what else is 1?

The successor of zero. The predecessor of 2. The only number which
divides all other numbers, ...
(I don't see your point).
But what does successor mean? You are just circling within your own
definitions, which doesn't explain anything.

You have to study mathematical logic. yes I am circling. This is
allowed and encouraged in foundations. There are precise technic to
make such circles senseful.

I agree with Ben. It's circular reasoning to say that addition and
succession define each other.

I never say that. It is actually false.

To me, it's clear that succession is one
of the many primitive elements of sense - symmetry, reflection/
imitation, looping, association, dissociation, etc. are others.

You confuse the numbers and the human understanding of them.

Yes. So you want to explain mysterious consciousness and substitute
equally mysterious numbers. Where exactly lies the explanation in

If you can derive the mass of the proton from a theory of
consciousness, explain me how.
I have never met any difficulty about any statement I have ever made
on any finite beings constituting universal systems. But on
consciousness, humans have never cease to met difficulties.
The numbers are taught in high school. Consciousness has entered in
*some* university level course, and only with many difficulties.

Consciousness can be understood in it's entirety by contemplating the
meaning of the word "I",

You confuse "living a fact", and attempt to explain the fact.

and it cannot be understood at all without
understanding the meaning of that word.

The meaning of 1-I is beyond everything, from the perspective of the 1- I. So I doubt that what you say makes sense.

It's misleading to look for
exterior knowledge to inform us about subjectivity.

That is almost correct. More correct would be, "It's misleading to look *only* for
exterior knowledge to inform us *completely* about subjectivity."
So we can still make hypotheses and reasonings, all this taking into account the private aspect of subjectivity.

Knowledge is an
obstruction to understanding in the case of awareness.

I guess you mean "belief", given that awareness/consciousness is a form of knowledge. Yes, beliefs (like in science) can be an obstruction, but not always, and not necessarily so.

I think you restrict science too much. Like I think you restrict
It all depends on what we mean with science, and rationality. The
words have
no predefined meaning, we have to give them meaning itself.
Personally, I am
willing to extend the meaning of science to the very act of observing
itself, making everything science.

That would lead to complete arbitrariness. That leads to suffering.
That leads to the defense of the special interest against the common

No, it leads to enlightenment.

I doubt so. It leads to fake-enlightenment , tyranny, oppression and manipulation of humans by humans.

Why do you want us to scare us away
from looking at what is 'looking' scientifically Bruno?

Lack of rigor in human science has always been a tool for bandits looking at your money, life, wealth, etc. Always. still today.

Comp is not a dogma. It is a testable theory, which really means only
a refutable theory, as understood by Popper.

Ok, so what test would prove comp to be false?

I remind you that comp explains all the details of physics (not just the qualia, also the quanta). Thus, it is enough to compare the physics extracted from comp, with observations. The logic of physical measure one has already been extracted from comp + the theaetetus" theory of knowledge, and QM confirms it up to now.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to