On Oct 7, 9:27 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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
> >>> multplication
> >>> 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.

Complexity doesn't mean it's any harder to understand. A sand dune is
simple, the granular relations of the sand within it are complex, but
they are both equally understandable and contribute equally in any
explanation of one with the other.

> 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.

Billions of people alive today do just that.

>
> > I decide to move my hand, and a lot of complicated
> > physiological change happens.
>
> This has nothing to do with the idea of explanation.

Why not? Your position is just racist against simple, high level
processes.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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
> > definition?
>
> 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
> >>> interpet
> >>> 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.

No, you amputate levels. You are mistaking the experience of yellow
for the neurological mechanics associated with that experience (which
are not sufficient to explain the experience)

>
> > In order to have 0, you have to have something
> > that is aware of 0,
>
> You confuse "0" and 0.

No, I'm saying that the referent of "0" is not an arithmetically real
entity, but a lowest common denominator sensorimotive phenomena which
we share with many, but not all phenomena.

>
> > but you don't need to know 0 to have awareness.
>
> What makes you sure of that? In which theory will you argue?

No theory, just first hand experience. You have to learn what 0 is,
but you don't have to learn what blue is. You see it whether or not
you know any name for it. For 0, we generally need to learn the
concept by being introduced to the name "0" first. Zero was invented
by human minds, blue was not (although it may have been invented by
photosynthetic eukaryotes 'minds'.

>
>
>
> >> 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
> > done.
>
> 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.

I don't really see it happening that way. It seems like all scientific
inquiry these days is exactly the neurological 3-p approach to
consciousness.

> 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.
>
>
>
> >> But
> >> 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.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not trying to say the
sensorimotive referent of "0" is not real, only that it is not
independent of sense. Sense, however, is independent of the referent
'0'. Something like pain or symmetry does not require a zero concept
in theory, even though in reality it's all part of the singularity.

>
> > 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.

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with the
idea that symbols are not the same thing as their referents, it's just
that I think that the rings of Saturn or the idea of 0*7=0 are both
dependent upon perceptual relations = sense. Arithmetic is a syntax, a
formatting of something else - a substance or a subject, but the
formatting arises from within and between the relation of primitive
realities, it is not itself a primitive phenomenon, and nothing that
you have said gives me any reason at all to think that it could be.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.

Then what are you saying defines addition or succession?

>
> > 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.

I think that I have a  clear understanding of the difference between
the two. I'm not saying that there is no underlying logos of
arithmetic beyond human interpretation only I think that it's not
primitive, it's just a semantic format which many but not all
phenomena share.

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

You are assuming that all understanding cannot occur without
explanation. That is my whole point of saying that understanding "I"
is both necessary and sufficient.

>
> > 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.

Why is it 'beyond everything', and even if it were, why would that
prevent us from needing some understanding of it to make sense of
consciousness?

>
> > 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.
>

OK

> > 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.

Yes, you're right. I should have said 'can be' instead of 'is'.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> I think you restrict science too much. Like I think you restrict
> >>>> rationality.´
> >>> 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
> >> interest.
>
> > 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.

What is wrong with rigorously looking at 'looking'?

>
>
>
> >> 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).

I don't find any qualia in physics or comp?

> Thus, it is enough to compare the physics extracted from comp, with
> observations.

Observations by what?

Craig

> The logic of physical measure one has already been extracted from comp
> + the theaetetus" theory of knowledge, and QM confirms it up to now.
>
> 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