On 2/4/2012 10:05 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2012 14:38, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net>  wrote:

Does my claim that our primitive ground must be neutral with respect to
any properties make any sense? It like the zero of arithmetic from which we
can extricate any set of positive and negative quantities in pairs such that
their sum is equal to zero. What I see in Bruno's interpretation of COMP is
that it permits for the primitive to have a set of properties (numbers and +
and *) to the exclusion of its complementary opposites. Since this is a
violation of neutrality, thus I see a fatal flaw in Bruno's Ideal monist
I think it may make some intuitive sense, but I don't quite see what
role it could play in a theory, in the technical sense Bruno proposes.
  For example, Bruno sometimes refers to the metaphor of the One - from
Plotinus.  Sometimes in my mind's eye I think of the symmetry of the
One as somehow breaking into an infinity of "computational"
self-relations, individuated instances of consciousness then emerging
from that complexity as spatio-temporally-distinguishable aspects of
the differentiated self-intimacy thus engendered.  The seamless
symmetry of the One - the solus ipse, if you like - might indeed serve
here as a sort of primitive neutral background, any further properties
emerging only as a consequence of the subsequent breaking of that
primal symmetry.

Hi David,

This concept, as you explain it ,is exactly what I have in mind even to the part about the (unnameable! cardinality of) "infinity of "computational" self-relations" each potentially generating the "individuated instances of consciousness" as per Bruno's Loebian "Machine" idea. My claim is that this "primitive neutral background" of the "One" is infinitely deeper even than the (N, +, *) of Bruno as its symmetry must be perfect and thus neutral even with respect to (N, +, *).

But this is merely an intuitive attempt to grasp the ungraspable, not
a theory, in the sense of something that has any practical
consequences (nothing being so practical as a good theory).  I'd
certainly be interested if you have anything more substantial to

Is it inappropriate to use the "One" in an axiomatic form as part of a theory, not that I am proposing the concept just that as a theory standing on its own? It makes sense to me as it leads inevitably to ontological implications that both firm up the theory of Neutral monism (as per Bertrand Russell) and allow for the dualism (per Vaughan Pratt) that I am researching. The theory that I am considering is a hybrid of many concepts from many other people, and Bruno Marchal result is a big part of it as his result shows how consciousness can emerge from computations on the Mind side of the duality. My own contribution to the theory, explaining how interactions between "minds" occurs, is just a tiny piece of it.



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