Dear Roger,

Could the mere possibility of being a number (without the specificity of which one) be considered to be "there from the beginning"?

On 9/6/2012 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think they were mind-created (platonic) not brain-created (human creations).
Are the prime numbers an invention by man or one of man's discoveries ?
I believe that the prime numbers are not a human invention,
they were there from the beginning. Humans can discover
them by brute calculation, but there is a pattern to them
(except for 1, 3 and 5, spaced  6 apart, plus or minus one)
Thus 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 etc.
for n>5, they can be placed +-1 on a grid with a spacing of 6
That spacing seems to me at least to be a priori, out of man's control.
Roger Clough, <>
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."

    ----- Receiving the following content -----
    *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <>
    *Time:* 2012-09-06, 01:24:31
    *Subject:* Re: Sane2004 Step One

    On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
    < <>> wrote:

    >> But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your
    >> responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same
    inputs from
    >> the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel
    >> but maintain the delusional belief that nothing had changed.
    > That's begging the question. You are assuming that the brain is
    a machine
    > which produces consciousness. I think that the brain is the three
    > dimensional shadow of many levels of experience and it produces
    nothing but
    > neurochemistry and alterations in our ability to access an
    individual set of
    > human experiences. The brain does not produce consciousness, it
    defines the
    > form of many conscious relations.

    But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what
    chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing
    without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential or
    ligand concentration. We've talked about this before and it just isn't
    consistent with any scientific evidence. You interpret the existence
    "spontaneous neural activity" as meaning that something magical like
    this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all.

-- Stathis Papaioannou



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