Hi Bruno Marchal 

Being a pragmatist (and an engineer), I believe what works or makes the best 
sense.
I am basically trying to understand the relationship between 
Platonism and modern science. So it's not either/or, its both/and.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-24, 08:58:12
Subject: Re: Potential definitions--Re: Re: What is 'Existence'?


On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:26, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
>
> Potential definitions :
>
> To Exist = to have objective being, to physically be, to be within 
> spacetime, having spacial location and extension at time t - a thing 
> such as a brain or object

But "exists" has simple meaning, when applied on what you assume to 
exist primitively. The words "objective", "physically", "being", 
"spacetime" "spatial", "location", "time", "brain", "object" have no 
simple meaning that everyone can take for granted, when working on th 
TOE search, or when trying to get some light on the mind body problem.

I thought you were a Platonist, even if a Leibnizian one, but now it 
seems you believe in primitive physical notion, like spacetime, so it 
becomes hard to figure out what are your sharable assumptions.



>
> To Inhere = to have subjective being, to mentally or nonphysically 
> be, that is, to be outside of spacetime, inextended (without spacial 
> location at time t), such as thoughts, numbers, quanta, qualia, etc.
>
> Thus brain exists, mind inheres.

?
I don't see the logic leading to brain exist, from mind inhere.
Brain exists, but with comp it can't be a primitive existence, and so 
"brain exists" is a pattern that we have to explain from an ontology 
with not assumed brain.


>
> An agent = An inherent control and observation center.
>
> A self = an agent
>
> Actual = to exist
>
> Real = either to exist or to inhere even without a self or agent to 
> observe or control it.

That can make sense in some context, but not when you search a theory 
*explaining* or enlightening the big picture. You need a criterion of 
existence for what you take as primitive, and then you can defined the 
many different sorts of existence which can be reduced to the 
primitive existence.
But you betrayed yourself by insisting that we don't mix theology and 
science, where I think that the separation of theology and science is 
very big mistake, even if easily explainable by Darwin and human short 
term interests.
I cannot convince you by reason, on something about which you decided 
to abandon reason.

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.

-- 
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