On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:24:37 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:30, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:47:26 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal   
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:02:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 24 Sep 2012, at 18:16, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> > 
> >>> > 
> >>> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal   
> >>> wrote: 
> >>> > 
> >>> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote: 
> >>> > 
> >>> > > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses. 
> >>> > > So they are appearances, not the processes themselves. 
> >>> > > But scientific experiments and measurements are not 
> >>> > > made on the appearances, they are made on the 
> >>> > > processes. Thus the appearences areor [phenomena 
> >>> > > are said to be "well-grounded"  in the processes themselves. 
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Kant spelled this out in great detail,  calling "noumena" the 
> >>> > > actual physical process which we cannot reach by our senses, 
> >>> > 
> >>> > 
> >>> > And which does not exist, at least not in the sense that they   
> >>> cause 
> >>> > our senses. 
> >>> > This is the most counter-intuitive aspect of comp, as the physical 
> >>> > process are projection on the conditions making the dream   
> >>> coherent. 
> >>> > 
> >>> > Why does comp want coherent dreams? 
> >>> 
> >>> Coherent dreams are reasonable data. 
> >>> 
> >>> Why does comp want reasonable data? 
> >> 
> >> Comp does not want them. We have them. They are what *we* want to   
> >> explain. Comp is just the working hypothesis. 
> >> 
> >> It's circular though. Why do we have them? 
> > 
> > To be short, because we accept the arithmetical truth. 
> > 
> > What is it that is doing the accepting, and what would arithmetical   
> > truth be without it? 
>
> "We" are doing the accepting. And with comp, "we" are supported by the   
> computations "living" in arithmetical truth. 
> Arithmetical truth without it cannot exists, like it cannot exist with   
> the number 666 being absent. 
>

With drugs or hypnosis, you could experience arithmetical truth without 666 
being present. I think it would just seem like this:

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x-x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm

and you would accept it, just as in a dream you would accept that you are 
driving a cow to work on this day. Logic supervenes on awareness. If I put 
a hole between 665 and 667 in your awareness, you will fill it in without 
any particular distress. We have always been at war with Eastasia. 667 has 
always come after 665, just as 0 comes before 1...it's a logical 
convention, a cognitive sense-making experience.

 

> Comp + arithmetical truth implies our existence, and our relative   
> measure (physical laws). 
>

If we didn't exist, why would Comp + arithmetical truth create us? What is 
it that is missing from it and how could such a missing thing be generated?

Craig


>
>
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Comp is your working hypothesis, not mine :) 
> > 
> > This make coherent your belief in matter. But you are back at the   
> > start of the mind body problem, as you assume everything we want to   
> > explain (mind, body, and their relation). 
> > 
> > I don't believe in matter so much as I believe in material   
> > appearances as a way to make sense of the impersonal. I assume that   
> > sense is the capacity to experience and to meta-juxtapose   
> > experiences within each other.  Out of this you get sub-personal   
> > (materialist), super-personal (idealist), and impersonal   
> > (functionalist) projections through which we can think that we could   
> > explain the absence of personal irreducibility. 
> > 
> > If instead, we turn this inside out, and see personal level   
> > phenomenology as the primordial principle, then the other   
> > projections make perfect sense as organizational representations.   
> > The authentic presentation is local and proprietary, not disembodied   
> > and automatic. 
>
> Hmm... 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2aLCpLzOBbgJ.
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