On 12/26/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
John,

On 24 Dec 2012, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno and Brent:

we T H I N K we have an idea what 'qualia' may be and ACCEPT our figment on 'quanta' (i.e numbered 'objects' - figments as well). None of the two(?) are closer to the essence (read: 'truth') we just got better used (evolved?) to quantitative thinking and language concerning such because it seemed simpler to follow in primitive life.

But there are tools in math to handle qualities too, like modal logic.

Such tools cannot create qualia, nor perhaps explain them completely, but Earth Geography cannot create Earth, nor explain it completely, and is still useful.



Now, with Bruno's highly developed apparatus in arithmetics, quanta (numbers!) look like a 'reality' as compared to our still flimsy ideas about *_other _*qualia. Yet *_qualia_* they are (in a quantizing sense)
Language development went in parallel with a mental development.
This asymmetry may be the base for Bruno's:
/*"No qualia are communicable in the sense that quanta, or numbers, are 
communicable."*/
No OTHER qualia, that is - as Brent remarked.

We can know our own qualia, but it is not clear if we can communicate about them even to ourselves. We can experience them, or live them.

But if CTM is true (or even a good model) we can represent the qualia by quanta and so communicate them.

Brent

--
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