On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
> > That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in the 
> > mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind 
> > of underlying conputation) 

Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why 3D 
geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic arithmetic takes 
some work).

Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum of 

Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things:

1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which accompany 
a motive of quantitative reasoning.

2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without any 
private representations, as a consequence of the physics of multiple rigid 

The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when we look 
at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in here (1), and 
when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it to the blind 
enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical objects.

The only difference between the colors and feelings of private experience 
and the structures and functions which we study in science is that the 
colors are experienced first hand and are therefore described with the full 
complement of human sense (misleading and conflicting though it may be). We 
assume that the world outside of our minds runs on math not because it 
actually does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, 
indirect logical construction. 

> > 
> > Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of 
> > the colored reality is a product of the mind. 

Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every measurement 
ever made though. It's all an induction of our experience (plus the 
experiences of all of the objects and substances, times and conditions 

> > 
> > The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding qualia 
> > of the mind that make them intuitive and "real". They are efective and 
> > predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our 
> reality. 
> > 
> Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It 
isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent perception and 
efferent participation as a fundamental base before quantum to make any 
kind of realism with it.


>      I agree! 
> -- 
> Onward! 
> Stephen 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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