On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to measure each one into a proper participant):

"...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without using 2+2=4...."
Bruno "

Explain, why 2+2=4 - without (human?) quantizing - even without using dots or marks and 'counting' them. Numbers? a joke.
 "Because you said so?"  How did it arise?

I assume them. It is part of the card I put on the table. Feel free to develop another theory.

How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.

What is 'counting'? assigning SOMEHOW a 'heap' to a sign you invented?

Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk about them. Numbers status is independent of the signs used to refer to them, a bit like galaxies in the physical universe are usually supposed to be independent of human telescope.

How 'bout another logic, another vision? (Zarathustran?)

How could I understand what you mean by "another logic" or "another vision" without using the intuition of numbers?
This just make no sense for me.
Also numbers have nothing to do with logic. Again, logic is a mental tool, and formal logics presuppose our understanding of numbers. Then computationalism derived eight important different logics that the numbers already develop by themselves to understand themselves, so here you have your another logics. Numbers agree with you, somehow. But you have to recognize them to be able to listen to them, and indeed go farer than the human views.

Go back and back and back in your presumptions/assumptions into more- and-more generalizations and you will find the human image you substitute for Nature (call it reality, existence, The World, - or Whatever (Everything).

I do not assume Nature.
The distinction between nature and human is a human artifice.
More generally, the distinction between nature and numbers is a number artifice. It is an illusion, in the comp theory, even if it is an important lawful one, from the numbers and/or from the human points of view.

The "model" we have about our up-to-date inventory of knowables in this - what?

I don't understand this sentence.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to