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
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
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
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.