On 01 Oct 2013, at 16:36, Roger Clough wrote:

A Platonic, singularity theory of mind.

Current philosophies of mind debate whether mind and body are a dualism
(mind and body) or a monism (mindbody).

There are three kinds of monism:

- matter only (and mind is a sort of illusion)
- mind only (and matter is a sort of illusion)
- neutral monism (mind *and* matter is a sort of illusion, what is real is <something else>.

If we can survive with digital brain in physical universe(s), then neutral monism is very plausible, and the <something else> is arithmetic (or anything else at least Turing universal).

But these do not address the
nature of mind itself. As the pragmatics of language demonstrate,
Mind (first person singular) must be a singularity if we are to have a singular identity, perceiving the world from a singular point of view, and acting as a single person. It seems unlikely that such a singularity could be formed from a pluralistic brain, or pluralistic world, any more than a king could be formed from his populace.

I can agree and disagree. There are ambiguities, but basically: OK.

In addition, the mind is subjective (mental, nonphysical) ,

Mind is mental and nonphysical, OK. Like the intended meaning of the terms in theoretical computer science (pace Landauer, ..) and arithmetic (except for unreasonable stretching of the word "physical").

But mind has first person aspect that have third person-irreductible feature.

while the brain
and the rest of the world are objective (physical).

Well, here comp makes eventually the physical still subjective, mental, even first person, but it seems to be a first person *plural* reality (which invites us to consider the shocking multiplication of realities/histories, and the others (non-solipsism)).

Following along these lines, then, consciousness must be a Platonic
singularity. But since we all have minds, there must be multiple
singularities within this singularity, whch Leibniz calls monads.


And we come back to the idea that his monads are the universal numbers, like I already told you at the time you were conversing.

But God is none of them. God is what makes those universal numbers differentiating a consciousness flux, and here the arithmetical truth is enough (assuming the brain is digitally substitutable).

Note that after Gödel & Al. arithmetical truth appears to be a non axiomatisable realm. It Is every big, and especially "seen" from inside.

Note that I am not saying that God = Arithmetical Truth.

I am saying that IF we are correct (hopefully) machines (in the comp sense), THEN we have no way to distinguish God from Arithmetical Truth.



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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to