On 30 Nov 2013, at 13:32, Roger Clough wrote:

Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to the cult of materialism.

Neither Bertrand Russell, nor Wittgenstein, understood Gödel's incompleteness theorem.



Three related definitions of consciousness not possible in materialism or analytic philosophy:

Analytic philosophy develops tools, but don't use them. It is a priori neutral. You shouldn't put it in the same box of materialism.



1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular.

OK.



2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness.

OK. Coming from both Bp -> BBp and []p -> [][]p, with []p = Bp & p, and Bp = provable('p'). But this is reflexive high order consciousness, not the raw consciousness probably shared by all anaimals.



3. Consciousness is the acquisition of knowledge by acquaintance.

Those are related, but not equivalent.




Ironically, the third definition is similar to one of the two forms
of knowledge originally proposed by Bertrand Russell, one
of the founders of analytic philosophy, which he called
"knowledge by acquaintance" the other being
"knowledge by description". Knowledge by description
is that you know from common knowledge that Obama is
president of the United States, while knowledge by
acquaintance means that you have met Obama,
presumably in the White House.

Analytic philosophy deals only with knowledge by description,
omitting knowledge by acquaintance, despite Russell's
awareness of this type knowledge, so that Russell's
omission of knowledge by acquaintance in the philosophy
of materialism-- a necessity-- was a deliberate omission
from analytic philosophy, no doubt due to Russell's
conversion to the semi-religious cult of materialism.

This seems to have occurred during the young Russell's writing of
"The Philosophy of Leibniz", which expertly treats Leibniz's logic,
but begins to pull back as he approaches Leibniz's Platonism.
which Russell does not seem to have understood very much,
much less accepted.

OK. But I recall you that computationalism go far beyond Leibniz. As far as the neoplatonists (that you seem unaware of).



Russell then publicly promoted materialism and analytic philosophy,
together with the third member of their dark trinity, atheism.

That's correct. I mean I can relate this with his book "why I am not a christian", if I remember well.



The rest is history, as they say, in which this trinity became
de rigeour in the halls of "official" western academe.

It is the "official" doctrine since the moderate intellectual christians lost the battle with the dogmatics of the Imperial Roman Church, who were interested only in power.




Meanwhile because of this dark trinity, western philosophy has
struggled but failed to explain consciousness.

They put it under the rug, and avoid even to address the question, except for a very shy more open-mindness arising since the development of AI, and the (slow) understanding that the Aristotelian Matter makes not much sense with the physical facts, thanks to the quantum weirdness.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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