On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from >>> the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something >>> can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. >>> >>> Could you explain? (I don't understand what's being said in any of the > three sentences above, so would appreciate a "blow by blow" explanation if > that's OK). > > By saying that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness, I mean that all mathematical expressions are intentional communication of a conscious appreciation of symbolic relations. If we start with disembodied mathematical concepts as realities in their own right, then we are automatically smuggling in all kinds of assumptions about what the universe comes with out of the box. Integers, operators, and equivalence are the end result of a kind of manufacturing process which includes a lot of ontological raw materials; sequence, representation, symmetry, universality, ideal objects, participation in manipulating formulas...lots of things which have no plausible origin within mathematics. They are all figures of experience which are valid because of aesthetic familiarity - because of the sense that cognitive awareness furnishes us with. If math can do all of that by itself, then an additional type of 'consciousness' would be redundant.
-- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
