On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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.
In itself, that looks like a confusion of the map with the
territory. Fortunately, however, you have a lot more to say on the
subject...
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.
False. We know now that arithmetic is full of mathematicians. That is
the essence of Gödel discovery (not just in the light of
computationalism). This is brought from Gödel understanding that
arithmetic already do meta-arithmetic. More on this later, probably.
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.
That's a good point.
Yes. That is the mind-body problem (that some physicalist call "hard
problem of consciousness", but I prefer the more neutral standard
expression in philosophy of mind).
Bruno
At a slight tangent, it seems possible that the universe has some of
these concepts built in (in some sense). This isn't an objection to
what you're saying, but maybe it should be borne in mind, in case
these are somehow indicative of what can be considered primitive...
Equivalence - all electrons (say) appear to be identical.
Counting - a BEC (for example) does a sort of simple arithmetic, in
that the universe keeps track of the number of objects involved even
when they aren't even in theory distinguishable.
Symmetry - as I'm sure you know there all lots of examples of this
in physics. All the conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc) can be
expressed in terms of symmetries.
--
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.
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 [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.
