On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <javascript:> > > 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. >
>From what I have read, I suspect that Gödel would disagree. I do not think that incompleteness implicates consciousness within arithmetic, and in fact suggests the opposite - that arithmetic is not complete enough to contain consciousness. To say that arithmetic is full of mathematicians sounds unfalsifiable and arbitrary to me. At the very least it is a discovery which is yours and not a popular understanding within mathematics. How would you tell the difference between arithmetic being full of mathematicians and arithmetic being full of impersonal reflections of the mathematician? > > > 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). > If we are talking about math though, then we don't need the body. It is more like the mind-math problem. If you have the math, why do you need an aesthetic mind? Craig > > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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.
