On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have no problem with (what I understand of) Bruno's schema, except that like all computational or information-theoretic schemas, it places logical objects before sensory subjects and fails to identify the aesthetic monism beneath the two. I see that functionalism cannot work because consciousness cannot have a function. Instead, the universe develops function to extend the aesthetic depths of its contents - the kinds of sense and the degrees of sense making within them.
If you put sense at the base, and still have no function for consciousness, then your theory dismiss the only reason why I can prefer sense at the base.
Then, yes, for the ontology I want something understandable in the 3p way, like numbers or programs. That is why I appreciate comp, it makes that possible. Then we can test the consequences.
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 [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.
