On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, > existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and > thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence > > > Emergence from what? How? Why? > > How could “I am” be an object? It is a proposition about some possible > object “I”, how do you define “I”? > > Emergence from looking-back-at-itself. With each looking-back-at-itself self-reference enriches itself. How and why I don't know. "I am" is an object because that's what happens when the unformalizable self-reference looks-back-at-itself: it finds itself, and finding of itself is necessarily an object. So since on the first looking-back-at-itself there is nothing else there except itself, it will find itself as an object. So the "I" is the first object with which self-reference identifies itself, and automatically that object will have as quality the quality of ontological subjectivity.
> > > where you have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the > first object is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, > > > But why would you see red in the first place? > > I don't know. Probably some evolutionary reasons. > > > the logical structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist > as red". (of course, is more complicated, since it includes all the > previous levels, so it is actually something like: "I am vividness, > diversity, memory, time, black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.”) > > > This assumes so many things, that it is a bit unclear to me. > > Red doesn't just appear as an object in self-reference. There are certain conditions for the quality of red to be possible to be experienced, such as a pre-existing ability of experiencing visual qualia. So self-reference can only gradually arrive at the experience of red. So when it finally arrives at red, it will already have certain objects in itself with which it already identifies with. So experiencing red is actually a quite complex state of self-reference. As I said, 99,9% of theoretical computer science is based on the notion of > self-reference, and incompleteness imposes all the nuances already found by > Plato, so we get a very standard classical theory of mind, which explains > most aspect of consciousness and the “illusion” of the physical reality, > and why the illusion does last and why it is first person sharable (making > the physical reality looking real from inside) > What is the "self" in your "self-reference" ? -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
