### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

nothing has changed about the human condition and nothing will ever change! indeed not in our generation or our great grandchildren's generation, behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_of_Pessimism there is nothing new under the sun! Bruno's false optimism is exposed! Bruno is refuted.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words? I don't have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for them to exist. I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or whole solar system to which you confidently refer? I assert they don't exist,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:05 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words? I don't have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for them to exist. I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or whole

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

What do you believe in then? I thought it was the phenomenal world, but the above sounds like immaterialism or solipsism. I am neither a immaterialist nor a solipsist... don't try to conveniently label me. I wouldn't call myself a phenomenalist per se. but if anything I highly value the

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

so you see you are deluding yourself if you think you are apprehending anything you could call a whole earth there is no such thing you are apprehending nothing but your prejudicial delusion. You may say it exists in principal but I would go on to ask you how you know that and how you

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

lol, I'm sure everyone has heard this too many times but it is one of those things that most people seem to humbly agree about... and it still sounds funny and interesting any thoughts?: something unknown is doing something unknown (sir arthur edington)_ On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, B

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

John M on second examination not bad. I need to look over it again though and see if I can reply. On Jul 7, 8:29 am, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Friends: Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc. * God? Truth? Reality? even:

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Actually John, the more I read it the more I feel for it but some seeming issues: there is an info-transfer into 'us' from the limitless complexity you say information-transfer, or we can rephrase it as information processing or information reception etc. But I think information is a

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Is metaphysics merely a notion that is the reversal or antithesis of the world as we know it? Instead of change: changelesness. Instead of diversity or multiplicity: unity. Instead of instability: stability Instead of of birth and death: immortality. Instead of complexity: simplicity.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

in fact, religion/spirituality/mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:42 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there is an ultimate reality that is the

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

religion or metaphysics is the idealistic tradition that asserts that there is an ultimate reality that is the reverse opposite of our present reality. Wishful thinking? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

lol, you got me there. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/7/2011 10:43 PM, B Soroud wrote: in fact, religion/spirituality/**mysticism/metaphysics may be nothing more then the exact opposite of the truth. Well then all we have to do is take it's

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Is it possible that Bruno is a mutant that is somehow a fusion of hyper-rationality and insanity? Is Bruno a mad-scientist? hehe. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you got me there. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's consequence are not that original. Bruno On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:36, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 7/5/2011 9:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com mailto:bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by definition), But we don't know the whole of that which exists and we shouldn't conceive of the whole of that which exists as external to us our outside of us, as out their somewhere we are confused and included in the

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole.. Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes this whole? what is the enduring aspect or defining characteristic of this whole? perhaps this whole is our vague and confused invention or a mere speculative

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Plus lets think through this notion of the Whole.. Is there any such whole? how would you define this whole? What constitutes this whole? what is

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

but its hard to abandon this group because this is the only group of super high-quality thinkers I've actually come across on the net. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:43 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: I wish we would all honestly and humbly admit that WE KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING. On Wed, Jul 6,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean any of it is true. It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith. One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean any of it is true. It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one considers the whole of reality to be God or not.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Jason, you have this supposed conception of the whole of reality, when you utter such words... what appears in your mind? I would assert: next to nothing. Can you give us your system that explicates your notion of the whole of reality I want to get at your picture of the whole of

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:17, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable. 1) God is dead That's Nietsche. It is just propaganda. 2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics No. God = truth

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:50, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Bruno says: But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:53, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying, accounting for, and navigating space-time. I assume that Goldbach conjecture is true or false

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 05 Jul 2011, at 00:56, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would recommend him on this free will/determinism issue. That is a good point. I did forget Spinoza saw it. Bruno

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:30, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. Consciousness. Not self-consciousness. the self is already a doubtable construct. You cannot doubt consciousness,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:41, B Soroud wrote: in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... I distinguish the first person I from the third person I. The first is not doubtable (without feeling lying to myself). the second is. Chidren can get

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:53, B Soroud wrote: you see Bruno, your problem is your immaterialism.. there is something unnatural about your rejection of naturalism if one claimed that one was simply the body The material constitution of the body is changed every seven years, by eating and

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 05 Jul 2011, at 05:49, B Soroud wrote: REx: Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume… using it…. It

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? I assume Robinson arithmetic, like all scientists. Nothing less, and surpringly

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jul 2011, at 23:17, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

What do you mean by God? By God I mean anything that is expedient for me to mean by it. That does not work. yes, with comp, suicide does no more guaranty you escape reality. The atheist conception of death appears as ... wishful thinking. So you mean I'm stuck in Brunoland forever? You should

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Chidren can get this by themselves at the age of seven. Bruno, are you or have you ever been a member of the Theosophist party! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 03:41, B Soroud wrote: in other words... I can legitimately claim that

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Buddhist were aware of that trap, and insisted that you have to kill all the buddhas. I don't believe in Guru. They are always bandits stealen your money in some way. Buddhists are the ultimate sophists. Buddhists are so sophisticated and refined and esoteric in their argument by authority

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

If you believe that a statement like Ex(x=x) depends on human thought, show us the dependence. We must be confused, or I must be confused because you are way to clever to not get what seems so simple and straightforward to me so there must be some kind of confusion because I would

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Bruno, can I understand you as saying that the world as we experience it, isn't primary, but that there is some non-experimental truth that is conceptually reflected in our experience and accounts for the primary reality of the world? You want to reject the primacy of corporeal and sensorial

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

How can we have a truth about a reality we can't relate to and how can there be a reality that is higher or more fundamental then us but not more conscious and intelligent and powerful then us? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, can I understand you as

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

We are god, and outside the normal physical world of interacting relations... there is no truth or being. All metaphysics is fiction Human-created for there is no other being! We are the highest! We are making everything up! On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:48 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

He does. Many here have been talking to him about it for years. You need to understand the distinction he is making between materialism and mechanism. When this happens in your head, your experience of trying to understand the rest of him will go better for you. Kim Jones On 06/07/2011, at

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. Bruno is saying a part of what we know cannot be proven which is basically a faith-type statement, but not allied to any dogma. If he is right then there is no metaphysics, only the

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

By the way, when Bruno writes experimental (as in non-experimental truth) he really means EXPERIENTIAL and should write non-experiential truth. In French an experiment (a scientific investigation) is une experience - but the same word applies to cover the 1st person point of view Kim Jones

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

I got to get myself of this damn board... its driving me crazy Bruno lives in his head and mistakes his thoughts for reality. You will never find a reality apart from the so called phenomenal world which you can either directly experience and study and appreciate and enjoy or you can

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. Truth/Reality? nice one! What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is indisputable (by

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Honestly... I have never read your work... it is over my head and I reject it in principle... because it goes 100% counter to my intuition and good sense (in so far as I understand it from the things you seem to say) Frankly

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Now that's truly silly. If we are God then we would know everything and know everything we certainly do not. But would God not know what it is like to be you? To know that would require forgetting, at least temporarily,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities it started with a response to this guys ridiculous assertions: The very definition of consciousness: having awareness of ones own thoughts and

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Jun 4

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Mathematical closure

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

4, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Very interesting reasoning! Thank you. From: Jason Resch Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

I'm inclined to agree, although I would not necessarily say that numbers are self aware so much as they are patterns through which we articulate our own awareness (which may or may not correspond to elemental awareness). Think of them as sensorimotive prisms and lenses which have been purified to

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the possibility that they all arise simultaneously

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little critique: 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. 2. Description is subordinate to observation. 3. Observation is subordinate to experience. 4. And now we want to close the circle by explaining experience. you

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex: Your life is “on rails”. Maybe your final destination is good, maybe it’s bad. is not our life essentially on rails i think we should utterly abolish the notion of any teleology, destination, or end. there is no end abolish the notion of end in endlessness or in annihilation,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 04 Jul 2011, at 20:09, meekerdb wrote: On 7/4/2011 1:40 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: 1) More is answered by: A: Math - Matter - Minds (or as Bruno suggests Math - Minds - Matter) than by B: Matter - Minds - Math, or C: Minds - (Matter, Math). You forgot to mention the

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here. I thought we did away with these classical metaphysical speculations. Did you not read Kant? You may be able to prove

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... On Jun 6, 10:16 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: How can any of those questions

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Your brain contains information received by the senses, it is a system which can enter many different states based on that information It is so amazing to me how blind people are who actually believe this clearly ridiculous notion. information as used by geneticists and brain-scientists is a

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

comp immaterialism: I am dreaming that all numbers are dreaming and I don't know it. On Jun 7, 7:32 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 04:00, Jason Resch wrote: I guess you mean some sort of

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

. It was such a relief to wake up. Stanislaw J. Lec On Jun 7, 8:01 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Dear Bruno, From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:00 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation Hi Stephen, On 06

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

of the implications of this on our metaphysical assumptions about the ontologies that we are using in our thinking about the issue of mathematical closure of computation and consciousness. As I see it, and this very well could be just an eccentric thought, is that we need to be very careful that we do

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Brunoism, forces one to conclude that all propositions are infinitely recursive, self-negating, and un-negatable. 1) God is dead 2) God is reborn - as theoretical physics Brunoism: old wine in new bottles. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Jason, you say there is still a great deal of activity within an anestetized mind, yet consciousness is abolished. when you say consciousness is abolished... we know what you mean, yet we do not really know what is meant by consciousness is abolished meaning, we don't know what underlies that

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

language is the most bewitching and misleading devil in existence... it produces the illusion of knowledge. there is a distinction between understanding and knowledge. On Jun 7, 8:05 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Pete Hughes pet...@gmail.com wrote:

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Bruno says: But immaterialism is not a believe in an immaterial realm, it is before all a skepticism with respect to the physical realm, or to the primacy of the physical realm. It is the idea that there is something behind our observations. can this supposed something behind our observations be

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

it sounds like Bruno is ontologizing mathematics rather then seeing it as merely a way of knowing or a tool for organizing, classifying, accounting for, and navigating space-time. On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Jun 2011, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

it emerges from self-observation by relative universal numbers. how could you ever prove that there are any numbers independent of human thought? are there any numbers independent of language, sound, imagination, thought, and figures? On Jun 7, 9:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.comwrote: Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing must be self-existent for there to be anything at all It looks like we have not assimilated the history of philosophy here. I thought we did away with these

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

I never claimed to know the identity of it. so then what are you talking about? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Jason: I can easily prove to you at least one thing

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex have you studied Spinoza's notion that freedom is the recognition of necessity? If you haven't read Spinoza I would recommend him on this free will/determinism issue. On Jun 9, 8:00 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how computation occurs due

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Yes, Bruno... i think you have made a grave grave error in assuming self-consciousness as an intuitive indisputable. something is, that is for sure. but in regards to what is we cannot speak there is some being, but I want to call this being into question. what asserts or negates its

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

in other words... I can legitimately claim that something is, but I cannot claim that I am... being = 1/0 and 1/0 = -1/-0 in other words when we assert self-existence we effectively assert something and nothing simultaneously. so why make such a empty assertion. If it was true you

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

you see Bruno, your problem is your immaterialism.. there is something unnatural about your rejection of naturalism if one claimed that one was simply the body rather then something apart from the body... that would make perfect sense... it is only when you try to pull a Descartes when

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless absurdities Ha! Well, we all have our off days... We can say that

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little critique: 1. Explanation is subordinate to description. 2. Description is subordinate to observation. 3. Observation is subordinate to

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous bsor...@gmail.com wrote: Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group... w00t w00t! Take that, you other people in this group!!! Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

REx: Information is just that which consciousness finds meaningful. what I want to know is when did this term enter our lexicon... the Greeks didn't use it, nor the Romans…. I don’t recall either Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume… using it…. It must have started with either Kant or Hegel… Hegel

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

Rex: I believe that conscious experience exists, fundamentally and uncaused. You believe monadic current of conscious experience is eternal? Then why is your awareness or memory of it so fragile and finite? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

correction... we use to use many words in the absence of consciousness many words, duads, and triads... consciousness comes from the triad consciousness/unconsciousness/self-consciousness. And Rex why do you say conscious experience isn't that redundant? On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:18 PM,

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

When we talk about consciousness we have to be specific about what mode of consciousness we are referring to there is no consciousness in and of itself that we are aware of so do we mean self-consciousness, other-consciousness, dream-consciousness, form- consciousness or phenomenological

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any determination as such. and is not the negation of such an

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 6/30/2011 11:36 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... an essentially anthropomorphic third-person perception without any objective independent existence, or any

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/30/2011 11:36 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 01 Jul 2011, at 08:36, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: is not any meta-phenomenological 'object', including the 'self', necessarily the construct of a third-person point of view... There is the 3-self. That is what you bet being your body, or what you need to remain alive/conscious.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... but more importantly I want to say: so you believe that these universal numbers have an existence in and of

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

basically you guys don't know what your talking about, especially Bruno with his dream-seed theology but the main purpose this group and these thinkers serve, is to awaken us from our dogmatic slumber the thinking of this group is exceptionally skilled at that it is a perpetual

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:13, B Soroud wrote: man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science. Why man? Are you sure it is not the americans? Or perhaps the mammals, or why not the universal numbers.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according to us is an anthropomorphization... we, and by extension, most everything, by virtue of us, is an anthropomorphization... But then it is even more deeply a mammalization, and even more

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 01 Jul 2011, at 10:06, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: basically you guys don't know what your talking about, especially Bruno with his dream-seed theology You might try to be more specific. Have you read the UD Argument? If you believe there is flaw, you might try to present it.

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

A theory exists when enough people share some amount of intuition. That is a pretty interesting insight to dwell on. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jul 2011, at 09:32, B Soroud wrote: indeed it is... I am saying that most everythign according

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read Plotinus.. wasn't he a transcendentalist and ecstatic he wanted to think or will his way into some transcendent eternity or something. On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:00 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote: A theory

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 01 Jul 2011, at 12:02, B Soroud wrote: I'm just critiquing this notion of Platonic Theology have you read Plotinus.. Yes. I have even study again classical greek to study it, helping myself with four translation. I love it. It is a true scientist. I don't pretend to

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 7/1/2011 12:13 AM, B Soroud wrote: man sustains the model and is the basis of it, it has no graspable existence independently of him, we dictate the terms... man is science. So why aren't we all young, handsome, and healthy? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I realize I have been clear on this in some FOR list post, perhaps not here. I don't think I have varied on this. To be conscious, you need only to be universal. I have heard of universality being argued to be necessary (to

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 11 Jun 2011, at 10:10, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:45:56AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: I realize I have been clear on this in some FOR list post, perhaps not here. I don't think I have varied on this. To be conscious, you need only to be universal. I have heard of

### Re: Mathematical closure of consciousness and computation

On 10 Jun 2011, at 07:23, Rex Allen wrote: On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2011 3:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote: As I always say, free will is the ability to do something stupid. And from an evolutionary point of view, that is actually a useful