Edgar,
      I didn't know there was a problem.  Godel Who?  I googled this 
self-reference stuff, as well as getting 5pages into your hard 
problem paper (last time I tried I only made it to page 2!). This is 
too much information for me to process.  I guess my ignorance is my 
Bliss.  You are way over my head with this analasys, but you have my 
admiration in attempting to define the in-explicable.  For me, all 
this gobbledegook is a hinderance in my existence in the present, 
but it sure sounds smart! I do think what I read of your paper was 
interesting, though, and apologize for commenting on it without 
reading it in its entirety. I'm sure some of these other smart 
people here will be in a better position to comment on this.

Thanks,

Chris

--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> All,
> 
> I think that the problem here is that the self-reference found in  
> nature is not really the same type as Godel requires to make his  
> proof work. Perhaps you can give me some examples of self-
reference  
> in nature other than human consciousness? None come to mind off 
hand.
> 
> In the matter of human consciousness, one must be careful. I 
don't  
> think we can really suggest that consciousness can be conscious 
of  
> itself in a meaningful way. Otherwise we'd be faced with an 
infinite  
> regress. What I think we really mean in this case is that we are  
> conscious of the thought that we are conscious, i.e. we are 
conscious  
> of a symbolic representation within our consciousness, one of 
many  
> contents of consciousness, rather than of consciousness itself.  
> Consciousness is direct experience, it doesn't make logical sense 
to  
> speak about directly experiencing direct experience. The initial  
> direct experience simply is the direct experience. In other words 
we  
> must distinguish between the contents of consciousness and  
> consciousness itself. See my paper at http://EdgarLOwen.com/ 
> HardProblem.pdf for more on the distinction and its relevance here.
> 
> So I don't see any true Godelian self-referentiality in nature 
unless  
> you can suggest something I'm overlooking.
> 
> Edgar
>



------------------------------------

Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to