Well, if you are already there you won't need my paper. Basically it's just work on my Quantum Koan!


On Sep 20, 2008, at 4:24 PM, cid830 wrote:

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.



--- In, 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-
> in nature other than human consciousness? None come to mind off
> In the matter of human consciousness, one must be careful. I
> think we can really suggest that consciousness can be conscious
> itself in a meaningful way. Otherwise we'd be faced with an
> 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
> of a symbolic representation within our consciousness, one of
> contents of consciousness, rather than of consciousness itself.
> Consciousness is direct experience, it doesn't make logical sense
> speak about directly experiencing direct experience. The initial
> direct experience simply is the direct experience. In other words
> must distinguish between the contents of consciousness and
> consciousness itself. See my paper at
> HardProblem.pdf for more on the distinction and its relevance here.
> So I don't see any true Godelian self-referentiality in nature
> you can suggest something I'm overlooking.
> Edgar

Reply via email to