On 01 Dec 2010, at 18:48, Pzomby wrote:
What if we discover 'curiositon' :)
If a ‘curiousaton’ and a beliefiton are ever discovered a biological
TOEton may not be far behind. : )
A particle of everything!
I'm afraid that for breaking it you will need an accelerator
necessarily bigger than everything, making its existence ... forever
undecided.
That is the reason to make distinct the duality abstract/concrete
from
immaterial/material.
My mind is concrete, moments are concrete, numbers can be considered
as concrete, more generally the object of the structure are concrete,
as opposed to their possible relations.
My (human) consciousness is concrete, (even if it is immaterial and
different from my brain).
Human conciousness in general is an abstract notion.
Notions are abstract, dispositions are abstract, and concreteness
will
depends on theories, current paradigm, ontological choice or reality,
etc.
Brunohttp://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -
Your response raises a few more questions but I will state only a
couple.
I believe I follow your comments but am having trouble with the
description of human consciousness (in general) as a ‘notion’.
The
word means vague or unclear and an antonym of ‘notion’ could only be
described as a precise description or understanding of human
consciousness (even a concrete reality).
As this is more a discussion of semantics. What would be the antonym
of notion?
Abstract / Concrete, Immaterial / Material, Infinite / Finite,
Notion / ______
Notion/thing (notion is very near universal-abstract; things are
usually more concrete, I would say).
Depending on your conception of "consciousness", the "notion of
consciousness" might be as absurd as the "notion of milk". Usually
"notion" is use for abstract objects. Like in the notion of Hilbert
space, or the notion of set, the notion of prime number.
But not: the notion of 17.
Without mechanism, you will never say: the notion of Leonard de Vinci.
But if you can build many "Leonard de Vinci" exemplars, you could
develop a notion of "Leonard de Vinci", especially if the exemplars
are slightly different.
With digital mechanism, we are arguably more of the type of type than
of the type of token. From inside we cannot feel this, like in Everett
QM, the observer cannot feel the split.
Could human consciousness (in general) be correctly described as
being: abstract, immaterial, infinite and a notion?
Consciousness in general (or the notion of consciousness) might be
qualified in some context as abstract. But my consciousness here and
now is the most concrete thing I can ever conceive. Immaterial? I
agree, and that is what makes Digital Mechanism (DM, or comp) very
appalling. Infinite? I can think so about "cosmic consciousness", but
that is an altered state of consciousness. Here on earth the
experience is finite. Consciousness is related to meaning, and
Tarski's theory of truth (and meaning, to simplify a bit) usually
connect finite things (representations) to infinite things (the domain
of the interpretation of those representations). I agree that
consciousness lives near the infinite somehow, but any details on this
will refer to the DM theory. The first person notions are related to
infinitely many computations and number's relations, but the observers
cannot feel that. They can only guess it from indirect reflexions.
Other than
“notion’, there would be no ‘more or less’ of any of the above, as in
alive or dead, on or off, up or down. They are or they are not.
I use "notion" for "a type of (often learnable) thing". Perhaps that
term should be avoided if ambiguous. I dunno.
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
