Hi Craig Weinberg 

I'm not talking about subjectivity in everyday terms,
but rather in logical terms.

Cs = subject + object

Where's the subject ? 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-04, 08:28:48
Subject: Re: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect





On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 
?
In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a subject.
In 2) you left out the our.? Consciousness needs a subject.

Consciousness needs a subjective point of view but if you think of how we 
experience being deeply engrossed in a movie or book, or how we 'lose 
ourselves' in Flow states, it seems that the necessity of a subject in the 
human sense is an open question - although the existence of human subjectivity 
certainly suggests that such a subject is inherently possible through 
consciousness.

I remember having dreams in which I was not present, but rather just aware of 
events and people as they were interacting. Not even a voyeur, but no sense of 
there being anything other than the people and their activities. Maybe dream 
consciousness doesn't qualify as consciousness, but that's a separate semantic 
issue. It could also be the case that such dreams and self-transcendence are 
only possible as an a posteriori imagination which arises from a fully formed 
human self...hard to know.

Craig


?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-03, 11:06:47
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect




On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb 
?
I don't hold to Popper's criterion. 
There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.


?
Falsifiable means "can be falsified". here the gravity can be falsfied: "you 
drop the apple and gravity pulls it up".


Hi Bruno Marchal
?
IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough definition of 
consciousness,
you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as
a subject:
?
Cs = subject + object
?
If you don't include the subject, then:
?
?
Cs = object
?
?
which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole.


I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are none.
But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some 
principles about it.?
To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to agree 
with this:


1) that you are conscious (or that the humans ?re conscious)
2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made at 
*some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or even some 
physical universe.


All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1) and 
2).?


3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately ?oesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve.? A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.


I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for 
many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on propaganda. Today 
we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too much investment are money 
stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military industries, jail systems, and 
pharmaceutical industries are build on sands. It will crumbled down, and the 
sooner the better. But it will take time as the most of the middle class and 
banks are hostage (not always knowingly) of professional liars.


Hi Richard Ruquist
?
There is no god in comp.


Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by?
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp.
Of course if you define God by "white giant with a beard, and sitting on a 
cloud", then you are very plausibly right.
A little more on this in my reply to Richard.


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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to