Re: Matter, Information, and Mind

"Ed van der Meulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Ray Gardener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I'm not trying to eliminate matter or physical processes at
> > > all.
> >
> > I realize that; it just seemed good to address the issue since it had
> become
> > apparent. I didn't mean to suggest that that's what you were suggesting.
> >
> >
> > > Consider for a moment all
> > > abstract concepts - for example the number three. Relative
> > > to an aprehension of the number three - where is the thing
> > > that you would label "matter" ?
> >
> > I think there are realized instances of abstractions, which is what
exist
> in
> > reality. When two persons contain such instances, they can then
> meaningfully
> > agree on their similarity and leverage their shared contemplation of a
> > concept such as "three" or "threeism".
> >
> > This is why repeatability matters so much in science, because the
ability
> to
> > agree on abstractions is what makes them appear to be real in and of
> > themselves.
> >
> > What Omega said earlier is also well taken.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Yes, the social act communicating makes it functional. But we can
> communicate with ourselves as well for a certain time. Even if it's less
> conscious. But all we will agree on different abstractnesses of
> consciousness. A reflex shows also consciousness, ne?
>
> You are right Ray that reformulating, rephrasing things is vital for
> agreeing. Much is only a language problem. Many problems have started as
> just a isunderstanding. Look at all the fights between scientists. Only
> language problems. But also other notions, of time for instance. A cell
> biologist can't look long. All trembles and shifts.
> But at a high level the neurologist asks. Why didn't you look longer. You
> missed now a vital occasion. You charlatan. And the fight starts.
>
> Oh, did you mean that, why didn't you say that?
>
> Ed
>
And always mathematicians will come, and tell us, we are wrong.

Ed