getting past emergentism

The incredible Sulk Pouting at Sulk.nospam
Wed Apr 11 05:30:49 EST 2001

RoyBoy wrote:
> ***
> If you like, consciousness must be - in order to create the set -
> outside of the set of all conscious phenomena. To then explain  it in
> terms of things within that set seems to me to be skating on very thin
> ice indeed.
> ***
> Teacher: Now class, what is that called?
> RoyBoy: ~ohohohohoh~
> Teacher: Yes RoyBoy?
> RoyBoy: Is it called "Russell's Paradox"?

Is it? Thanks. I'll look it up.

> Teacher: No.
> RoyBoy: Damnit!
> Teacher: Russell's Paradox demonstrated that Frege's axioms of
> set theory can be used to define a predicate'--- is not a member of
> itself' and defined the set of objects which are not members of
> themselves, and he then asked whether the predicate is true or
> false of that very set.  It's easy to see that if it is then it isn't,
> and if it isn't then it is, which is paradoxical.

Indeed. Which sets the same limits as Godel identifioed in a different
way, on logical interpretations of the world.

Science starts with this observer, observing the world, who is outside
of the world.

Then we examine consciousness, and stick the observer both in the world
and outside of it.

The model collapses.

> RoyBoy: I need to go to the washroom.
> Teacher: No.
> RoyBoy: Damnit!

Great Sayings of the past:

"He who sh*ts in the road will meet flies on his return" (Mr Natural)

"De Heffalumpis semper disputandum est" (Winne Ille Pu)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list