EcruZebra Well, consciousness, which necessarily contains some system of self-stabilizing and self-reinforcing internal feedback loops, can certainly engender chaos, which we find to be often unpredictable. However, the standard definitions of consciousness, while flattering, are much to narrow. And misleading. It is these definitions which precludes the existence of the likes of Gaia. Or God.
We have defined consciousness so that these types of entities cannot be conscious. These forms of consciousness, of experience, will not fit into the box of our standard definitions.
CornflowerCicada A brick is a brick. It does not matter what we think a brick is. A materials scientist, an architect, a bricklayer, a footpad, all have different ideas, different understandings of what a brick is. But a brick is what it is, Our definitions, our ideas, our understandings, can only be less than the reality.
And for many subjects, our definitions may not be faithful representations of the reality, and so may mislead. And a construct made of unfaithful definitions will itself be unfaithful, (I think, That may require proof. But it seem most likely.) This reminds me of a Zen parable. So the master of this (Zen, I suppose) temple was getting along, and thinking about spending more time in contemplation in the tea house out behind the temple, and so decided the temple would require a new master to replace him. So to figure out who might be the best replacement, he brought all the monks of the temple together. He explained he was retiring to spend more time in contemplation, or whatever, and their temple would need a new master. He then placed a pitcher of water on the ground before all of them, and announced that who ever best described the water in the pitcher, he would name as his successor. So one after the other the monks came forward, sat before the pitcher of water. They sat and spoke of all the qualities of water, all the meanings of water, they could think of. All the things that water meant to them. One after the other, until the temple cook, in disgust, and amusement, walked up to the pitcher and kicked the pitcher over. (Editorial liberties taken.) Anyway.
So the point here is that math is what it is. Our definitions of math cannot be the whole of math, and they can be, and most likely are, unfaithful representations and misleading.
Let me offer you a description of a different system of defining numbers:
"It is an undeniable fact that any given number is not just one more than the previous number and one less than the subsequent number, but is an independent individual idea, a thing in itself; a spiritual, moral and intellectual substance, not only as much as, but a great deal more than, any human being. Its merely mathematical relations are indeed the laws of its being, but they do not constitute the number, any more than the chemical and physical laws of reaction in the human anatomy give a complete picture of a man." The Book of Thoth, Aleister Crowley. (1944)
So Crowley and other people of similar inclination, before and after, sort of ended up trying to develop number theory from a phenomenological point of view, and with out actually knowing much number theory. And maybe too much religion. Anyway,
The Western Mystical Tradition is a (relatively recent) offshoot of Jewish Kabbalah, which goes at least hundreds and maybe thousands of years to the original formulations of Jewish Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism, where these associations between numbers and phenomena were first (attempted to be) worked out.
While it is important to be consistent in one's definitions, it is also important not to try to fit realities into the boxes of your definitions, For an instance of practical application, the definition of 'money' as used by economists is a bad one, It is unfaithful to the reality of money,* and will contribute to the collapse of Techo-civilization.
*And so money is also an unfaithful representation of economic activity and value, (vs market value,) In consequence, economic activity increasingly turns away from useful production and activity as inequality increases. The demand for luxury by the few out weighs the demand for necessity by the many, and by the productive economy itself.
More properly, money is not an asset. It is demand on assets. So, for example if you have $100 dollars, that is not really an asset. Yes, you can take your money to the grocery store and buy $100 worth of food, real assets you can store in your refrigerator.
But you cannot eat the money. While on a _micro_economic scale money can act like an asset, on the _macro_economic scale, one can see that the quantity of money does not add anything to the value of an economy. Money is not food, it is not fuel. It is not a factory. Or a store or a house. It is demand on the real things an economy produces. OK. So.
Don't throw out the baby with the bullshit.
