Doron has made his conceptions regarding Consciousness critical to his "proof" in this thread. So I'm going to point out where the disconnect begins.
Doron says:
In this case we have no choice but to use an analogy, but we must not mix between simplicity itself (which is naturally undefined) and some analogy of it (which is limited like any other definition).
Precisely. Of the inneffable, we can only make analogies. The analogies can serve as expression for communication, but they always remain merely the map, not the territory.
Doron attempts to express the relationship between Thought and No-Thought (No-Thought being the state of consciouness in which there is just awareness without thoughts and boundaries) in a mathematical notation where the ineffable ground is given logic values and treated as a predicate.
The map gets quickly confused for the territory. The concrete experience of consciousness is mistaken for an intellectual concept and mathematical abstraction. It becomes a single tier of predicated values in hir logic.
At just the point Awareness is made a "new magnitude," the fallacy begins.
Then s/he runs with it and attaches other unstated concepts in undocumented leaps to dubious conclusions.
When those assuptions are questiond, she attraches them to "consciousness," and claims they would be apriori if we were self-aware.
If we were to take Doron's logic to computer science, programming that tier of logic value s/he uses to represent consciouness, we'd not get a self-conscious AI entity. At best we'd have some fuzzy systems. But we already have mathematics of a non-excluded middle. Obviously consciousness is something other than this mere stick drawing.
By analogy you can call Consciouness a "common ground" to human mental activity. But I'd like to submit that "groundlessness" is probably a more apt analogy.
In catagorizing consciousness as an intellectual concept, something gets lost in the translation. Just like the map can't fully express the territory.
In the Doron's system this shows up as a denial of a robust mathematical infinity.
Of course, thoughts can't be complete, but thoughts don't have the last word, unless you are confusing concepts for reality.
I apologise for Philosophy in a Mathematics thread. But this is where Doron keeps running and running aground.
Doron will continue to say we don't get it because we haven't experierenced Consciousness.
And as someone who has experienced "No-Thought" states of consciousness, I protest hir confusing a conceptual wire rack for the inconceptual and trying to fill that which is empty of concept with intelectual analogies.
