Rép : Are First Person prime?

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:38:12 +0200

George Levy wrote:

> I dont' really see any problem if we think of a conscious entity just
> like a proposition as information. Proposition p is information which
> can be either true or false. A conscious entity is also information.
> In this case, if the information is true then the entity exists.

Are you saying that if the information is false the entity does not

> The English language is treacherous. we have to be careful when we
> use the word "exist." I think there are several kinds of existence. In
> any case to assert that the square root of two exists is assigning to
> the square root of two an existence independent of any observer,
> thereby negating the primacy of first person.

Yes, indeed. But that's a reason why I would not take the 1 and 3
persons as primary. Only the 0-person can be taken as primary, I think.
Well; with comp, as I defined it, we have to accept Arithmetical truth
(at least) as primary.

> Yes I am saying that machines, propositions, databases, programs, and
> conscious minds are different words for the same thing: information.
> Thus information can be true, false or unknown.

This is almost the inverse of the "1004 fallacy". Identifying so many
things could lead to confusion. In some sense I agree with the fact
that all those concepts (machines, propositions, programs, conscious
mind, etc.) are related to information, but by identifying them you
make impossible to related them in a non trivial way. In particular it
remains to distinguish 1 and 3 information: why beating John does not
hurt Jack?
Also, I am not sure what it would mean that "information" is true or
false or unknown, without giveing a context (even a global one) in
which the info is true or wrong. How could you say that an information
is unknown without making more precise for whom it is unknown?

> The first two statements are relatively easy to understand. The first
> one is more or less what Descartes said. The second one is a
> reflective form probably necessary for consciousness.
> The third statement taken seriously is intringing. If entity p thinks
> that entity q is necessary for p's existence, then if p thinks then q
> thinks. In other words all necessary conditions for my own existence
> form a conscious entity. This is weird. It is as if I had my own
> personal Personal God or guardian angel.

That is the case! More in the roadmap asap.



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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 09:40:15 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST