# 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
exist?

> 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.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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