Brent Meeker wrote:
>That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
>pointed out was an unsupported inference.
>
>
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING
POINT - for any conscious observer THERE IS NO OTHER OBSERVABLE STARTING
POINT!
"I think" is both an *observed fact* as well as an *axiom* from which
everything else can be derived. So you could argue that the observation
of "I think" supports the axiom "I think." In fact any conscious
observation of the world also necessitates the "I think" observation and
the "I think" assumption.
"I think" also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the
first step "I think" and that you are sane, you can't take any rational
and conscious second step and have any rational and conscious thought
process. You wouldn't be able to hold any rational discussion. Inherent
in any computational process is the concept of sanity. Maybe this is
what Bruno refers to as "sane machine."
"I think" also implies a certain logical/mathematical system (which
Bruno is working on).
"I think" furthermore implies a reflexive quality which is essential for
consciousness. This reflexive quality is also included in Bruno's
logical/mathematical system.
"I think" also infers a "relativity" of information. Possibly different
logico/mathematical processes may result in different qualities of
consciousness i.e., any given modality for a thought process results in
a different modality of consciousness. i.e. "I think *what* I think"..
George
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sun Aug 13 2006 - 17:50:30 PDT