On 09 Nov 2008, at 23:38, Kory Heath wrote:
> Actually, I find it the easiest part of the whole thing to understand.
> But to echo something someone else said earlier in this thread, I
> think Bruno's arguments for step 8 could be shored up. As they stand,
> they wouldn't convince a philosopher like Dennett. But they should be
> able to. (In principle. In practice, philosophers are rarely convinced
> by anyone else's arguments on any issue.)
>
> Maybe I still don't fully understand Bruno's position. If I were
> making the argument, his step 8 would be my step 1.
As I said earlier. Step #8 *is* step #1 in my long "Conscience et
Mecanisme" (1994), and in my shorter "Calculabilité, Physique et
Cognition" which I have defended as a PhD thesis in Computer Science
(1998).
I have put Step #8 at the last place because it is much more subtle,
and UDA(1...7) makes it already possible to understand the nature of
the reversal physics/computer science.
The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for
granted. Note that Dennett and Hofstadter did come very close to the 1-
person indeterminacy in their book "Mind's I", but, miss it clearly,
as can be deduced from Hofstadter's critics of Everett, for example.
Bruno Marchal
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Nov 11 2008 - 12:32:07 PST