Dear Stephen,
I believe Descartes used the verb 'cogitare', meaning the fact of thinking
(prius cogitare quam conari consuesce... consider first think, then (than??)
talk)
Consequently he did not assume to think back into some memory and refreshing
it. He spoke about the observation that one IS THINKING, IMO without any
connotation of time passing.
John Mikes
<jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
"
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Paul King" <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
To: <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
> Dear George,
>
> If I might advance a minor change: Descartes' dictum should be:
Cognito (I think),
> ergo eram (therefore I was). The observation of one's state of existence
is always
> *after* the fact of the thought. This points to the possibility that the
chaining
> implicit in "conscious flow (time)" is in the "opposite direction" to the
logical
> linking.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> George Levy wrote:
>
> > The exchange between Bruno and Juergens is, I believe, instructive and
constructive
> > as it forces them to refine their positions. However, while there is a
need for
> > some formalism, too much formalism gets in the way. As Einstein said,
"Imagination
> > is more important than knowledge."
> >
> > Juergens' insistence on being absolutely formal in defining delays, is
truly
> > impossible unless a TOE is in place. And if we had a TOE, then we
wouldn't waste
> > our time arguing. His constructivist approach can never achieve the
required
> > conceptual leap.
> >
> > Here is a suggestion: rather than getting bogged down with attempting to
define
> > time and delays, wouldn't be simpler to start as Descartes did with the
fundamental
> >
> > assumption of the "I" or "I think" which is the primary uncontrovertible
> > observation and also the necessary assumption for deriving everything
else. From
> > this observation (or assumption), use anthropic reasonning to deduce
that the whole
> > observed world is a set of logically linked relationship.
> >
> > In other words:
> > I think
> > (observation of the "I" and the "now"; I am rational, logical, I
understand
> > causality)
> >
> > therefore I am
> > ( rationality is the definition of existence)
> >
> > therefore the world is
> > (anthropic reasoning-- the initial boundary condition for the causal
chain starts
> > with "I")
> >
> > therefore the plenitude is
> > (absence of irrational and acausal arbitrariness in the description of
the world
> > leads to all possible rational worlds)
> >
> > therefore "I" exists in plural
> > (absence of arbitrariness leads to the existence of several differing
"I's," in
> > fact of all possible "I's.")
> >
> > Conscious flow (time) becomes a logical linkage between "I's." In other
words, the
> > time thread from one "I" to the next, or more generally, from one "I" to
several
> > other "I's" is constrained by the self rationality of "I." Consciousness
can be
> > described as a web in the plenitude, linking all conscious points
together.
> >
> > George
>
Received on Sun Feb 18 2001 - 15:07:28 PST