jamikes wrote:
> George, ... I have only some remarks: I I think (not a Cartesian wordage<G>) > the first step would be: > 0.1: Causality IS, > then you may introduce your points. The whole point of starting with "I" is to avoid starting with a *bare* assumption such as the one you suggest (Causality). However, I admit, I don't really know what the the perception of "I" is. Is it an observation, an assumption, both? Thanks Bruno for your informative discussion of Descartes. Marchal wrote: > Descartes complete reasoning was (simplifying it a little bit): > > "Dubito ergo cogito", and only then "cogito ergo sum" > Excuse my latin. :-) I don't know what dubito means. It sounds like debit to me. Do I owe anyone money? :-) > > A relation between "dubito ergo cogito" and Godel's theorem has been > provided by the philosopher Slezak. (I have not the reference here). Interesting > > Your reasoning is interesting but rather quick. Yes, I am a bad typist, I hate long proofs. :-) I have left out a lot... for example, my term "rational" is quite vague. Referring to earlier posts, consciousness can vary in kinds and degrees. I could mean for example "within the set of all mathematical constructs," or implementable on a finite Turing machine or implementable on a quantum computer. The existence of rationality can only appears in the eyes of the beholder. Thus, "I" think that I am rational, but my perception of this rationality is contingent on this rationality. ( A reflection, or recursion) Different minds with different logics and capabilities will have different consciousnesses. > I agree with John Mikes remark that Descartes' cogito doesn't refer to time. Yes, I also agree with him. > Do you know his unachieved "A la recherche de la verite" a short beautiful > text. I will look it up George
