> 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
Thanks Bruno for your informative discussion of Descartes.
> 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).
> 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
I will look it up