Hi George,

Descartes complete reasoning was (simplifying it a little bit):

"Dubito ergo cogito",   and only then   "cogito ergo sum"

At that stage Descartes realises that there was still "white rabbits"
(cf his use of the malin genie, see my last reply to Juergen, 
which I write before reading your post!).

His own mechanist "dubito" was to much powerful.

So he "invented" his God for preventing white rabbits. (A little

A relation between "dubito ergo cogito" and Godel's theorem has been
provided by the philosopher Slezak. (I have not the reference here).

I have done a formal refinement (using G and G*) of Slezak reasoning.
It gave me a very specific and formal theory of dreams,
capable of explaining the lucid dream phenomenon.
(lucid dream = dream where you are aware you are dreaming).
It was (a long time ago) my first application of "machine's

Descartes is one among my favorite philosopher.
It is too bad he threw away the rigorous formal logical work
begun by the medieval theologians, which I appreciate 
very much too.

Both informal and formal (after) reasoning are necessary 
to progress.

Your reasoning is interesting but rather quick. I will
say more later ... I agree with John Mikes remark that
Descartes' cogito doesn't refer to time.

Do you know his unachieved "A la recherche de la verite"
a short beautiful text.


--- Original Message ----

>The exchange between Bruno and Juergens is, I believe, instructive and 
>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, 
>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 
>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 
>time and delays, wouldn't be simpler to start as Descartes did with the 
>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
>therefore I am
>( rationality is the definition of existence)
>therefore the world is
>(anthropic reasoning-- the initial boundary condition for the causal chain 
>with "I")
>therefore the plenitude is
>(absence of irrational and acausal arbitrariness in the description of the 
>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 
>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.

Reply via email to