George:
I loved your series. Question:
Is that all not a consequence of "I
think"?
My increased Cartesian sentence may be; I
think therefore I think I am.
Both ways:
Cogito, ergo 'ego', and
Cogito, ergo ' esse'.
John M
 Original Message 
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 8:07
PM
Subject: Re: Are First Person
prime?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can
really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some way.
Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a knower, and
in that case, are you willing to accept the traditional axioms for
knowing. That is:
1) If p is knowable then p is true;
2) If p is knowable then it is knowable that p is knowable;
3) if it is knowable that p entails q, then if p is knowable then q is
knowable
(+ some logical rules).
Bruno,
I like where this may be leading.... This
may be the first step to your roadmap. As you know I have been a supporter of
first person primitive for a long time. My roadmap was simple. It is a chain
rule a la Descartes. I mentionned it before. Let me repost it:
 I think therefore I am (Descartes)
 I am therefore the world is (Anthropic principle)
 The world is therefore the plenitude is. (Principe of sufficient
reason: if something is observed to be arbitrary and without any cause,
then all other alternatives must also be
realized)
Let me make these statements more
precise:
 I think what I think, therefore I am what I am. (Descartes
augmented by defining my consciousness and being as a function of my
thought process)
 I am what I am, therefore the world is what it is. (Anthropic
principle augmented by defining the world in more precise terms as a
function of exactly who I am  There is a strange echo from the burning
bush in Exodus)
 The world is what it is, therefore the plenitude
is.
Would it be possible to map your three axiomatic
lines replacing "knowable" by "think" and "true" by "exist." Then we have:
 If p thinks then p exists;
 If p thinks then it is thinkable that p thinks;
 If it is thinkable that p entails q, then if p thinks then q
thinks.
The phrase "it is thinkable" is undefined
possibly because of third person (it?) inferencing. If we make it squarely
first person then we have:
 If p thinks then p exists; (This maps nicely with Descartes as stated
from a third person)
 If p thinks then p think that p thinks; (This is nice reflective
statement essential to consciousness)
 If p think that p entails q, then if p thinks then q thinks. (The
phrase "p entails q" reminds me vaguely of the Anthropic principle. I am
not sure what to make of this. My children
think???????)
George
Levy
~~~~~~~~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everythinglist@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everythinglist ~~~~~~~~~

 Re: Are First Person prime? John M
