George Levy wrote:

>  I dont' really see any problem if we think of a conscious entity just 
> like a proposition as information. Proposition p is information which 
> can be either true or false. A conscious entity is also information. 
> In this case, if the information is true then the entity exists.

Are you saying that if the information is false the entity does not 
exist?


>  The English language is treacherous. we have to be careful when we 
> use the word "exist." I think there are several kinds of existence. In 
> any case to assert that the square root of two exists is assigning to 
> the square root of two an existence independent of any observer, 
> thereby negating the primacy of first person.

Yes, indeed.  But that's a reason why I would not take the 1 and 3 
persons as primary. Only the 0-person can be taken as primary, I think. 
Well; with comp, as I defined it, we have to accept Arithmetical truth 
(at least) as primary.


>  Yes I am saying that machines, propositions, databases, programs, and 
> conscious minds are different words for the same thing: information. 
> Thus information can be true, false or unknown.

This is almost the inverse of the "1004 fallacy". Identifying so many 
things could lead to confusion. In some sense I agree with the fact 
that all those concepts (machines, propositions, programs, conscious 
mind, etc.) are related to information, but by identifying them you 
make impossible to related them in a non trivial way. In particular it 
remains to distinguish 1 and 3 information: why beating John does not 
hurt Jack?
Also, I am not sure what it would mean that "information" is true or 
false or unknown, without giveing a context (even a global one) in 
which the info is true or wrong. How could you say that an information 
is unknown without making more precise for whom it is unknown?


>  The first two statements are relatively easy to understand. The first 
> one is more or less what Descartes said. The second one is a 
> reflective form probably necessary for consciousness.
>  The third statement taken seriously is intringing. If entity p thinks 
> that entity q is necessary for p's existence, then if p thinks then q 
> thinks. In other words all necessary conditions for my own existence 
> form a conscious entity. This is weird. It is as if I had my own 
> personal Personal God or guardian angel.

That is the case! More in the roadmap asap.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to