Brent Meeker wrote: >That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell >pointed out was an unsupported inference. > >
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I think" MUST BE THE STARTING POINT - for any conscious observer THERE IS NO OTHER OBSERVABLE STARTING POINT! "I think" is both an *observed fact* as well as an *axiom* from which everything else can be derived. So you could argue that the observation of "I think" supports the axiom "I think." In fact any conscious observation of the world also necessitates the "I think" observation and the "I think" assumption. "I think" also implies the concept of sanity. Unless you assume the first step "I think" and that you are sane, you can't take any rational and conscious second step and have any rational and conscious thought process. You wouldn't be able to hold any rational discussion. Inherent in any computational process is the concept of sanity. Maybe this is what Bruno refers to as "sane machine." "I think" also implies a certain logical/mathematical system (which Bruno is working on). "I think" furthermore implies a reflexive quality which is essential for consciousness. This reflexive quality is also included in Bruno's logical/mathematical system. "I think" also infers a "relativity" of information. Possibly different logico/mathematical processes may result in different qualities of consciousness i.e., any given modality for a thought process results in a different modality of consciousness. i.e. "I think *what* I think".. George --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
