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 

"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"..


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to