Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:

George Levy wrote:

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 

Are you disputing Russell's point that "I" is a construct and "thinking" is 
all you have without inference?


Yes. I am disputing what Russell said: "I think" IS THE ONE AND ONLY 
STARTING POINT for any conscious thought process. It is both an 
observation and an axiom. Developing the concept of "I think" in a 
formal mathematical fashion as Bruno is attempting to do is IMO the 
right way to proceed. I also believe that "I think" leads to a relative 
(or relativistic) TOE - probably a very extreme view.


As I understand him, Bruno agrees with Russell that "I" is a construct or 
I think you are right. Bruno is not as extreme as I am but I am not sure exactly where he stands. He may be non-committed or he may not know how to reconcile my viewpoint with his math. It would be nice if we could reconcile the two viewpoints!!!
That's why there can be 1st-person indeterminancy.
No. This is not why. In fact, first person indeterminacy probably reinforces my point. First person indeterminacy comes about because there are several links from one observer moment (could be called "I" state) to the next logical (or historically consistent) logical moment. As you can see everything hinges on the "I" states. You can view I states either as nodes or as branches depending how you define the network. Of course those logical links are emergent as figment of imagination of the "I" in an anthropy kind of way.


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