On 09 Nov 2008, at 23:38, Kory Heath wrote:

> Actually, I find it the easiest part of the whole thing to understand.
> But to echo something someone else said earlier in this thread, I
> think Bruno's arguments for step 8 could be shored up. As they stand,
> they wouldn't convince a philosopher like Dennett. But they should be
> able to. (In principle. In practice, philosophers are rarely convinced
> by anyone else's arguments on any issue.)
> Maybe I still don't fully understand Bruno's position. If I were
> making the argument, his step 8 would be my step 1.

As I said earlier. Step #8 *is* step #1 in my long "Conscience et  
Mecanisme" (1994), and in my shorter "Calculabilité, Physique et  
Cognition" which I have defended as a PhD thesis in Computer Science  

I have put Step #8 at the last place because it is much more subtle,  
and UDA(1...7) makes it already possible to understand the nature of  
the reversal physics/computer science.

The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for  
granted. Note that Dennett and Hofstadter did come very close to the 1- 
person indeterminacy in their book "Mind's I", but, miss it clearly,  
as can be deduced from Hofstadter's critics of Everett, for example.

Bruno Marchal


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

Reply via email to