I understand how the hypothetico-deductive way is working and I am
amazed by expressions in mathematical logic. Yet, sometimes it is not
bad to start from the end, this might also help. Say I do not understand
how many first persons views are allowed in your theory and if this
number is more than one, how they interact with each other.
If to speak of love, we need at least two persons. Hence in my view love
cannot exist in the Schroedinger's The Oneness of Mind. Love is much
closer to Sartre who accepts that others also exist.
on 02.03.2011 10:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Thanks a lot for your answers. I am not sure though if I
agree/understand them. Well, I have to think it over.
You are welcome. You can ask any question. My point is that what I
say is a consequence of taking the comp hypothesis seriously into
account. We don't know the truth, but we can reason in the
Your position somewhat reminds me that of Erwin Schrödinger in Mind
and Matter. A few quotes from Chapter 4: The Arithmetical Paradox:
The Oneness of Mind.
"The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met
nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated
in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is
identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as
a part of it. But, of course, here we knock against the
arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great multitude of
these conscious egos, the world is however only one."
"There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of
minds or consciousnesses, Their multiplicity is only apparent, in
truth there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the
"The doctrine of identity can claim that it is clinched by the
empirical fact that consciousness is never experienced in the
plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever
experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace
of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the
Well, I am afraid, I am not ready to accept this yet. I guess I am
closer to Sartre's "Hell is other people." (In the German audio
book that I have recently listened to, it was "Die Hölle, das sind
die anderen". I wonder what it looks like in French).
Well, if you ask me my private feeling I have to say I prefer
Schroedinger to Sartre. "Hell is other people" is really pessimism.
Europeans have many reasons to put some truth in that idea, but I
hope this is more contingent (and a result of separating science from
religion) than a deep feature of human. Of course deep 'inside the
head' of a universal machine there is already a tension between the
soul (Bp & p) and the intellect (Bp), and this explains how all
universal machine have already all what is needed to build their own
hell, and, alas, to share it with others. But then some machine can
learn to recognize themselves into other machines, and the
possibility of 'love' is not completely excluded.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at