Hi Evgenii,

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.

I agree. The amazing thing is that if we start from the end, we get ... Plotinus or Plotinus-like platonist theology. For some people, this is enough to stop the conversation. It just means that they believe that some Aristotelian dogma cannot be criticized.

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.

I start from the mind body problem, and from the digital mechanist hypothesis. I show this makes us *very* ignorant.

So I will be franc. The problem of interaction is not solved at all, even between third person describable objects. And the problem of how many first person "really" exist is also an open problem, although I tend more and more to believe that there is only one first person: the universal person described by the arithmetical hypostases. Although personal consciousness is not an illusion, self-identity can be. But, please note that I am speculating here. And there do exist some evidence that the numbers of person could be at least two. That would be the case if the "whole truth" is a sort of person. Very complex question.

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.

Not necessarily. First a person might be able to love herself. Also, a unique person might split in different person/memories (like in the WM duplication) and "forget" she is the same person, so that a two partners love relation could make sense. For love being manifest, we need some relative differences, but also a form of more absolute self- recognizance.

The problem is that the notion of 'first person' is absolute when seen by the first person, and relative when observed in the third person perspective.

But my point is more that with the comp hyp we can make those questions mathematical and derived information from hypotheses. Then we might or not appreciate the consequences, and decide if we like or not the hypotheses, but when doing science we have to be prepared to some friction with possible wishful thinking.

This leads to the question: is truth (unknown but approachable) necessarily good to know? I have no answer, but I tend to bet that in the long run it is better not to hide it. Hiding truth cost a lot, and when the truth appears it is even more shocking when it has been hidden for a long time. I defend an "harm reduction" ethical philosophy.


on 02.03.2011 10:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Dear Evgenii,

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
hypothetico-deductive way.

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to