Thanks for answers. As usual, they are very enjoyable.
From my side I can offer nothing more. I guess that at the moment my
point of view is some eclectic mixture, basically I am just collecting
different ideas and theories.
I should say that some long time ago I used to have Introduction to
Mathematical Logic by Church (in Russian) and I believe that I have even
read the introduction in the book. I admire the nice equations in
mathematical logic but I am not sure that I am able to comprehend them.
I wanted to read Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Sipser
that you recommend but now I take the course Embryogenesis Explained in
the Second Life and this is enough for the moment. Look for example here
Astonishing, isn't it?
on 03.03.2011 10:48 Bruno Marchal said the following:
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
The problem is that the notion of 'first person' is absolute when
seen by the first person, and relative when observed in the third
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
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