On 04 Mar 2011, at 20:10, Andrew Soltau wrote:

I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the idea that "everything" is simpler than "something".
If we take Chalmers and Bitbol seriously, consciousness is a perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything, and you can't get much simpler than that.

Can you elaborate. What are their assumption? What do you mean by "perfectly symmetrical emergent property of the Everything". Almost all words here needs a clear context to make sense. Which everything?

Chalmers told me that first person indeterminacy does not exist, and not much more, and Bitbol never reply to me when I sent him my PhD.

They seems to act like pseudo-religious philosopher to me. I still don't know if it is ideological or politics.

But it is better to discuss only ideas than refer to people, I think. You can explain ideas of other people as far as you use them, and then provide the reference. So, what was you point? I might agree with them.

BTW, you did not answer my last point on the comp reversal, at the UDA step seven.

I appreciate your point on the logical types. Now, to base them on a physics, taken a priori, will prevent the solution of the computationalist mind body problem. Elementary arithmetic, and any universal system, defines automatically many logical types (like the arithmetical modalities of self-references and their variants) and the UDA shows that you have to reduce the physical modalities to modalities of self-reference, relativize to the UD or the sigma_1 truth.



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