On 13 Jan 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2013 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. My point is that if we assume computationalism it is
necessarily so, and constructively so, so making that hypothesis
testable.
We have the logical entaiment:
Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams ->
physical reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness.
It is a generalization of "natural selection" operating from
arithmetical truth, and in which the physical reality is itself the
result of a self-selection events (the global first person
indeterminacy).
This generalizes both Darwin and Everett, somehow.
But you stop one step too soon.
Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams ->
physical reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness ->
arithmetic.
I guess you mean:
Arithmetic -> computations -> consciousness -> sharable dreams ->
physical reality/matter -> human biology -> human consciousness ->
human arithmetic.
That there is something fundamental is unscientific dogma.
It should not. It is the main assumption of the rationalist. A dogma
becomes a dogma when you are not *allow* to doubt it, only.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~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
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
