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 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.

Reply via email to