On 1/15/2013 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
No, I meant "arithmetic" - although somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I think people invented
arithmetic and so it makes a nice loop, I might even say a virtuous circle. Something
like being in that circle is what it means to exist and what excludes the 'white rabbits'
and 'Boltzmann brains' which "exist" in the mathematical sense of satisfying some
propositional function.
Brent
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.
