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 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