On 3/12/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 11 Mar 2013, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
>>>>>
>>>>> To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication
>>>>> experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language
>>>>> available to the machine. This generates the stratification.
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> "...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language
>>>> available to the machine..." OK, like the links in a spreadsheet...
>>>
>>> It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later
>>> (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a
>>> founded structure.
>>
>> Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well
>> founded structure first and then show well founded substructures in it?
>
> Because we want to explain the complex things from the simpler one, not
> the contrary.
>
So you seem to be OK with only using reductionism... ISTM that we
should consider our ontological theory to have the most general
primitives and build subtractively to our level.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
