On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
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.
"...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language
available to the machine..." OK, like the links in a
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
Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well
founded structure first and then show well founded substructures
Because we want to explain the complex things from the simpler one,
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.
It is not reductionism. It is Occam razor. We should not introduce
It is not eliminativism nor reductionism, as it provides the most
general notion at some other (epistemological) levels.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.