On 09 Nov 2008, at 23:38, Kory Heath wrote:
> Actually, I find it the easiest part of the whole thing to understand. > But to echo something someone else said earlier in this thread, I > think Bruno's arguments for step 8 could be shored up. As they stand, > they wouldn't convince a philosopher like Dennett. But they should be > able to. (In principle. In practice, philosophers are rarely convinced > by anyone else's arguments on any issue.) > > Maybe I still don't fully understand Bruno's position. If I were > making the argument, his step 8 would be my step 1. As I said earlier. Step #8 *is* step #1 in my long "Conscience et Mecanisme" (1994), and in my shorter "Calculabilité, Physique et Cognition" which I have defended as a PhD thesis in Computer Science (1998). I have put Step #8 at the last place because it is much more subtle, and UDA(1...7) makes it already possible to understand the nature of the reversal physics/computer science. The problem with Dennett is that he takes physical reality for granted. Note that Dennett and Hofstadter did come very close to the 1- person indeterminacy in their book "Mind's I", but, miss it clearly, as can be deduced from Hofstadter's critics of Everett, for example. Bruno Marchal 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
