On 6/16/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Rog
As you have described them a materialist could not be a "combination of both"
rationalism and empiricism, because you have them as diametrically opposed. If
"reason alone" is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined
to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot
about how knowledge is aquired.
More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of
intuitionism.
Chris Peck is right here.
The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of
ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be
"deductive" then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable
leaps of intuition.
Where does the persuasive power of logic come from? Why do you believe, "Either X or
not-X" is true? Is it not a matter of intuition?
Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist.
Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning.
Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in
the reasoning.
Why not in the rules of inference too? Rejecting non-constructive proofs is a change in
reasoning. I don't think there is such a sharp division between axioms and rules of
inference as you imply.
Brent
Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A
v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A).
If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine
difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no
to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. "Washington V Moscow" needs a
non-intuitionist "OR".
Bruno
Brent
If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is
Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic,
ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the
scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which
can only deduce things logically.
You really seem to have things back to front in this post.
Regards
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
