On 09 Feb 2014, at 22:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If "really reading these words" refer to
the quale of reading those words, then I agree I can know that. But
if it means that there is a some 3p "real reality" in which I read
those "real 3p words", then I cannot know that, as I might be
dreaming.
People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you
are reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically,
there is no way to prove that you are reading these words right now.
OK.
The fact that you might not really be reading these words
correctly (if at all) might be offensive to the real words. To
avoid passing judgment on those other words, we must assume that
it is no more likely that we are reading these words as it is that
we are not.
This I do not understand. We don't need to be sure to act. Our
belief can be true, even when we can't be sure. We can develop some
trust in reality and our means to evaluate plausibilities.
I cannot know that I am awake, and that I will send you this mail,
but I can be pretty sure.
What is the logical proof that our belief can be true though?
That does not exist.
We just cannot know that our beliefs are true. We can hope, but
that's all. Only the insane people can "know" that they are sane.
The sane people cannot get rid of some doubt.
I'm not so interested in whether our beliefs *are* true,
I guess you are, at some level. If not, I don't see why we are
discussing.
but in the fact that logic cannot even conceive that beliefs could
be true.
You believe that, but if you are not interested in the truth of that
belief ... By the way, I agree with you on this, except that you are
thinking to logic + arithmetic, in which case I disbelieve this.
The whole notion that there can be a belief, a truth, a relation,
and a relation which relates the two is beneath all forms of logic
or arithmetic. It's an expectation within sense.
Logic + arithmetic can explain the beliefs.
Logic + arithmetic + truth can explain the relation between truth,
belief and knowledge, at a place where your "explanation" beg the
question and take the complex notions (sense, consciousness, even
matter) for granted.
What is the logical way out of this?
We can hope, pray, bet, that reality is kind enough to make us
wrong when we are wrong, and hope to progress toward a big picture
we can also hope for.
If you start to have public certainties, you are doomed. We can
start by agreeing on assumptions, only. That is science or good
philosophy. I think.
Aren't all agreements and assumptions in science or good philosophy
expectations of public certainties (even the prohibition of public
certainty)?
Yes, but we can't know that,
Then by the same logic, we can't know that we can't know that either.
In science it is simple. Only God can know when our beliefs are
knowledge. We never knowingly know for sure when we know anything.
We can't begin with a logic of disbelief, because that supervenes on
the expectation that we can trust our ability to believe in
disbelief in the first place.
Between belief []p and disbelieve []~p, there are also the absence of
beliefs: ~[]p and ~[]~p, that is: agnosticism.
and that if why we make the assumption explicit, even the "obvious
one", like the fact that if A is true, and if A -> B is true, then B
is true.
Making the assumption explicit may have unexpected effects though.
Confining
O0n the contrary. Explicit definition does not confine anything. It
gives the means to try other definitions and theories. remaining fuzzy
can be exploited for any means, and that results in the confinement of
thought.
and defining sense so that it is generic and repeatable may strip
out the intrinsic flexibility of all concepts and expressions. That
figurative promiscuity which is amputated by explicit definition may
accumulate until it becomes overwhelming when it comes to
consideration of sense/awareness itself.
You vindicate bad philosophy. In fact your motivation for non-comp
seems to proceed from a motivation against science and study.
Being rigorous is the inverse of confinement. It free the minds of the
(not always conscious) prejudices.
That's why I like sense. It doesn't have to be a final truth,
Well, I have less problem with sense being the final truth, than
with sense being the starting assumption in the possibly final TOE.
I don't think there is any other way to have a final TOE that is
open ended enough to be true.
By starting from sense, you close the ends. Indeed you even made
possible beings into zombies or dolls.
but neither does it have to be an arbitrary fiction that only seems
to coincide with the truth.
It cannot be. In the AUDA theory, sense and consciousness cannot be
fiction, and have (by definition) to coincide with truth, but of
course, that is what will make them non 3p-justifiable.
How then do you get sense which corresponds veridically to 3p?
Never.
For machines, sense comes exclusively in their 1p view.
That is why comp asks for some courage (to say "yes" to the doctor).
The 1p of the machine is non computationalist at the start. The
machine has to bet on something transcendent to believe she might
survive with another body.
Sense can appreciate itself directly, without having to define and
encode.
And that's enough for the practical 1p-life. The apes do not need a
theory of respiration to be able to respire, and nobody needs to
understand the functioning of a brain to use it, or the origin of
consciousness, to be conscious. But this does not mean that a theory
explaining consciousness without assuming it, is *necessarily*
false, like you seem to imply very often.
The problem though is we posit something other than sense as the
generator of consciousness, then we have a mechanism which has no
possibility of appreciating itself - no *sense* of participation,
and no *sense* of aesthetic acquaintance.
But that is the point on which we ask you an argument. You just
iterate again and again your assumption, like if it was obvious, but
it is clearly not. We would discuss this if it was.
Even if we accept this implausible scenario of a completely numb,
invisible, intangible, unconscious, silent void hosting a UD's non-
output output, the scenario that follows, where at some arbitrary
point non-unconsciousness is invented, is even more implausible. Why
would a machine that can make consciousness without being conscious
itself have any use for it?
To explain where consciousness, and matter, comes from, without
assuming them at the start.
And then we need local encoding to communicate some sense to others,
and that's why brain are handy to do exactly that. I hope you agree
that brain does some (at least) encodings.
Sure, the brain does encoding, although a lot of it may not have
have as much to do with our personal awareness as we assume. What we
are looking at as activities within neurons and molecules may be
more about encoding from the inside out, as a single trans-temporal
human experience is distributed across trillions of semi-redundant
locations over trillions of nested, scale-calibrated moments.
?
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
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.
