Hi Bruno, Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on <>t? Unfortunately I haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality with <>t.
Thanks, T On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Terran, > > > On 11 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > Hi Bruno, > > Sure, "consciousness here-and-now" is undoubtable. But the p refers to the > contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. "I am in > pain" cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt sensations > can be doubted, e.g. see > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956899/ > > Such illusions of experience can even be helpful, as in Ramachandran's > Mirror Box therapy for phantom limb sufferers, see > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468806/ > > Illusions of experience are evidence that what we experience is of our > brains' constructions, like a waking dream, guided in healthy brains by the > patterns of information streaming from our sense organs. > > > Exactly: like a walking dream. That's the root of the Bp & p idea, in the > Theaetetus. To do the math I concentrate to "rich" (Löbian) machine for the > "B", but the idea of defining knowledge by true belief is an act of modesty > with respect to the question if we are dreaming or not, or more generally, > if we are wrong or not. > > > > > Brains that are defective in this manner result in schizophrenia and > presumably other dissociative pathologies. > > > OK. > > > > > For me it all casts doubt on whether Bp & p is an accurate formalization > for experience, but I might be missing something. > > > As I said above, it is a simplest "meta" definition which capture the > "main thing" (the truth of the experience) without needing to define it. > > Also, for the "physical" first person *experience*, Bp & p, which is only > the knower, is not enough, you will need Bp & <>t & p, which by > incompleteness has its own logic, quantum like when restricted to the > sigma_1 truth. You need a reality (<>t). > > > > Can you make sense of Bp & p for a schizophrenic who hears voices? > > > If a schizophrenic says that he hears voices, and if he hears voice > (mentally, virtually, arithmetically, brain-biologically, ...), then he > knows he hears voice. > > An insane guy who says that he is Napoleon does not know that he is > napoleon, but he believes it only. He still might know that he believes > being Napoleon, and be only ignorant or denying that this is false. > > > > > > How about your own salvia experiences? > > > It is very hard to describe, even more to interpret. And I am biased. > > It is indeed: [](... what-the-f.) and ... what the f. Most plausibly. > > It is like remembering forgotten qualia since eons. > > It might confirms the idea that brains, machines, words, theories filter > consciousness only. > Consciousness would be a close sister of (arithmetical) truth. > > Salvia might open the appetite for platonism, but of course it is also a > question of taste. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > T > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:28, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> Question for you Bruno:. >> >> You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp & >> p. Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in >> various kinds of emotional & psychological denial. Can we ever really say >> that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True? >> >> >> In public? No. >> >> In private? Yes. >> >> I would say. >> >> Then in the frame of theories about such 1p things, like consciousness, >> we can decide to agree on some "property" of the notion. Then, >> "consciousness-here-and-now" might be a candidate for a possible true >> reference, if you agree consciousness-here-and-now is undoubtable or >> incorrigible. >> >> Then we can approximate many sort of truth, by the very plausible, the >> probable, the relatively expectable, etc. >> >> If someone complains, is the pain real or fake? Eventually it is a >> question for a judge. >> >> The truth is what no machine can really grasp the whole truth, but all >> machines can know very well some aspect of it, I think, but very few in >> justifiable modes. >> >> >> 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-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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
