On 23 Jan 2013, at 12:01, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
An interesting way putting it. But that matter is only dreamed
sounds like a stronger version of Berkeleyism. You say that
matter doesn't really exist at all, Berkeley would say
that it only exists if we perceive it.
Both of these positions can be saved IMHO if there is
some external, continuous, omnipresent observer.
Like the One. I suspect that you already hold that view.
It is an open problem. Is the One a person? I don't know. It surely
becomes a person when linked to belief, as this gives the "inner
God" (the universal soul, the knower).
I do have some evidence that either the ONE is a person, but I have
also evidence that such a ONE might not be the real ONE, but still
more particular instantiations.
All this is quite complex.
Leibniz would not make such a strong statement, however. He
would say that matter is not illusory at all, it is both
an idea (a perception, a dream), which to us appears as
a phenomenon, but to God appears as it really is.
I am not sure I can translate that in the machine's language today.
Too much complex. It is for the future generations. Keep in mind that
the ideally correct machines remains mute all around the notion of
God. To progress we will have to perturb her a little bit, and make
her less correct, but then there is the risk of making her soul fall,
and she has all the cognitive ability to develop her own wishful
thinking.
Bruno
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 12:11:04
Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say:
"Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal
modalities,
some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by
machines."
Wikipedia says:
"Epistemology (i/ p st m l d i/ from Greek
πιστ μη - epistēmē, meaning
"knowledge, understanding", and λ γο - logos, meaning "study
of") is the branch of
philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.[1][2]
It questions what
knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given
subject or entity can be known."
How can matter be epistemological ?
Because matter is only dreamed. It is an appearance. there is no
stuff. Weal materialism is false (if comp is true, that is if we are
machine).
It's just nondescriptive stuff.
That does not exist. That is a myth, even if it is a very old one.
It is the result of billions years of simplification done by nature.
Our brains has been programmed to surivive, not to contemplate the
possible ultimate truth.
It cannot be knowledge, for knowledge can be defined as a true
belief.
But there's nothing to believe. It's just nondescriptive stuff.
It is indeed not true belief, but it is still belief. "false belief"
if you want. Illusion. Dream.
As to truth not being epistemological, consider this.
If knowledge is a true belief, and epistemology provides you
with knowledge, then that knowledge must be true by definition.
I agree with knowledge = true belief (cf Bp & p), but this makes
truth primary with respect to knowledge. To have a knowledge you
need two things: a belief, and a reality in which that belief is
true. 'and of course you need a link to that reality, like "being
present there").
You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only
materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the
doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence
of primary matter.
We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely
arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside.
My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp,
and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can
test it.
Bruno
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:38:01
Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness
everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand
how
the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and
how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's
a cat I see !
Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and
gave it
up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived
through
physiological explanations.
And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with
no account to the personality, memory, training, or
linguistic knowledge of the reader.
Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal
modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet
guessable by machines.
Bruno
---
