Fwd: Modal Logic

-- Forwarded message -- From: Eric Cavalcanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Aug 13, 2005 4:38 PM Subject: Re: Modal Logic To: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Bruno, On 8/13/05, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I am having a problem understanding this axio

Re: subjective reality

Hi Godfrey, 't Hooft's work is motivated by problems one encounters in Planck scale physics. 't Hooft has argued that the no go theorems precluding deterministic models come with some ''small print''. Physicists working on ''conventional ways'' to unite gravity with QM are forced to make such bold

Re: subjective reality

Hi George, Thanks for the clarifications. Let me see if I understand you better. Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) -Original Message- From: George Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [GL] > I am sorry I was sloppy in my explanation. Let me try to be clearer. "I" is the kernel of consciousness.

Re: subjective reality

Hi Saibal, You are correct that Gerard 't Hooft is one of the world exponents in QFTh. But Quantum Field Theory is but one small piece of QM and one in which non-local effects do not play a direct role (as of yet). Understandably 't Hooft's forays into Quantum Mechanics have not, however, been

Re: subjective reality

Hi Godfrey, Bruno  The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the world (the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically constrained by the "I." [GK]  So the "I" is (1) a logical syste

Re: subjective reality

Godfrey Kurtz wrote > More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum > mechanistic view of the physical world. If you > don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno. > Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant > to be. There aren't man

Re: subjective reality

Bruno, You speak of "God." Could you define what you, as a logician, mean? Thanks, Norman ~~ An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e asyness comes from

RE: Memory-prediction framework

I wrote a sort-of-review of this book some time ago...   http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/OnBiologicalAndDigitalIntelligence.htm   -- Ben Goertzel -Original Message-From: Lennart Nilsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 2:00 PMTo: everything-list@esk

Memory-prediction framework

Thoughts on the ” Memory-prediction framework” in explaining intelligence anyone? Book: Jeff Hawkins “On Intelligence”

Re: subjective reality

Hi Bruno Thanks for your detailed answer. I will wipe some of the previous exchanges below to unclutter the post: -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't think there is a clear-cut frontier between Science and Philosophy, except those artificial frontie

RE: subjective reality

Chris writes > The point is that given the certainty of 'I exist' subjective experience can > not just be dismissed by the realist. Given its certainty, it demands some > kind of explanation, Of course it does. But I imagine that you are looking at the phenonmenon from inside the system. I wa

Re: Maudlin's Machine and the UDist

Le 07-août-05, à 22:20, Hal Finney a écrit : Rutgers philosopher Tim Maudlin has a paper intended to challenge certain views about consciousness and computation, which we have discussed occasionally on this list. Indeed. Maudlin's paper is without doubt one of the most important paper in the

Re: subjective reality

Le 12-août-05, à 02:29, George Levy a écrit : Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such obse

Re: subjective reality

Le 11-août-05, à 00:55, Lee Corbin a écrit : Okay, but two questions: 1. by "comp" do you mean the "computationalist hypothesis" as apparently used by philosophers? Is "comp" just an abbreviation for that? Strictly speaking: yes. It happens now that many people implicitly conceive co

Re: subjective reality

Hi George, Still trying to understand you but having trouble holding my disbelieve... Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) Hi Godfrey The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the world (the slice o

Re: Modal Logic

Hi Eric, Le 11-août-05, à 01:34, Eric Cavalcanti a écrit : Hi Bruno, On 8/11/05, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am having a problem understanding this axiom: (...) Lob formula (B(Bp->p)->Bp), the main axiom of the modal logic of self-reference (G) can be interpreted as showing

Re: subjective reality

Hi Godfrey, Le 10-août-05, à 21:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hi Everythingers, Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating posts on this troubling issue of "reality" and subjectivity so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion right away. I

Re: subjective reality

Greetings, > In what way dont I have experience of myself? Who am I experiencing now? > Someone else? You have no guarantee of "whom" you are "experiencing". it is your belief that you are experiencing something that is "yourself". > That I exist is more certain than any scientific truth. This

Re: subjective reality

Because a) you have experiences but not experiences of yourself and In what way dont I have experience of myself? Who am I experiencing now? Someone else? b) experiences are not more certain that every scientific truth. Experiences are often misleading or outright illusions. That I exist