it be
conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be
like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 22 Jan 2013
: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You said:
God, matter, consciousness are never computable
Is that because the above are nonphysical ?
Matter
a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers.
How can you say what they mean ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:36:34
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb
On 21 Jan 2013, at 23:14, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical
Truth,
does that mean: complying with human logic (any)?
Not really. Arithmetical truth is independent of the humans. 17 would
be prime even if the humans did not exist.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You said:
God, matter, consciousness are never computable
Is that because the above are nonphysical ?
Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows
from the UD Argument.
If consciousness is not
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of
the words.
That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
computations.
?
God, matter, consciousness are never
On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words.
That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
computations.
?
Bruno:
*...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,
*
*
*
does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Just imagine a world
(universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to
formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there?
JM
*
*
On
On 17 Jan 2013, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
Hi John,
My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective.
I agree. It is always
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi John,
My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words.
That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
computations.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi meekerdb
All computations are abstract.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 14:44:33
Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick
, 17:17:11
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi John,
My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective.
Cheers
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
we cannot do without 1p and 2p
Especially 2p, most posts on this topic contain a extraordinary large
amount of pee pee.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi John,
My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective.
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55
Hi John,
My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic
view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection
with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective.
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
Russell,
I
Russell,
I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about
objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and
cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who -
maybe? - got it what 2p was.
My vocabulary allows me to consider
: 2012-12-29, 01:21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic
On 29 Dec 2012, at 07:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses
synthetic logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.
The following
...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-29, 01:21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500
On 12/29/2012 4:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3p is when we agree that the coffee is too hot.
1p is when we find it tastes very bad.
2p is when your wife ask you to clean the coffee machine.
So THAT'S why philosophers don't talk about 2p.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.
The following equivalences should hold between comp
and Peirce's
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:06AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Good point.
You are right, but we cannot do without 1p and 2p
unless we want to live in Flatland (Thirdness, the publicly
available world of 3p logic). Truths are stated in words,
so it includes
23 matches
Mail list logo
