--- On Mon, 10/27/08, Timothy Monicken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Timothy Monicken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [epistemology 9684] Re: Axiomatic Set Theory and Self-Asserted
> Self-Awareness
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 7:22 PM
> Hot Damn, Georges,
>
> I didn't know you had it in you... my *sincere*
> *apologies* for thinking you
> were bereft upstairs.
==============
Nothing to apologize about. Faults on both sides.
Good luck for your work.
Georges.
=============
*I was wrong* (I hope)... there IS
> hope for you after
> all.... Now, take this Axiomatic Collection in lieu of the
> Set Theory
> (common ground(?) for you, myself, and most everyone else)
> and *apply* it to
> all the new "maps of the mind" with which you
> come into contact. *>>>Human
> awareness and the "levels" that comprise it are
> all based upon these "prima
> facie" observations that build to greater
> understandings.* >>This inspires
> me to keep working diligently on my group's
> "outreach" efforts. > Yes.
> perhaps common ground *can* win the day for a revolution in
> human thinking.
> May your explorations bring an unprecedented surge of
> creativity and a
> gratified sense of renewal & teleological factoring...
> a veritable
> renaissance! We *all* hope for that kind of ongoing
> encouragement. Good
> Will in the Hunting, Timothy (chreodman)
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Joseph Polanik
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Georges Metanomski wrote:
> >
> > >Let's shelve for the moment Awareness and
> move to another allegedly
> > >most rigorous and exact area - the Set Theory.
> Now, the Set Theory is
> > >founded in the intuitive concept
> "Collection". What could you say about
> > >"Collection" in this sense of
> foundation of the Set Theory?
> >
> > self-asserted self-awareness is self-verifying.
> >
> > I posted about Axiomatic Set Theory, AST, in relation
> to self-awareness
> > during a dialogue with Professor Crifasi about 6
> months ago; but,
> > perhaps, that thread wasn't cross-posted to the
> list whose mail you are
> > now reading; so, I'll summarize:
> >
> > [1]: the assertion 'I am self-aware' is
> self-verifying for the reasons
> > previously given.
> >
> > [2]: since nothing unreal is self-aware, it follows
> that I am real (in
> > some sense); and, one may reasonably follow up this
> insight by asking
> > 'what sort of reality am I?'
> >
> > [3]: the principle 'nothing unreal is
> self-aware' is intuitively
> > obvious; but, if a logical argument for it is
> required, one can be
> > given. it is derived from an assumption built into the
> foundations of
> > both predicate logic and axiomatic set theory: it is
> impossible to
> > attribute predicates to nothingness.
> >
> > I take this assumption as the Axiom, IPN: it is
> Impossible to attribute
> > Predicates to Nothingness.
> >
> > alternately, one can state this axiom in the jargon of
> AST: it is
> > impossible to attribute predicates to a member of the
> empty set ---
> > because there are no such members.
> >
> > hence, if I can attribute a predicate to the referent
> of 'I' then the
> > referent of 'I' can not be a member of the
> empty set --- and, therefore,
> > must be real in some sense.
> >
> > in making the self-verifying claim 'I am
> self-aware' I attribute a
> > predicate to the referent of 'I'. hence, it
> can not be the case that the
> > referent of I is nothing at all.
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > --
> > Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first
> person for the
> > first person. --- H-N Castaneda
> >
> > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
> > http://what-am-i.net
> > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
