Hi John,

Le 22-nov.-05, à 22:45, John M a écrit :

Bruno:

Why does Jesse - with your aproval - deny from the
omniscient the knowledge of falls info - maybe WITH
the notion that it is falls? I am not omniscient -
believe it or not - but even I know a lot of falls
info.


By (standard) definition, I would say, no entities (being Gods, machines, humans, pebbles or extraterrestrials) can know something false. You can believe something false, but you cannot know something false. You can know that something is false, but in that case you know something true. For example you can know that "1+1 = 3" is false, but in that case you know the *truth* of the proposition " "1+1=3" is false". This is reflected in the fact that you will never hear someone saying "I knew that George Bush was the president of the french republic, but then I discovered that he was really the president of the USA". Instead you will hear: "I believed that George Bush was the president of the french republic, but then I discovered that he was really the president of the USA". Nobody has ever said "I knew earth is flat but I was false". The correct sentence is "I believed earth is flat but I was false". Indeed this is what has led people from India and China and then Plato to defined "knowing p" by "believing p and p is true" like the Theaetetus' first attempt to define knowledge. Then, the incompleteness phenomena makes those theaetetical nuances unexpectedly available for the sound machines.


------------------

And 'is' a rock stupid and ignorant indeed?


Who ever said that? Remember my old post (2001):
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg01513.html
You can deduce from it that rocks and pebbles are most probably clever or "intelligent" according to my oldest theory of intelligence: where by definition a machine M is intelligent if and only if M is not stupid, and M is stupid if and only if M believes M is intelligent or M believes M is stupid. We have good reason to believe that pebbles have no such beliefs, and this is making them intelligent. You can take this as a weakness of such a theory, but the cleverness of pebbles here is just a reflection of the fact that nobody has ever heard a pebbles communicating some stupidity! I do believe that pebbles are wise and clever at least in that very general sense. For being stupid, there is a need of an already non trivial amount of "neural cells".





---------------------------
 Maybe in
OUR (humanly logical? terms and topics: yes.


You are the one linking "OUR" with humans. I take my "humanity" as a contingent, accidental, local, and not so interesting fact. More relevant for the fundamental questions is that I (and we) are most plausibly descendant of self-duplicating entities.





------------------------
Do we
list all unstupidity and knowledgability in the
totality?

This is already provably impossible for arithmetical truth.





----------------------
Has anybody ever talked to a rock in rockese?

They wrote big volumes about a (so called) H-atom. Is
it really perfectly stupid? Holy Anthropocentrism!

Look John, we are perhaps the first having the humility to ask machines about the fundamental questions and to insist listening to their answers. Is it possible to be less anthropocentric than that?

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


Reply via email to