Bruno:

--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
> 
> > Bruno and list:
> >
> > We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
> > "understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow
> all
> > existence (whatever you may call it) by our human
> mind
> > and logic...
> 
> Who can be sure of that?
> 
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true. The
'artifact' did not change.
I do not believe that we reached the "ultimate" level
in logic and mental capabilites as of Febr. 2006
> 
> 
> > I like to leave a 'slot' open (maybe WE are in the
> > restricted slot?) which is not accessible by our
> > idideationaleans.
> 
> That's the relief with the loebian machine. She is
> forced to let a 
> rather big slot open.
> Remember that the first sentences of the 3-personne 
> are the humility 
> principle and the modesty principle.
> It is just that for us to remain consistant we must
> accept that the 
> so-called material world is the last "emanation" of
> our "ignorance". 
> Godel-Lob-Solovay: ignorance is structured.

If we can identify our ignorance. It is like
agnosticism:
ignorance about what? We have to know "about it" to
structure it.
> 
> >
> > Reality - whatever it may be identified by - is
> not a
> > human artifact.
> 
> We are in complete agreement. But with the comp HYP
> (or weaker) 
> Reality, whatever it is, is an artifact resulting
> from some mixing 
> between lobian (not human) ignorancxe and
> arithmetical truth. This does 
> not contradict what you say.
> 
> 
> > As this list agreed (at least I did)
> > it is better to talk about a '(1st person?)
> perception
> > of reality' i.e. of the part we can muster and in
> ways
> > we can handle. It may include the 'Subject'
> concepts.
> 
> But if you refuse to bet on something thrid person
> describable 
> operating at the roots of the first person
> perception, you take the 
> risk of solipsism (the contrary of humility). Of
> course, any third 
> person proposition (even theorem in arithmetic) is
> doubtful, and some 
> amount of faith is asked upon.

Solipsism can be humiliating: "I cannot be right".<G>
#rd person is not denied in my position: it is just
represented by MY 1st person interpretation of it, so
while "there is" a 3rd person "truth" it emerges in us
as our 1st person understanding.

> 
> Bon week-end,
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 

Reply via email to