That is why I propose simple definitions. Reasoning =
provability = Bp = Beweisbar("p") cf Godel 1931. Soul =
first person = provability-and-truth = Bp & p =
third Plotinus' hypostase. This can look as an oversimplification
but the gap between truth and provability (incarnated in the
corona G* minus G) detrivialises (if I can say) all this.

On the contrary, I would echo John Mikes' sentiment that
some of your definitions seem too simple for my taste.
I think I would agree with your definition of reasoning
though, but I take issue with your definition of Soul =
first person = provability-and-truth = Bp & p. I think
elsewhere you also define Knowledge as Belief & Truth,
and I have the same problem with that. These definitions
seem too simple. These seem equivalent to accidental
true belief and accidental true proof. They lack the
justification factor. (I feel a reference to G*/G coming. ;) )
Anyway, perhaps we can start a new thread if we want
to talk about this part some more, or this is probably what
you've been trying to explain to us all along in previous threads.

Bp & p seems too simple. Actually, given that I limit myself
in the interview of sound machines, we know that they obey
to Bp -> p, by definition (a sound machine proves only true
statements: so Bp -> p).
So we know Bp and Bp & p are equivalent, so you could at

I should have said that Bp & p seems wrong, not that it's too simple. I was trying to say that it seems wrong to say that Bp & p gets us further than Bp, i.e. provability + truth is more than provability. In order for Bp & p > Bp, it seems to me that we would have to have access to truth (p) directly, we would have to *know* that we've proved something to be true, not just that we've been consistent. In order to be *sound* we have to be given "true truth" for our reasoning to start with (and then of course be then be consistent with it). This is similar to why I don't think that knowledge is simply true belief.

first believe that the soul = the intellect. Exercise: what is wrong?
Answer tomorrow :-) (+ answers to Danny and Ben).


I don't know what you're trying to get at with soul = intellect. To me the intellect is simply at the same par with provability and reason. The intellect has to be given true truth in order for it to come up with true truth (if it reasons consistently). More than that, the intellect has to be given true truth and know that it was given true truth, in order to reason its way to more true truth and know that it has done so.


Reply via email to