On 05 Jul 2011, at 00:29, B Soroud wrote:
Bruno, damn, this is heavy.... give me a moment to reply:
you see. I can be very sure that my body exists.... a 100% sure...
but I can't be sure that anything else exists.
The old dream argument already refute this. It is the beginning of
science and philosophy. I have no clue how you can be sure that your
body exist. You can only assume this.
you say: " Just now, you can hardlmy doubt you are... you know that
you are conscious. You know that you ...but you know you are living
it here and now."
I can doubt that "I am".... but I can't doubt that "x is". But what
does x mean?
Anything objective. Anything which admit a third person description.
That is always doubtable, and can only be based on a theory (created
consciously, or selected by evolution).
" You know that you are conscious. You know perfectly what it is. It
is what makes pain painful. "
false! false! I don't know what pain is.... I know what the word
refers to.... but once I try to pay close attention to it and figure
out what it is.... I don't know what it is.... it just is....
You confuse knowing a first person fact, and understanding a theory
accounting for that fact. In your sense we should say that we know
nothing.
You think you know what these "things" are but once you play close
attention they slip through your fingers...... they just become
unintelligible names..... because "sensation" is a name...... the
"thing itself" is not the word..... and the "thing itself" is
unknowable.
In which theory?
I can say that I am but I cannot say what I am or what is
is........I can just say..... x is. but I know neither what x or is
is. (take this seriously, I am not sophisticating)
"I think that you assume the existence of a physical primitive
universe."
Do you mean I assume some substantial and objective reductionist
state of affairs? I don't assume anything.
Just reread you post. You assume humans have bodies. You assume time
and space, etc. If you are not aware of your assumption, you will take
time to progress. We always do assumption.
"Mind construction are some definable, and some non definable number
relation"
I define any conception or notion of mind, and even the notion of
mind-construction.... as by definition a "mind-construction".
And how do you define "mind construction", and from what assumption?
What on earth do you mean by number... it sounds like it is your way
to make a pure abstraction out of concrete determinations. It sounds
like your use of the word number is your way to transcendentalize
things out of existence and convert them into pure abstract
identities.
As I said I do assume simple first order logic axiom: like
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
etc.
I refer you to the papers for details. I have never met scientist
having any doubt on those formula. In science we are never able to
define what we are talking about, but we can share starting statement
and make proof from there.
".It is the belief in a form of technologically possible
reincarnation"
Have you seen ghost in the shell.... if you really believed this...
you should scrap or hide the theory all together. We are too corrupt
and perverse for it.... we would simply stain another space of
existence.
So you do object comp. It is your right. I am agnostic. All what I
prove is that IF comp is true, THEN physics is verifiably a branch of
machine's theology/number theory.
Now this self-introspection that you speak of...
what introspection.... what is being observed? what is the form of
observation?
what is observing what?
An immaterial machine is reasoning about itself in the manner
discovered by Gödel, and clearly explained in his 1931 paper, and
enormously exploited since then.
what causes or constitutes or conditions the observation?
Machine's interactions. Eventually, after understanding the UD
reasoning, it is special number relations.
When you close your eyes, are you seeing some "inner space", the
inside of your skull? or the back of your eyelids?
I don't want to follow you into your sci-fi salvationist
technocratic world-vision.
Not even for the sake of a reasoning? You are just saying: I don't
like this so I will pray for it to be false. This is not the usual
method in the scientific enterprise.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
