On 23 Nov 2012, at 16:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, November 23, 2012 7:35:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg

Yes,intuition comes from Platonia, whereas
a dream might come from a bad choice of food,
or a nasty comment somebody made.

Intuition brings in something new and presumably
good and rational, but with a dream you are often only
forced into a fruitless search for a solution
to your discomfort, grasping at irrational
straws. At least that's my experience.

I think this is too simplistic of a view of what is really going on. Within a dream you can have intuition also. You can arguably have every kind of experience in a dream that you can have while you are awake (though some categories of experience are uncommon). Indeed only actually waking up provides a vantage point from which the unreality of a dream can be clearly seen.

With comp we can know that we are (relatively) dreaming, but we can never know that we are awaken.




We were talking about imagination though, which implies the capacity to consciously direct inner experience while intuition is decidedly undirected by the conscious mind. Your distinction makes some sense on the surface, as far as there is a notion of truthfulness to the contents of intuition which is not necessarily present in imagination, however there is no question in my mind that while great evil has been done in the service of dreams and false promises, they are generally served by intuition just as well, with brutal dictators and psychotic killers often guided by an extraordinarily intuitive gift for military and political strategy. The logic of a sociopath is a form of intuition, whereas intuition is not a form of logic.


What about intuitionist logic? I do think it capture some important feature of what many call intuition.

Classical mathematics can be described as intuitionist mathematics + (P v ~P)

Without (P v ~P), the so-called excluded middle principle, you get the logic of a self-extending self. Basically a solipsist who take as real only its mental constructions. Like women and engineers perhaps. It is the heart, the yin, the knower, the first person. It is also what we get with the Bp & p definition of knowledge (the corresponding modal logic S4Grz1 can be seen as a logic of the epistemology of an intuitionist knower).

With (P v ~P), you get the non-constructive proof of existence, and thus Platonia, and with comp, that is where the self-extending selfs extend themselves.

So I agree with a part of your disagreement with Roger Clough. In fine, intuition is rooted in the earth, and the counter-intuitive Platonia is what makes earth and self possible, but no selfs can really believe in this, still less construct Platonia.

Bruno







[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
11/23/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-23, 08:11:42
Subject: Re: imagination



On Friday, November 23, 2012 4:23:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal

1) I suspect that when you refer to imagination, it is the
same as what I call intuition.  They're related, but I don't
think they're exactly the same. I see intuition as coming
from Platonia and spreading wider than the individual to
all possible solutions. In essence, you do not imagine these
solutions, they become evident to you.

Imagination and intuition are different.

Imagine a blue chair. Works right?

Have an intuition that someone is going to ring your doorbell. Didn't work, did it? You can't make yourself have an intuition, intuition comes to you unbidden from beyond your conscious attention. Imagination produces results in the form of images and other ideal gestalts, both voluntarily and involuntarily, just as we can choose to control our breathing to some extent or allow it to happen outside of our conscious attention.


2) Maybe I misundertand you, but I especially don't see how the machine,
has any advantage over the person with regard to 1p. As I see it,
1p is a blind spot, machine or person. Godel holds for both a
person and a machine.


1p is only a blind spot from a 3p perspective. Everything that has every been experienced is only 1p as far as we know. This is actually one of the main points where my model improves the conventional understanding. Neither 1p nor 3p can be proved against the other. The more relevant dichotomy is between spatially extended public exterior sense and temporally intended private interior sense. Both are really 1p, but the former faces a 3p which may or may not be primitively 'real'.

Craig



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ndHHgRGYXZ0J .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4tlDkQaxkIoJ .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to