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], [[email protected]]
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
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 [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
.
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.
