# The use of 2p in perception

```Hi Bruno Marchal

The 2p appears to be in synthetic logic such as in epistemology
(phenomenology or perception) and presumably in Boolean
synthetic logic operations such as AND, OR, XOR and NAND
operations, where apparently some form of
combination is used ? ```
```
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_synthesis

"History of logic synthesis

The roots of logic synthesis can be traced to the treatment of logic by
George Boole (1815 to 1864), in what is now termed Boolean algebra.
In 1938, Claude Shannon showed that the two-valued Boolean algebra
can describe the operation of switching circuits.
representations as Karnaugh maps. The Karnaugh map-based minimization
of logic is guided by a set of rules on how entries in the
maps can be combined. A human designer can typically only work with
Karnaugh maps containing up to four to six variables.
Logic operations usually consist of boolean AND, OR, XOR and NAND operations,
and are the most basic forms of operations in an electronic circuit.
Arithmetic operations are usually implemented with the use of logic operators.
Circuits such as a binary multiplier or a binary adder are examples
of more complex binary operations that can be implemented using basic
logic operators. "

This shows how 2p is used in perception:

The Categories as used in perception:

I 1p--Quality (Reference to a Ground),
II 2p-- Relation (Reference to a Correlate),
II 3p--Representation (Reference to an Interpretant),

I 1p-- Quale (that which refers to a ground),
II 2p--Relate (that which refers to a ground and correlate, )
III 3p--Representamen (that which refers to ground, correlate, and
interpretant. )

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-12-28, 14:48:04
Subject: Re: On the truth of comp -->Fw: 1p= pragmatic or experiential
truthvs3p = truth by calculation

Hi Roger,

On 28 Dec 2012, at 13:53, Roger Clough wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p.
But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye,
but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear,
and operates down here, which is why I classified it as
being contingent.

3p have necessities and contingencies, but they have also their divine and
terrestrial aspect. Here, Divine just means True, and Terrestrial just means
effectively believed (and true as I study ideally correct machines).

So there is an OUTER GOD, which is the ONE, and which is 3p, in the comp
theory, as it is the collection of true arithmetical propositions.

There is a knower, and it is the INNER GOD, it is the one "available" in the
mystical experience. For the ideally correct machine it is both terrestrial and
divine (S4Grz = S4Grz*).

The No?, i.e. the "accessible" 3p, and the Matter splits into divine and
terrestrial parts.

Eventually we get 8 person points of view, which gives 8 ways to see
arithmetical truth from inside:

TRUTH (outer God) 0p
INTELLIGIBLE (by Man) INTELLIGIBLE (by God) 3p
SOUL (inner God) 1p

Intelligible MATTER (by Man) Intelligible MATTER (by God) 3p
sensible MATTER (by Man) sensible MATTER (by God) 1p

This sum up an interpretation of Plotinus in term of the naturally existing
intensional variant of self-reference. This gives eight different
logics/mathematics.

if G del's incompleteness theorem was false, or if Church thesis was false, the
8 hypostases would collapse into effective truth. But things are not that easy
for the machine looking inward.

I have no 2p, as I am not studying the private life of couples of machines :)

Bruno

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Time: 2012-12-27, 06:09:25
Subject: Re: On the truth of comp -->Fw: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth
vs3p = truth by calculation

On 26 Dec 2012, at 17:33, Roger Clough wrote:

Note that

1p = contingent truth

Not at all. Each person pov has its own set of necessities and contingencies.

3p = necessary truth

Not correct (in comp, and weakening of comp). There are many pure 3p
arithmetical contingencies. This is highly counter-intuitive and is a
consequence of G?el's incompleteness, mainly. More on this later (perhaps on
FOAR).

So the question of whether comp is true or not is
whether or when or where

1p = 3p

In God's eye, and nowhere else. In the computationalist theory.

Bruno

----- Have received the following content -----
Sender: Roger Clough
Time: 2012-12-26, 11:26:27
Subject: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs 3p = truth by calculation

Hi everything-list

IMHO that comp iis true or not is equalvalent to the question

does

1p = 3p ?

where

1p= truth by experience (or actuality) and

3p = truth by description (by theory)

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/26/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

--
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
For more options, visit this group at

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
For more options, visit this group at

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