On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:56:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making > an assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a > proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group > of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) > > > ? >
If I understand it correctly: If Bp = 'The belief that China is in Asia', then p = 'China is in Asia'. What I'm saying is that "p" is really hundreds of millions of experiences in which the location of China is referenced, visually, verbally, cognitively. The p is the inertia of those implicit memories, balanced against the absence of any counterfactual experiences. Each one of those memories, thoughts, and images is itself a lower level 'Bp'. I might imagine a composite image of a generic world map in my mind, where China is represented as a green bulge in Asia. That image is a Bp: 'China is shaped like this (China shape) and is part of the shape called Asia'. There is no objective p condition of China being in Asia which is independent of all experiences. It is the Bp experiences, direct and indirect, of China and Asia which define every possible p about China being in Asia. which we are arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given condition in actual experience. That's why we put Bp & p. To get the condition of 1p experience. It works as we get a non nameable, and non formalisable notion of knowledge. S4 and S4Grz do succeed in meta-formalizing a thoroughly non formalisable notion. I don't know what that means. If notions are non nameable and non formalisable, it doesn't have to mean that they are all the same notion. All experiences are contingent upon what the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with. Any proposition that can be named relies on some pre-existing context (which is sensed or makes sense). The problem with applying Doxastic models to consciousness is not only that it amputates the foundations of awareness, It does not for the reason above. Note that even Bp & p can lead to falsity, in principle. Things get more complex when you add the non monotonic layers, that we need for natural languages and for the mundane type of belief or knowledge. Here, of course, with the goal of deriving the correct physical laws; it is simpler to consider the case of ideally correct machine, for which us, but not the machine itself can know the equivalence. ? Craig Bruno but that the fact of the amputation will be hidden by the results. In Baudrillard's terms, this is a stage 3 simulacrum, (stage one = a true reflection, stage two = a perversion of the truth, stage three = a perversion which pretends not to be a perversion). The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the > simulacrum *pretends* to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no > original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no > representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as > things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the > "order of sorcery", a regime of > semantic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics>algebra where all human > meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a > reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation This is made more important by the understanding that sense or awareness is the source of authenticity itself. This means that there can be no tolerance for any stage of simulation beyond 1. In my hypotheses, I am always trying to get at the 1 stage for that reason, because consciousness or experience, by definition, has no substitute. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
