On 2/13/2013 2:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2013 8:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Feb 2013, at 03:03, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/12/2013 5:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, 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) which we are
arbitrarily considered as a given condition...but there is no given
condition in actual experience. All experiences are contingent upon what
the experiencer is capable of receiving or interacting with.

I don't really follow your remaining comments, but I agree with you
that the p in the Theatetical definition of knowledge makes me
uncomfortable, post Popper.

I'm happy for Bp&  p to apply to mathematical knowledge, with B
semantically equivalent to "prove", but when it comes to scientific
knowledge, requiring absolute truth in things seems a step too far.

But I have no constructive suggestions as to how to modify Theatetus :(.


Intuitively Bp & p does not define knowledge.

Why? It obeys to the classical theory of knowledge (the modal logic S4), and in the comp context, we get the more stronger logic S4Grz1, and it works very well. It even makes the knower unnameable and close to the Plotinus "universal soul" or "inner God".



As Edmund Gettier pointed out Bp, where B stands for 'believes' as in non-mathematical discourse, can be accidental. Hence he argued that the belief must be causally connected to the fact of the proposition in order to count as knowledge.

We have already discussed this. Edmund Gettier seems to accept a notion of knowledge which makes just no sense, neither in comp, nor in platonism.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem we read:

"A Gettier problem is any one of a category of thought experiments in contemporary epistemology that seem to repudiate a definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). The category of problem owes its name to a three-page paper published in 1963, by Edmund Gettier, called "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?". In it, Gettier proposed two scenarios where the three criteria (justification, truth, and belief) seemed to be met, but where the majority of readers would not have felt that the result was knowledge due to the element of luck involved."

    Bruno's notion involves betting, so luck is a factor! ;-)


I don't know what notion of knowledge he accepts, but he rejects accidental beliefs that happen to be true. The example he gives is Bob and Bill work together. Bob knows that Bill has gone to pick up a new car he bought. He sees Bill drive a new blue car into the parking lot and concludes that the car Bill bought is blue. In fact it is blue, but it wasn't ready and so the dealer gave Bill a blue loaner to drive that day. So does Bob know that Bill bought a blue car, or does he only believe, truly that he did?

From my reflection about the dream-argument, it probably means that Gettier believes that we can know things for sure

I don't think that follows that all. Even a causally connected belief can be false. The problem is in explicating what constitutes 'causally connected' in complicated cases.

WTF is a "causally connected belief "? I see something related to the idea in this paper <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.135.6125%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=eA4cUcfkKIvI9gSMqoH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGqdgT1-h5HaLR32l2vdtoXsRRbpA&sig2=ci0UE1moSaz5Ybmq2ER76A&bvm=bv.42261806,d.eWU> but Causality is a concept that is on intimate terms with Time. No?


Brent

and communicate them as such, making him believe implicitly, at least, that we can know that we are awake, or that our communicable knowledge is secure, but with comp that is impossible. With comp we can be sure of our consciousness only, but that knowledge is typically not communicable.

And the belief does not need to be accidental, and hopefully (but only hopefully) is not. And it is never accidental for the ideal case of simpler machine than us, that we need to study to get the physics (quanta and qualia) from the numbers relations.

Bruno


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
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.


Reply via email to