On 12 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:56:12 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Sep 2013, at 11:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> Time for some philosophy then :)
>
> Here's a paradox that's making me lose sleep:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
>
> Probably many of you already know about it.
>
> What mostly bothers me is the epistemological crisis that this
> introduces. I cannot find a problem with the reasoning, but it's
> clearly false. So I know that I don't know why this reasoning is
> false. Now, how can I know if there are other types of reasoning that
> I don't even know that I don't know that they are correct?


Smullyan argues, in Forever Undecided, rather convincingly, that it is
the Epimenides paradox in disguise,

It's the symbol grounding problem too. From a purely quantitative perspective, a truth can only satisfy some condition. The expectation of truth being true is not a condition of arithmetic truth, it is a boundary condition that belongs to sense.

i think you mix first person truth, that we can sometimes apprehend (like knowing that we are conscious here and now), and third person truth, which does not depend of any entity *sensing* them.



Computers cannot lie intentionally,


Hmm... That is your usual anti-mechanist  propaganda.



they can only report a local truth which is misinterpreted as being false in some sense that is not local to the computation.

For the same reason, computers cannot intend to tell the truth either. As in the Chinese Room - the output of a program is not known by the program to be true, it simply is a report of the truth of some internal process.

You confuse a person, and a program or body responsible for that person being able to communicate with you (that might explain why you believe a computer cannot think. Of course when we say "a computer can think", with comp we mean only that a computer can have an activity making it possible for a person to think relatively to some universal number/machine.




The interesting part is that besides being true locally, the computer's report is also true arithmetically, which is to say that it is true two ways (or senses):

1) the most specific/proprietary sense which is unique, private, instantaneous and local 2) the most universal/generic sense which is promiscuous, public, eternal, and omni-local

The computer's report is, however not true in any sense in between, i.e. in any sense which relates specifically to real experienced events in space time.

Real events in spacetime (which occur orthogonally through mass- energy, or rather mass-energy is the orthogonal cross section of events) are:

3) semi-unique, semi-private, semi-spatiotemporal, semi-local, semi- specific, semi-universal.

I am quite skeptical about "real events in spacetime". I can ascribe a local sense to that, but not an absolute one. I don't buy even weak materialism. It contradicts most things I find much more plausible (consciousness, persons, souls, dreams, monism, ...).

Bruno

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to