On 12 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 11:56:12 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
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:
> 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
> 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
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
3) semi-unique, semi-private, semi-spatiotemporal, semi-local, semi-
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, ...).
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.