On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:42:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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. >
How do you justify the assumption of entities that do not depend on any phenomenological participation though? Certainly there are truths which are independent of *our* sensing as individuals, or as human beings, or as fleshy objects or temporal spans of felt experience, but how can we know, or rather why should we jump to conclusions that there are things that simply 'are' independently of a sensed experience (note I omit 'entity', since it is not clear that an experience must be felt by a particular being (it could be felt by a class of beings, an era of being, or an eternity of being). Third person truth is not anchored in the firmament of fact, it is simply a lowest common denominator of sensitivity among all participants. If third person truth were sense independent, what would be the point of having sense actually experienced? How would it create sensation mechanically, and how would whatever is used to attach first person phenomena to third person phenomena be itself attached to either one? > > > > Computers cannot lie intentionally, > > > > Hmm... That is your usual anti-mechanist propaganda. > It's not too late to discover a new perspective... http://multisenserealism.com/2013/09/12/why-computers-cant-lie-and-dont-know-your-name/ > > > > 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. > My intuition is to support the use of 'personal' to describe private physics, but the word person seems too loaded to me. I am ok with everything that I see around me now being 'personal' in some sense, but I do not see that every line and curve, every sparkle and shadow arc is a 'person' or collection of persons. Also I think that the universal number has no reason to feel, but a universal feeling has every reason to count. > > > > > 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, ...). > I'm trying to make an informal reference without getting too deeply into what is meant by real. I agree that spacetime is not absolute - it is the polar opposite. Spacetime is the conditional, the local. Still though, the point I'm making is that computation is ultra-local and ultra-nonlocal, but rather than assuming that it includes every shade in between, I think all signs point to the contrary. Quantum jumps, and what it is jumping across is 'reality' - accumulated experiences...every shade in between. Digital vs analog is a good analog for the real thing, which would be more like digital+analog vs {the superpositioned/proto-divergence of all experiences}. Thanks, Craig > 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.
