On Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:54:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2013, at 04:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> 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? 
>
>
> That is called "realism". I guess you know I am realist about facts like 
> "14 is not prime" and the like. We have discussed already on that, and I 
> think, agree that we disagree on that.
>

I don't see any realism in assuming anything that is disconnected from all 
forms of phenomenology. How would such a thing be part of a universe?

 

>
>
>
> 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. 
>
>
> I am OK with this, but as I defined entities from what I am realist about, 
> I prefer to make it simple and refer to an arithmetic independent of us.
>

I agree that arithmetic is independent of us as human beings, but I see 
nothing to suggest that it is independent of all experience.
 

>
>
>
>
> If third person truth were sense independent, what would be the point of 
> having sense actually experienced? 
>
>
> The presence of far away galaxies does not depend on us (human beings), 
> but we still need sense (Hubble) to acknowledge their existence.
>

Of course, but far away galaxies do depend on the sensitivity of the matter 
of the Hubble, or other galaxies, or our eyeball and brain, to 'exist' in 
some particular form. Otherwise what is the difference between a galaxy 
existing and not existing?
 

>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> Through two things: self-reference and truth.
>

Those are abstractions though, not mechanisms.You could say 'tenacity' and 
'ingenuity' too, but that doesn't put 'orange' in a digital sequence.

 

> the first in technically manageable, the second is not. But we have both 
> once we assume the independent truth of arithmetical relations.
>

Independent of what though? That implies that there exists something 
outside of arithmetic relations, but then claims them at the same time. 
It's stage magic.

 

>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I know that is what you feel. I have explained why numbers feels this to, 
> as the truth here has to be logically counter-intuitive. 
>

But by saying that you put yourself above what you claim. You say "numbers 
feel they are not numbers", and "we are all numbers", but then "I 
understand that all numbers are wrong, and that insight makes me more than 
an ordinary deluded number". Apparently not all numbers feel this.

 

> Young machines have hard to believe that they are machines, and eventually 
> this asks for a strong philosophical, even theological, bet. That is why 
> "mechanist proselytism" is forbidden.
>
>
Then why have I gone the other way? I used to believe as you do when I was 
young, but now I understand exactly why that cannot be true.

 

>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. 
>
>
> OK
>
>
> 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}.
>
>
> OK. That fits mechanist theology.
>

ok. What makes it mechanist though if only the narrow extremes make sense 
as mechanical?

Craig
 

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

Reply via email to