On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:

Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on my computer.

Picking up from where we left off, I'm still trying to see the
relationship between Bp, Bp&p, 1-I, 3-I and the plain ordinary I
pronoun in English.

As I said, in natural language we usually mix 1-I (Bp) and 3-I (Bp & p).
The reason is that we think we have only one body, and so, in all practical situation it does not matter. (That's also why some people will say I am my body, or I am my brain, like Searles, which used that against comp, but if that was valid, the math shows that machines can validly shows that they are not machine, which is absurd).

The difference 1-I/3-I is felt sometimes by people looking at a video of themselves. The objective situation can describe many people, and you feel bizarre that you are one of them. That video lacks of course the first person perspective.

The distinction is brought when we study the mind body problem. You might red the best text ever on this: the Theaetetus of Plato. But the indians have written many texts on this, and some are chef-d'oeuvre (rigorous).




I understand Bp can be read as "I can prove p", and "Bp&p" as "I know
p". But in the case, the difference between Bp and Bp&p is entirely in
the verb, the pronoun "I" stays the same, AFAICT.

Correct. Only the perspective change. "Bp" is "Toto proves p", said by Toto. "Bp & p" is "Toto proves p" and p is true, as said by Toto (or not), and the math shows that this behaves like a knowledge opertaor (but not arithmetical predicate). So, the ideally correct machine will never been able to ascribe a name or a description to it. Intuitively, for the machine, that "I" is not assertable, and indeed such opertair refer to something without a name.




Also, switching viewpoints, one could equally say the Bp can be read
as "he can prove p",

but the point is that it is asserted by "he", in the language of "he".



and Bp&p as "he knows p", so the person order of
the pronoun is also not relevant.

Yes, you can read that in that way, but you get only the 3-view of the 1-view.

Let us define [o]p by Bp & p

I am just pointing on the difference between B([o]p) and [o]([o]p).

Best,

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