On 1 February 2014 18:08, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't expect anything and I'm not looking for anything. I'm explaining > why logic is theoretical representation rather than aesthetic presentation, > and that the distinction between the two is the key to solving the hard > problem of consciousness, explanatory gap, symbol grounding problem, and > binding/combination problem. It doesn't matter what we think about it, it > just matters that we understand why logic has limits and emerges from > feeling rather than the other way around. Once we understand why logic has > limits, and that representations of truth do not have any power to > experience or cause experience, the we can stop demanding that reality > conform to the expectations of theory. > But in general you don't explain it, you merely assert it. And from what I can understand from a reading of your assertions on the subject, you don't seem to be saying much that hasn't been said in some form many times before, and which turns out to have formidable problems of its own (unsurprisingly, given the intractability of the subject area to the best minds of history). What I've presented to you in the form of the POPJ, for example, is a strong objection and merely asserting that it doesn't apply doesn't cut the mustard. By the way, you often seem to use the term "theory" in a naively disparaging way, as in "it works in theory but it doesn't work in practice". This of course is a contradiction in terms. If it doesn't work in practice it can't work in the (correct) theory. No one else, AFAICT - certainly not me - is "demanding that reality conform to the expectations of theory" if that theory is incorrect. For that very reason a theory is only useful insofar as its assumptions and principles of derivation can be made sufficiently constrained and explicit. We then have some hope of comparing theory with practice (not "reality", since we can have only ever make a bet on some connection between belief and truth). Nowhere in my reading of you do you explicitly state your assumptions, or how their consequences are to be derived. Bruno for one repeatedly asks you to do this but you don't respond. I've tried most recently to intuit what some of them might be (it's not that hard, actually) and offer you some straightforward objections but your typical response is to deflect, ignore, rhapsodise, change the subject or claim, without argument, that they don't apply in your case. Actually, if in addition you can't find the threads this creates a further barrier to communication. But whatever the reason the overall effect is to vitiate the whole point and purpose of discussion and frankly it makes me wonder why you bother. I see that I am scolding you and that is not really my goal. I would like to penetrate further into your theory if that is possible using the medium of rational discourse. I have a life-long interest in the subject area and if you could persuade me that you really were the possessor of a totally new insight I should certainly not want to miss it. So if you can find the thread (actually I pretty much restated the paradox in this one) by all means let's have another go. David -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
