On 09 Feb 2014, at 15:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
The logical proof that we have accurate knowledge of the world is
our very existence.
The logical evidence (not proof) that we might have accurate knowledge
of a possible world is, indeed, perhaps related to the feeling that
something is true.
If our belief was completely wrong we could not function or even
exist. Therefore all extant species have sufficient true knowledge
(beliefs) of the world to function and exist within it.
You mean "true belief (knowledge)" ?
What do you mean by "computational space?". What do you mean by
"reality computes"?
Your patronizing tone seems proportional to your inability to answer
the question we ask to you.
You begin to look like a bot. To be franc.
Bruno
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:35:43 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If "really reading these words" refer to
the quale of reading those words, then I agree I can know that. But
if it means that there is a some 3p "real reality" in which I read
those "real 3p words", then I cannot know that, as I might be
dreaming.
People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you
are reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically,
there is no way to prove that you are reading these words right now.
OK.
The fact that you might not really be reading these words correctly
(if at all) might be offensive to the real words. To avoid passing
judgment on those other words, we must assume that it is no more
likely that we are reading these words as it is that we are not.
This I do not understand. We don't need to be sure to act. Our
belief can be true, even when we can't be sure. We can develop some
trust in reality and our means to evaluate plausibilities.
I cannot know that I am awake, and that I will send you this mail,
but I can be pretty sure.
What is the logical proof that our belief can be true though?
What is the logical way out of this?
We can hope, pray, bet, that reality is kind enough to make us wrong
when we are wrong, and hope to progress toward a big picture we can
also hope for.
If you start to have public certainties, you are doomed. We can
start by agreeing on assumptions, only. That is science or good
philosophy. I think.
Aren't all agreements and assumptions in science or good philosophy
expectations of public certainties (even the prohibition of public
certainty)?
That's why I like sense. It doesn't have to be a final truth, but
neither does it have to be an arbitrary fiction that only seems to
coincide with the truth. Sense can appreciate itself directly,
without having to define and encode.
Craig
Bruno
--
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.
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 [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.
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 [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.
