Hi Bruno, Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on <>t? Unfortunately I haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality with <>t.
Thanks, T On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Terran, > > > On 11 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > Hi Bruno, > > Sure, "consciousness here-and-now" is undoubtable. But the p refers to the > contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. "I am in > pain" cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt sensations > can be doubted, e.g. see > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956899/ > > Such illusions of experience can even be helpful, as in Ramachandran's > Mirror Box therapy for phantom limb sufferers, see > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468806/ > > Illusions of experience are evidence that what we experience is of our > brains' constructions, like a waking dream, guided in healthy brains by the > patterns of information streaming from our sense organs. > > > Exactly: like a walking dream. That's the root of the Bp & p idea, in the > Theaetetus. To do the math I concentrate to "rich" (Löbian) machine for the > "B", but the idea of defining knowledge by true belief is an act of modesty > with respect to the question if we are dreaming or not, or more generally, > if we are wrong or not. > > > > > Brains that are defective in this manner result in schizophrenia and > presumably other dissociative pathologies. > > > OK. > > > > > For me it all casts doubt on whether Bp & p is an accurate formalization > for experience, but I might be missing something. > > > As I said above, it is a simplest "meta" definition which capture the > "main thing" (the truth of the experience) without needing to define it. > > Also, for the "physical" first person *experience*, Bp & p, which is only > the knower, is not enough, you will need Bp & <>t & p, which by > incompleteness has its own logic, quantum like when restricted to the > sigma_1 truth. You need a reality (<>t). > > > > Can you make sense of Bp & p for a schizophrenic who hears voices? > > > If a schizophrenic says that he hears voices, and if he hears voice > (mentally, virtually, arithmetically, brain-biologically, ...), then he > knows he hears voice. > > An insane guy who says that he is Napoleon does not know that he is > napoleon, but he believes it only. He still might know that he believes > being Napoleon, and be only ignorant or denying that this is false. > > > > > > How about your own salvia experiences? > > > It is very hard to describe, even more to interpret. And I am biased. > > It is indeed: [](... what-the-f.) and ... what the f. Most plausibly. > > It is like remembering forgotten qualia since eons. > > It might confirms the idea that brains, machines, words, theories filter > consciousness only. > Consciousness would be a close sister of (arithmetical) truth. > > Salvia might open the appetite for platonism, but of course it is also a > question of taste. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > T > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 10 Mar 2014, at 16:28, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> Question for you Bruno:. >> >> You say (with help from Theaetetus) that 1p experience is given by Bp & >> p. Yet, our experience is often deluded, as in optical illusions, or in >> various kinds of emotional & psychological denial. Can we ever really say >> that our knowledge, even 1p experience, refers to anything True? >> >> >> In public? No. >> >> In private? Yes. >> >> I would say. >> >> Then in the frame of theories about such 1p things, like consciousness, >> we can decide to agree on some "property" of the notion. Then, >> "consciousness-here-and-now" might be a candidate for a possible true >> reference, if you agree consciousness-here-and-now is undoubtable or >> incorrigible. >> >> Then we can approximate many sort of truth, by the very plausible, the >> probable, the relatively expectable, etc. >> >> If someone complains, is the pain real or fake? Eventually it is a >> question for a judge. >> >> The truth is what no machine can really grasp the whole truth, but all >> machines can know very well some aspect of it, I think, but very few in >> justifiable modes. >> >> >> 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/d/optout. > > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
