On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:53:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 May 2014, at 21:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory. > > > Only because you have an a priori expectation of sequence which can be > inferred. Otherwise nothing is defined and you have only unrelated > statements. You need sense to draw them together and match your intuition. > > > No. Logic is the art of making derivation without sense. > > > There is no art without sense. > > > Then substitute "art" by "mean". >
If that were true and logic is a means of deriving (deriving what if not sense?) without sense, then computation would not need/want to develop sense. I would say that logic seeks to derive sensible information using minimal sense, but it all still goes back ultimately to sensed interactions. > > > > If logic could be accomplished without sense then it would be impossible > to make an error in logic. > > > That does not follow. Logic don't use sense, but the machine or the theory > can use it at another level. > Where are other levels coming from? Why would they by able to make errors? > The physical lwas does not make error, nut an altimeter in a plane can be > wrong when referring to the plane altitude. > You're smuggling in reality to prop up the theory. Of course real technology can make 'mistakes', because in reality logic is not primordial - sense is. If an ideal machine produced an ideal simulation of an altimeter, I see no reason to allow that there could be any such thing as error. > > > > There would be no need to formalize logic because it would be inescapable > in every state of consciousness. > > > It is still needed when you communicate to others. > Again, that's in reality. Sure, we need to formalize logic...because it doesn't entirely permeate reality. Logic must be discerned and developed through sense experience. > > > > > That isn't what we see though. In fact, logic is very tenuous and requires > a particularly sober intellect which is focused on modeling concepts in an > impersonal sense. > > > That is even why so many people think that a machine which can reason is > just doing syntactical manipulation without understanding, and at the low > level, that's correct. > A derivation, in a formal theory, is valid or non valid, independently of > any of its possible interpretation (all those terms are well defined). > > > Syntactical manipulation is still sense, it just has relatively limited > aesthetic qualities. > > > You are not trying to understand. > I'm trying to explain so that you (or others) might understand. What you are saying is that low level mechanism is derived automatically but that does not prevent high level mechanism from developing interpretations. What I am saying is that these considerations are irrelevant to what awareness is about - which is nothing to do with complexity or interpretation or self-reference but with presence itself. I am explaining why aesthetic experience cannot originate from any sort of mechanism, and why all mechanisms rely on more primitive sensory and motivational contexts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gödel is the fist who did that. He invented the "Gödel beta function", > based on a generalization of a famous chinese "lemma", about set of modular > equations in arithmetic. > > Eventually (not easy exercice) you can define from the axiom and the chine > lemma a representation of the exponential function, and with its you can > define a sequence in arithmetic by using the unique factorization of the > natural numbers. > > > But "eventually" means that you must follow a sequence of steps to do your > defining. You smuggle the expectation for sequence in from the start. > > > Hmm, ... I will not insist here, as this will be the object to the next > post in the math thread. > > > > > > > > It is not the existence of arithmetic, it is the existence of 0, s(0), > etc. + the basic relation that you can derive from the axioms. > > > "Derive" requires sequence and sense. > > > Not at all. > > Does that mean that dead people would be good at deriving relations from > axioms? > > Apparently ... in your theory. You are the one saying that my sun in law > is a zombie, death as far as his consciousness is concerned. > > Yes, the sun in law is a doll, but there is still low level sense going on to keep the simulation going. > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells >> me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist >> without sequence. >> >> >> It is a bit imprecise. I can define sequence in *any* turing complete >> language, and they are all equivalent for computationalism. >> You can define a notion of sequence as primitive, instead of numbers, >> yes. That is the case for LISP, somehow, which is close to combinators and >> lambda calculus. >> >> Yo have never provide any theory, so I can't figure what you talk about. >> >> >> The theory is that logic and arithmetic are particular continuations of >> sense, not the other way around. >> >> >> Sense is a vague term. Not two human being understand it in the same way. >> It is a bit like God. Important notion, but hardly usable in theories. >> > > If theories can't use sense, and sense is important, then surely it is the > theories that should change. > > > No. It is like "god". We can talk about it without referring to it to > assert a proposition, when we want make a rational communication, which was > what we were talking about. Of course in daily life, we don't do rational > communication all of the time. You change the subject, and confuse level of > discourse. []p does not refer to sense, but []p & p does, for example. > > []p refers to sense also. p is basically sense^2. In the way that I am using it, as primordial capacity for detection/appreciation/motivation, sense would be more like ][. first person = ][([] > ][p) Sense of local experience is more privileged than abstract (sense experiences compared conceptually) expectations. third person = ][([] < ][p) Sense of local experience is less privileged than abstract expectations. The expectation of p as true is abstract. In reality, there can never be any simple case of p - all p is a kaleidoscope of relations and expectations within sense. Consciousness creates p, and it creates many alternate ~p, semi-p, near-p, temporary p, ambiguous-p, etc. 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/d/optout.
