On 04 Jan 2015, at 01:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/3/2015 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"
On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Animals think like autistic humans"
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand
what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive
anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have
a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of
material to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner
dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a
deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that
which is doing the individuals *thinking*
OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say
that the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but
that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone
wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the
1p, []p &p).
What's wrong with being 3p describable (aside from mystic prejudices)?
It is usually accepted by philosophers of mind, theologian, poet, and
most people capable of some aount of introspection, that experiences,
consciousness, qualia, pain, etc. are not 3p describable. It is a
chance for mechanism, as most arithmetical truth a machine can be
confronted to by introspection are not 3p describable. For example the
"classical" knower, []p & p, if it can be defined for each
arithmetical proposition p, cannot be defined by a predicate in
arithmetic knowable('p'), (for reason similar that True('p') cannot be
defined). This has been shown by Scott and Montague. Despite being not
definable by a machine, a machine can still reason on it and find that
it obeys a precise mathematics (with the propositional part obeying
the modal logic S4Grz).
Bruno
Brent
--
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/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 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/d/optout.
