On 19 January 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: conceptually disconnected from a base ontology that has no knowledge or >> need of them. If we can accept consciousness as the model (in the >> mathematicians sense) of such a truth level, >> > > What does "truth level" mean? I don't see what the levels of truth are; > there are true sentences and false sentences and decidable and undecidable > sentences. Are you referring to true sentences in a metalanguage? And in > what sense can a consciousness model a "truth level"; sounds like a > category mismatch?
I simply meant the 'level' at which truth is to be found, but on reflection, the word level is redundant. I note Bruno's comment, in another thread, that: "For a logician, "true" means "satisfied by a reality", with *reality* modelled by the notion of *model*. This helps to avoid unnecessary philosophical debates." I'd be happy with that definition of true in this context. If consciousness is a truth, it must be satisfied by a distinguishable reality. The model or exemplar of that particular reality (i.e. what makes it distinct from any public manifestation) is accessible only self-referentially. Nonetheless (as we have already agreed) the 'public warrant' for its truth is that its consistent assertion is analytically indefeasible. 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/d/optout.
