On 9/13/2017 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote:



On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



    On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


        On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote:



            On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

                So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the
                existence of the universal number(s), then I define a
                notion of rational belief "scientific belief",
                (Plotinus discursive reasoner) by Gödel's (sigma_1
                arithmetical) beweisbar Bp. That makes sense, due to
                incompleteness which prevent provability to be a
                notion of knowledge.


            This seems problematic to me.  I understand why you do
            it; because you want knowledge to be true belief (not
            just true provable belief).  But this does violence to
            the usual meaning of knowledge (c.f. Getteir for example).


        Yes. Incompleteness makes provability into belief instead of
        knowledge. Gödel mention this already in 1933.



            It means that given some undecidable proposition one of
            us can assert it and the other deny it, and then one of
            us will know it. ??


        Ih he proves it (correctly or not).


    But that is inconsistent with your definition of "know" = "true
    belief".  You are really using "know" = "true and proven".  
    Which is closer to Gettier's "caused true belief".


I think you're missing the point I've been attempting to develop in my last couple of posts. Truth, or 'correspondence with a reality', can only be relative to a point of view. It's perfectly possibly that any such idiosyncratic, though unavoidable, commitment may deviate from some more pervasive and general underlying consistency and that this may put its possessor at hazard. That's the ineluctable logic of evolution. Nevertheless if something is true for me, in this primary or undoubtable sense, it will correspond with my (relative) reality, in both its formal or effective aspect (Bp) and its truthful or phenomenal one (and p). Any subsequent interpretation based on such primary givens is of course a separate question.

OK, but in the general context, explicitly assuming Mechanism (and thus Church's thesis, arithmetic, ...), "p" refer to the "absolute" arithmetical truth (or better at some point, the sigma_1 truth).

I hope you agree that elementary arithmetic is "absolutely true". Just slightly more doubtable than consciousness!



It's interesting to compare this, by the way, with Dennett's claim about the illusory nature of consciousness. He says, in effect, that there is no reality - i.e. one that corresponds with (what he calls) our judgements about the existence of conscious phenomena - that transcends the mere judgements themselves. So his claim is that such judgments are lacking in *truth*.

Which is close to nonsense to me, because he use the word "transcend" like if observation could lead correctly to such judgment. he is very coherent in his materialism, and he is force to eliminate consciousness in that process.

He doesn't eliminate consciousness, he says it is the conclusion of competition between modules of the brain constructing narratives to explain perceptions.

Brent

But that is close to the mechanist reduction ad absurdum, because consciousness existence, although not out there, is still existing in here. Actually, if we really put the "p" (alone) in consciousness, we get the unnameable cosmic consciousness of the zeroth person view (but here we are in G* minus G, and so I am blaspheming again).

Bruno





David



    Brent

        Knowledge is Bp & p, which is impossible if p is not provable
        (~Bp). We just cannot know an undecidable (by us)
        proposition, by definition, although we can bet on it, but
        then it is different kind of knowledge (closer to Bp & Dt).
        That we can know for bad reason is the ultimate lesson of the
        dream argument. People like Malcom who dislike Mechanism are
        forced into disbelieving the existence of consciousness in
        dreams, as he did.

        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
            [email protected]
            <mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
            To post to this group, send email to
            [email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>.
            Visit this group at
            https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
            <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
            For more options, visit
            https://groups.google.com/d/optout
            <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.


        http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
        <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>




-- 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]
    <mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
    To post to this group, send email to
    [email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>.
    Visit this group at
    https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
    <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
    <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] <mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>



--
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] <mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to