Leibniz's three simple arguments that the mind must contain innate (a priori) ideas
Leibniz's three simple arguments that the mind must contain innate (a priori) ideas http://www.academia.edu/915473/Leibniz_Argument_for_Innate_Ideas THE THREE ARGUMENTS Proposition to be proven: The (human) Mind is not a Tabula Rasa [blank slate] ever. T1.1 : Because it contains principles on which necessary truths rest, and these principles did not originate outside the mind. T1.2 : Because it contains ideas of reflection, i.e it is itself the source of inner knowledge. T1.1 P1 The Mind knows both truths of matter of fact and truths of reason P2 The Mind knows truths of reason (from P1 by Simplification) P3 The truths of reason are necessary, universally valid (true in all possible words) and absolutely certain C1 Therefore the Mind knows necessary and universal truths (from P2 and P3 by Substitution) P4 Necessity, universality and certainty can either be established by means of induction from external sensory data or they may originate from the mind itself. P5 Induction is inadequate in yielding necessity, universal validity and certainty. C2 Therefore necessity, universal validity and certainty of truths of reason can be original with the mind itself. (from C1, and P4 P5 with Disjunctive Syllogism) P6 If necessity and certainty are original with the mind, then they are contained within it. C3 Hence the mind contains these originally in itself (from P6, C2 and ModusPonens) P7 If the mind contains originally an item of knowledge, then the mind is not empty ever. C4 Therefore the mind is not empty ever. (from C3 and P7 and Modus Ponens) T1.2 P1 The mind has Ideas by means of Reflection P2 Ideas of Reflection manifest the capacity of the mind to know itself. P3 The mind can know itself inwardly either by relying on the senses for assistance or it is itself endowed with this capacity. P4 The senses can deliver knowledge (ideas) regarding only the external world. C1 Hence the mind's capacity for reflecting on itself is an endowed capacity. (from P3 and P4 and Disjunctive Syllogism) P5 If the mind possesses an endowed capacity, then it contains it in itself without having it acquired. C2 The mind contains without acquiring the reflecting capacity (from C1, P5 and Modus Ponens) P6 If a mental item is contained in the mind without being acquired, then it is innate. C3 Hence the mind's reflecting capacity is innate (from C2 and P6 and Modus Ponens) P7 If the mind has an innate item, then it cannot be empty at its inception P10 If the mind contains something innately (from its inception) then it contains it continuously. C4 Therefore the mind is not empty ever (from P7 and P10 and Hypothetical Syllogism) T2 Proposition to be proven: that the mind has the capacity of actively searching and finding innate truths within itself, not merely knowing them. In other words: The capacity to know these truths is different from the capacity the understanding has of merely being capable of coming to know (receive) them. P1 Either a mental faculty is a bare faculty or it is a predetermined, dedicated, capacity to search for specific objects in the mind P2 An epistemic faculty is a 'bare faculty' iff it is merely an indeterminate disposition to receive truths (by definition) C1 Therefore a mental faculty is either an indeterminate disposition to receive truths or a redetermined, dedicated, capacity to search for specific truths in the mind (from P1 and P2 by Substitution) P3 The epistemic capacity of knowing necessary truths is a mental faculty C2 Therefore the epistemic capacity of knowing necessary truths is either a bare faculty or a predetermined dedicated capacity to search for specific such truths (from C1 and P3 by Substitution) P4 If the epistemic capacity of knowing necessary truths is a bare faculty of receiving, then it is not the source of such truths P5 T1.1. (above) has shown that the mind is the source of the validity (proof) of necessary truths C3 Therefore the epistemic capacity of knowing necessary truths is not a bare faculty (fromP4 and P5 and Modus Tollens) C4 Therefore the epistemic capacity of knowing necessary truths is a predetermined dedicated capacity to search for specific objects (from P1 and C3 with Disjunctive Syllogism) I have also used the analogy of the veined block of marble, as opposed to an entirely homogeneous block of marble, or to a blank tablet...[I]f there were veins in the block which marked out the shape of Hercules rather than other shapes, then the block would be more determined to that shape and Hercules would be innate to it...even though labour would be required to expose the veins and to polish them to clarity, removing everything that prevents them from being seen. This is how ideas and truths are innate in us as inclinations, dispositions, tendencies, or natural potentialities and not as action; although these potentialities are always
Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
On 20 July 2013 10:57, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If a dog started talking in full English sentences without manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog. I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either. It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog physiology. Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the characters in a movie can change their own script. It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the movie if the universe is causally closed. The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the movie has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). The movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic irreversibility, loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes it absolutely (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). There's yer dark energy. But it's all physics, and either the physics is computable or it isn't. If the brain is not computable then there are physical process in it which are not computable. It may be the case; there is no a priori reason to assume that physics is computable, and the notion of non-computable functions is a legitimate one in mathematics. However, there is nothing in human behaviour that gives any indication of the computability of the physics in the brain. There is nothing conceptually or empirically in sense or entropy or the other terms you use to indicate whether the physics underlying them is computable or not. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction
On Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:25:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 July 2013 10:57, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, July 19, 2013 8:21:42 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 July 2013 06:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If a dog started talking in full English sentences without manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog. I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either. It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog physiology. Of course the sensory-motive capacities of anything are reflected in physics, but it is not necessarily transitive. Physics may not be able replicate a particular being's sense or motive any more than the characters in a movie can change their own script. It's either the physics inside the movie or the physics outside the movie if the universe is causally closed. The physics outside the movie is sensory-motive. The production of the movie has voluntary intention (will) and involuntary unintention (cause). The movie strips out the former locally (through thermodynamic irreversibility, loss of entropy), while perception (sense) reconstitutes it absolutely (significance, gain of solitrophy (entropy+signficance). There's yer dark energy. But it's all physics, and either the physics is computable or it isn't. Computation only exists on the public side of physics, or rather quantification is publication. The private side of physics can be computable or not, depending on our intention. Here's something that I posted on today that relates (don't be thrown by the mystical shape, it's just a familiar way of laying it all out): http://multisenserealism.com/2013/07/21/multisense-tree-of-life/ Notice the cyan and yellow paths at the bottom, and their relation to the RGB paths between sense and Qualia, Motive, and Quanta. The cyan path is a difference by degree between blue and green. Knowing blue and green, cyan can be predicted with a quantitative approach. On the opposite side, the yellow path illustrates that there must be an alternative to the quantitative approach, since yellow is not predictable from green and red. We know yellow as being halfway between green and red purely by experience, not from any possible formulation. Thus, the authenticity of the sense motivated by qualia is art rather than science, significance rather than entropy. *Quanta:* Measure ‘stops time’ figuratively and creates entropy as space literally. *Qualia:* Perception ‘elides (e-liminates) distance’ (joins ‘matters’ figuratively) and creates significance literally as time. If the brain is not computable then there are physical process in it which are not computable. It may be the case; there is no a priori reason to assume that physics is computable, and the notion of non-computable functions is a legitimate one in mathematics. However, there is nothing in human behaviour that gives any indication of the computability of the physics in the brain. It's not about human behavior, it's about human feeling. Behavior is only known to us after it has been frozen quantitatively. Feeling is prior to computation - although in our case, as an animal, it's confusing because our personal feeling is diffracted as sub-personal feelings as well. When we look at the activity of a brain, we see the computations after the fact of these sub-personal feelings. There is nothing conceptually or empirically in sense or entropy or the other terms you use to indicate whether the physics underlying them is computable or not. Physics is not part of computation, computation is part of physics, and physics is sense. Computation is automation of measurement. Measurement has a physical effect, which is to hide the measurer. This becomes an intractable problem when trying to measure the measurement directly. See if you can find this interesting. http://24.media.tumblr.com/782ebd9e4402a824306e64ec89d95b43/tumblr_mqavewIDtQ1qeenqko1_500.jpg Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: We are all naturally racists. Political correctness is likely to get you killed.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/dry-asparagus-prompts-questions-about-racial-discrimination-in-university-city/article_3e072b32-7aa6-5cf7-bc1b-6f2aac7605f5.html 2013/7/18 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com I can not resist to say something. THat something is innate or natural means that whatever to do with it must take into accout that this is innate or natural, no matter if this is morally positive or negative. Something natural can not be prohibited . Only can be regulated. Take revenge for example. Revenge is something natural, an evolutionary instinct, that correspond with an evolutionarily stable strategy intended to impose, in the adversary, an evil greater than the benefit it may have taken with his offense, making further attacks to you unworthy. That works even If you loose in the process of revenge a lot of effort. Well that beyond the tribal life is deleterious for a civilized society, since retaliations can escalate etc. Many societies have the revenge ritualized or codified. Others create an institution, the justice, that judge and administer punishments to produce the same unworthiness of offenses, but avoid retaliations. So revenge by cool-blood killing an offender is punished as an horrible crime. But the law it does not punish the small retaliations in the workplace, between former friends, among couples in the day to day lves There is ample set of aspects where retaliation is permitted while it does not cause violence. It is logical: It would be comic to see people going to the justice like the children go to their parents saying look my brother pushed me, punish it! Well, with the hysteria of racism we are going in this nonsensical path. People want to be equally or more antiracist than the neighbor. Perhaps because people need to be united by some common beliefs and values, and when there is no belief nor values, they are fabricated, The more crazy they are, the more lies and half truths they imply, the more they work as elements of cohesion. See my other posts. The recently converted moral zealots of antiracism -or whatever is in fashion now- are scanning you. Take care 2013/7/17 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Political correctness is likely to get you killed. We are all naturally racists. Blame it on Darwin. Zenophobia -- fear or dislike of outsiders--is what has allowed us to survive. Unfortunately the liberalized dictionaries I can find online refer to it as abnormal or irrational. Is it abnormal to be cautious in the presence of strangers ? The left refers to such feelings as politically incorrect. But I don't think it is irrational for a mother to tell her children not to talk to strangers, no matter what their color. We instinctively, for our own safety, are somewhat fearful and unfriendly to strangers, no matter what their color. Jesus said to love our neighbors, but he didn't say to go looking for strangers to love. So IMHO political correctness is likely to get you killed. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Raw Madness, now with Quantitative translations (and supreme ultimate truths, of course).
http://24.media.tumblr.com/782ebd9e4402a824306e64ec89d95b43/tumblr_mqavewIDtQ1qeenqko1_500.jpg More: -- 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/groups/opt_out.
On computational subjectivity: Leibniz's Grand Perceiver as Cloud Computing-- and the One (or God) as WiFi Sharing thereof
On computational subjectivity: Leibniz's Grand Perceiver as Cloud Computing-- and the One (or God) as WiFi sharing and governance thereof. This raises new hopes in my mind for the proponents of computationalism. This is just a speculation, but the following quote on the use of Cloud Computing (CC) as an accessory shared intelligence for Apple Ipods and Samsung Tablets suggests CC as a possible model for Leibniz's Supreme Monad as the subjective Grand Perceiver * (my term), leading to the above-all WiFi and God or the One as overall governing authority. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/making-linux-and-android-get-along-its-not-hard-it-sounds The cloud computing movement has done a great deal to promote platform agnosticism, from consistent (Web-based) UIs to cross-platform APIs that allow applications to synchronize data. And with most users being constantly connected via 3/4G, Wi-Fi or wired networks to the Internet, cloud services have been one of the most hassle-free ways to make your data available across devices. Cloud computing could then replace the many difficulties that Daniel Dennety has criticized as the Cartesian Theater. * For Leibniz's model of perception, see eg http://capone.mtsu.edu/rbombard/RB/PDFs/Leibniz02.pdf and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ -- 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/groups/opt_out.
