Re: Dialetheism
On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: This *looks* like a description of the salvia experience, but term like anti-consciousness is a bit pejorative for that, although it has anti-life aspect, pointing on the fact that theology is not much pro-life. That would make children's joy vain. Why? When I say that theology is not much pro-life I just point on the fact that theology is often concerned by after-life. I don't buy that, nor the notion that Samsara is separate from Nirvana as in some Buddhism, because such statement is too inconsistent with negative theology principle. With comp, there is a sense to say that the Samsara is part of the Nirvana, like (not exactly like, of course, but enough like for my point), provable (by the correct machine) is part of truth, or G is part of G*, or Z part of Z*, etc. Chiefly, because there are multitudes of ways to negate universality/ self-reference intelligence by entering trance, sexual practice, music, play, collaboration and playing with others, voyages, adventures, building and fixing things, improvisation, re-discovery/ revelation of appearances that mirror the ideals more precisely, that all negate the isolated self-reference dream; or at least reduce it to a less exaggerated and distorted size, if one is willing to lose enough control/security and do high enough dosage. I am not sure why trance, sex, drugs need to negate universality/self- reference intelligence, (at any dosage which is not self-injuring which depends of the product or activity). It can lead beyond intelligence, but it does not negate it, for the same reason the Samsara is part of the Nirvana, and science is the best tool for theology, even if *our* science cannot complete *our* theology. The studies of these activities should be brought back into serious repertoire of science, as without their rigorous practice and our betterment in them, intelligence will tend towards self-destruction. The politics or AI that we write, will be depressed, the science we search will lead us further astray etc. I know this kind of statement of trapped in Samsara, outside divine mind immortal nirvana is found in a lot of scripture and in the self-reference constraints of universal machine, but to me it is priests taking too seriously their interpretation, or their own smoke/emanations in Plotinus terms. Not funny enough to be true, like some grumpy catholic hymn of you don't deserve divine stuff... ;-) You might be right. Plotinus, or Proclus talk about procession/ emanation and conversion, but the fall is a pop terming that has its charm, and is justified, for a strict Platonist, by their relation between matter and evil. I agree we might not insist on that, or taken it too much literally. It is the place where theology negates in some way biology. Like accepting to die negates the effort to prolongate life. We are not a long way from the Euthanasia topic. Like they think they can tell the future or equate all joy with vanity of self-referential motion. Everything is vain, but joy. Vanity kills joy. Too quick for me; bad + sad for children and so called adults. Smoke is not fire. Not sure I follow you, but arguments in rational theology should not be guided by what we want, unless we discuss politics, and decisions, where what we want is the principal concern. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Oct 2013, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: there is great value in a way to access experience which pretends that it is not pretending. This is quanta and arithmetic truth. I would say that is different. It is just simple sharable belief, like x + 0 = x, etc. We just put some principles on the table so that we can use it without philosophy to proceed. Of course the intuition we have that x + 0 = x (for all number x) is related to our sense and qualia, but that does not make them depending on qualia, we don't have to rely on qualia and complex psychology to proceed from x + 0 = x. Be careful, as arithmetic truth is far (an euphemism) bigger that the computable, and if comp is true, it manages the quanta and the qualia (admitting some standard definition in philosophy/theology). It has a job to do, so that the rest of the concrete universe of experience can continue dreaming in peace. In a sense, that makes is 'conscious' as far as being the voice of vigilance and the motor of realism. It is locally closer to God as far as allowing us access to control over our bodies and the outside world (except where that control conflicts with the deeper streams of large dreams with a lot of momentum, aka destiny, luck). I put the scare quotes around 'conscious' though, because the character of that consciousness would be so perpendicular to experience that any person or animal would have that it is closer to anti-consciousness than something we would recognize. It would be like taking our experience of 'today' and our experience of 'forever' and switching them, so that we would come to the world of experienced moments from the loong way around. This *looks* like a description of the salvia experience, but term like anti-consciousness is a bit pejorative for that, although it has anti-life aspect, pointing on the fact that theology is not much pro-life. I beg to differ. In my studies it is mute on this question, given such a particularized notion of life, which itself even changes as we accumulate histories etc. So I doubt this notion or that it can be clearly represented as unmoving ideal content of universal mind or something more primary. It's too complex for that and takes multiplicity too literally to equal separation/differentiation absolutely. Once you have the cognitive ability to imagine you might be a machine, you have the cognitive abilities to understand that somehow, you don't really need the machine. Comp makes transhumanism possible, but i the deep, it suggests it might also be vain, like just prolonging the Samsara, and procrastinating the Nirvana. That would make children's joy vain. I don't buy that, nor the notion that Samsara is separate from Nirvana as in some Buddhism, because such statement is too inconsistent with negative theology principle. Chiefly, because there are multitudes of ways to negate universality/self-reference intelligence by entering trance, sexual practice, music, play, collaboration and playing with others, voyages, adventures, building and fixing things, improvisation, re-discovery/revelation of appearances that mirror the ideals more precisely, that all negate the isolated self-reference dream; or at least reduce it to a less exaggerated and distorted size, if one is willing to lose enough control/security and do high enough dosage. The studies of these activities should be brought back into serious repertoire of science, as without their rigorous practice and our betterment in them, intelligence will tend towards self-destruction. The politics or AI that we write, will be depressed, the science we search will lead us further astray etc. I know this kind of statement of trapped in Samsara, outside divine mind immortal nirvana is found in a lot of scripture and in the self-reference constraints of universal machine, but to me it is priests taking too seriously their interpretation, or their own smoke/emanations in Plotinus terms. Not funny enough to be true, like some grumpy catholic hymn of you don't deserve divine stuff... ;-) Like they think they can tell the future or equate all joy with vanity of self-referential motion. Too quick for me; bad + sad for children and so called adults. Smoke is not fire. PGC It is the Mona Lisa from behind the paint, bleeding through in reverse from within the spectacularly-invisible depths of the canvas and frame. I might be able to work with that more if I had help on learning the math. I still do not think that the view from inside the canvas will ever experience the Mona Lisa, but who knows, maybe she tastes better on the inside than she looks on the outside? :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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
Re: Dialetheism
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 26 October 2013 20:01, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. What I meant is that I don't have a problem with Comp theoretically or ideally - it doesn't matter to me one way or another if consciousness can or cannot be duplicated or emulated synthetically, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with the logic of why Comp should work, given the assumptions that we can make about the nature of our awareness and the functioning of the brain. The problem that Comp has is that it seems not to be true in reality. We do not see any non-organic biologies, or awareness that is disembodied. We don't see any computation that is disembodied. We do not see any appearance of symbols becoming sentient or unexpected stirrings within big data such as the entire internet that would indicate intentionality. To me, the actual story of human consciousness is one of nested superlatives - a single species out of a few hominids, out of several kinds of animals, out of many species of organisms, out of countless planets... It is not a story of ubiquitous opportunity. Nothing about machines seems to be reflect personal or unique characteristics, and in fact mechanism is universally considered synonymous with impersonal, automatic, unconscious, rigid, and robotic behavior. Hi Craig, thanks for the detailed response. I see Bruno has also responded, but I will look at that later. For my own part I can't see why comp should *entail* the existence of non organic biology or disembodied awareness, although it allows for these. What it does suggest is that one could build a sentient machine (given enough time and knowledge) but there is no reason such machines should have evolved - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are such machines, although obviously we refer to ourselves as organic. It appears that only certain types of molecules have the flexibility to take part in evolution starting from nonliving material, but that doesn't mean that inorganic machines are ruled out if we built then rather than requiring that they evolve. True, but since we don't know the reason why the appearance and survival of biology is only associated with organic macromolecules, we should not assume that there is no reason. Inorganic things which we do not recognize as aware in the way that we are aware I would say are another type of awareness, but one which has a very different or nearly opposite aesthetic to our own (due to eigenmorphism). Certainly there are mechanical reasons why Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen lend themselves to explosive complexity, but that does not explain why complexity alone should take on an awareness that simplicity does not. Machines reflect robotic characteristics because we haven't yet learned how to make them flexible enough. But then when people go wrong they also show such behaviour, sadly - examples abound, e.g. OCD. In light of the preponderance of odd details, I think that as scientists, we owe it to ourselves to consider them in a context of how Comp could be an illusion. We should start over from scratch and formulate a deep and precise inquiry into the nature of computation and mechanism, vis a vis personality, automaticity, intention, controllability, etc. What I have found is that there is a clear and persuasive case to be made for a definition of awareness as the antithesis of mechanism. Taking this definition as a hypothesis for a new general systems theory, I have found that it makes a lot of sense to understand the mind-brain relation as contra-isomorphic rather than isomorphic. The activity of the brain is a picture of what the mind is not, and all appearances of matter in space can be more completely understood as a picture of what the totality of experience is not. OK, I think I see what you're saying - a sentience of the gaps as it were? However obviously this needs to be formulated in a way that people who know about these things can understand and test. Bruno has done this with comp I believe, so rather than worrying about odd details, it would be better to show a flaw in his premises or his reasoning. The only flaw
Re: Dialetheism
On 27 Oct 2013, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:27:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2013, at 02:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:06:19 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Oct 2013, at 14:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: What mathematical categories could correspond to a sound? In the 3p, length waves + special information handling machine. In the 1p, the non communicable/provable/rationally-believable part of some self-referential intensional logics. What makes non communicable/provable/rationally-believable part of some self-referential intensional logics correspond to sensation or sound sensation in particular? They are good candidate. You can imagine that when the machine will refer to those, she might feel you treat her as a zombie, if in fine, you deny them to her. Keep in mind that the logic here implies that the machine got a direct link to some statement which she believes in, and which are true (even if only God can know that. My trick is to limit myself to correct machine. It is a non constructive notion. Nobody can distinguish a (sufficiently complex) correct machine from one that is not. I have no problem with there being slippery, undetectable appearances in math (they would appear that way because sense is amputated), but I don't see why sense would or could arise from arithmetic when it could just be the nature of arithmetic to function as it does without sense, as far as Comp can propose. It is very simple: I assume that. It is my working hypothesis. If we get a contradiction from that, then we have refuted comp. Then AUDA provides some information. But you need to study a bit of computer science. Again, I am NOT defending comp. But you are pretending comp is false, and I just intervene to explain your refutation of comp beg the question. The only issue that I have about comp though is that assumption. Instead, I intentionally make the assumption that thought and computation are both a particular kind of qualia and a special case, first-branch of qualia which plays the role of public facing integration across felt histories. I think that besides the assumption that panqualia follows computation, your view makes another assumption that is unintentional, which is that thought/ computation is primitively unlike sensation or perception. I see only that they are a different specie of experience. As all experience is a kind of pretending, First person experience is when we cease pretending, or even fail to communicate or pretend. When you experience a joy or a pain, you don't need to pretend anything to feel it personally. That does not prevent the others to interfere with it of course. there is great value in a way to access experience which pretends that it is not pretending. This is quanta and arithmetic truth. I would say that is different. It is just simple sharable belief, like x + 0 = x, etc. We just put some principles on the table so that we can use it without philosophy to proceed. Of course the intuition we have that x + 0 = x (for all number x) is related to our sense and qualia, but that does not make them depending on qualia, we don't have to rely on qualia and complex psychology to proceed from x + 0 = x. Be careful, as arithmetic truth is far (an euphemism) bigger that the computable, and if comp is true, it manages the quanta and the qualia (admitting some standard definition in philosophy/theology). It has a job to do, so that the rest of the concrete universe of experience can continue dreaming in peace. In a sense, that makes is 'conscious' as far as being the voice of vigilance and the motor of realism. It is locally closer to God as far as allowing us access to control over our bodies and the outside world (except where that control conflicts with the deeper streams of large dreams with a lot of momentum, aka destiny, luck). I put the scare quotes around 'conscious' though, because the character of that consciousness would be so perpendicular to experience that any person or animal would have that it is closer to anti-consciousness than something we would recognize. It would be like taking our experience of 'today' and our experience of 'forever' and switching them, so that we would come to the world of experienced moments from the loong way around. This *looks* like a description of the salvia experience, but term like anti-consciousness is a bit pejorative for that, although it has anti-life aspect, pointing on the fact that theology is not much pro-life. Once you have the cognitive ability to imagine you might be a machine, you have the cognitive abilities to understand that somehow, you don't really need the machine. Comp makes transhumanism
Re: Dialetheism
On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. What I meant is that I don't have a problem with Comp theoretically or ideally - it doesn't matter to me one way or another if consciousness can or cannot be duplicated or emulated synthetically, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with the logic of why Comp should work, given the assumptions that we can make about the nature of our awareness and the functioning of the brain. The problem that Comp has is that it seems not to be true in reality. We do not see any non-organic biologies, or awareness that is disembodied. We don't see any computation that is disembodied. We do not see any appearance of symbols becoming sentient or unexpected stirrings within big data such as the entire internet that would indicate intentionality. To me, the actual story of human consciousness is one of nested superlatives - a single species out of a few hominids, out of several kinds of animals, out of many species of organisms, out of countless planets... It is not a story of ubiquitous opportunity. Nothing about machines seems to be reflect personal or unique characteristics, and in fact mechanism is universally considered synonymous with impersonal, automatic, unconscious, rigid, and robotic behavior. In light of the preponderance of odd details, I think that as scientists, we owe it to ourselves to consider them in a context of how Comp could be an illusion. We should start over from scratch and formulate a deep and precise inquiry into the nature of computation and mechanism, vis a vis personality, automaticity, intention, controllability, etc. What I have found is that there is a clear and persuasive case to be made for a definition of awareness as the antithesis of mechanism. Taking this definition as a hypothesis for a new general systems theory, I have found that it makes a lot of sense to understand the mind-brain relation as contra-isomorphic rather than isomorphic. The activity of the brain is a picture of what the mind is not, and all appearances of matter in space can be more completely understood as a picture of what the totality of experience is not. Working with that view, and becoming comfortable with it can yield a completely new and startlingly simple perspective of the universe in which the ordinary and the probable emerge naturally from a deeper divergence within absolute and extraordinary improbability. Rather than duplicating awareness, constructions of mind-like bodies are inversions of awareness. Instead of developing unique personal perspectives grounded in the experience of an evolutionary history going back to the beginning of time, we get the polar opposite. All machines will only ever share the same impersonality, the identical evacuated perspective which is incapable of feeling or participation in any way. This is, however, great news. It means that AI is not a threat to us, not a competitor to humanity or biology. It will always only be a servant. Unless of course, we begin to use it to enhance and empower biological organisms which we cannot control. The bottom line is that the ability to be controlled is identical to unconsciousness. The more you want to be able to control what your AI can do and not do, the more it is impossible for it to have any awareness at all. Craig -- 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: Dialetheism
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. If that were true, then the same math could not be expressed as both a sound or an image, but we know that it can. It depends which math. Some theories are categorical (defined completely the objects), and some are not and can corresponds to many realities. For math to have an interior that looked like something, there would have to be some mathematical expression which only has an interior which is visible rather than auditory, olfactory, etc. But I have shown that such math not only exist, but develop through machine self-reference. We already know from synesthesia and from playing with peripherals for electronic computers that this is not true. Similar experiences have been done on salamander, and sinesthesia illustrates my point, so that remark is a bit weird. It would be like building a hard drive that cannot accept bytes that came from a camera, only a microphone. That can easily be done. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The argument is that mathematical information is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate an experience of flavor, color, etc. That's not an argument. It is an assertion without argument. so there is no expectation that math has anything to do with it. Comp has no more credence in explaining flavor than would geography. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. The evidence of the brain does not show that flavor exists, or worse, that flavor could possibly exist. The evidence exist, as there are evidence for self-reflexive loop in the brain, and they can implement the self-reference which have been shown to lead to qualia (defined semi-axiomatically). If the work that the cells do creates flavor, The work does not have to create the qualia, only to make them relatively manifestable. The work of the computer will reflected those non necessarily representable feature, like the machine will distinguish its first and third person description. Only God knows that they are equivalent ways of seeing a part of the arithmetical truth, the machine will *feel* them as very different. Unavoidably so. then the flavor would exist for them and not for us. ? That is typical for flavors. I can see your flavor sensation. I can see you biochemical path way, but the fact that we have comparable complexity + the self-reference limitations explain why we can't associate qualia to anything third person describable (not just machines, other people's body too). We cannot make the attachment of physics a condition for qualia but not for comp. ? You assume disembodied, unexperienced math, but I do not. You assume qualia contingent on math, but I assume the opposite. I show, with semi-axiomatic definition, the necessity of qualia, for all machine whose complexity threshold is above universality. (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. OK. No problem with this in the comp theory. That's the point of the limitation theorems. Some truth can be accessible by machine, without them having to do any hard work. But there is no reason to suspect that truth can include sensations. Of course there are reason to suspect truth can include sensations. The true existence of sensations, for example. But there are no evidence that truth can include the existence of a primitive physical reality which would need to be assumed. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste
Re: Dialetheism
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:30:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. If that were true, then the same math could not be expressed as both a sound or an image, but we know that it can. It depends which math. Some theories are categorical (defined completely the objects), and some are not and can corresponds to many realities. What mathematical categories could correspond to a sound? For math to have an interior that looked like something, there would have to be some mathematical expression which only has an interior which is visible rather than auditory, olfactory, etc. But I have shown that such math not only exist, but develop through machine self-reference. Is that true though, or do you just want it to be true? I don't think that machine self-reference makes the development of any particular sense modality. You're just exploiting the retrospective view. You are using the pretext of machine self-reference as a wildcard. I could make up any sense modality...the sense of wisdotherm, for instance, and you would claim that that to not only exists but develops through machine self-reference. We already know from synesthesia and from playing with peripherals for electronic computers that this is not true. Similar experiences have been done on salamander, and sinesthesia illustrates my point, so that remark is a bit weird. Synesthesia shows that data is not tied to any specific sense modality, so that were the purpose of sense merely to compress data input, there would be no plausible reason to have more than one sense modality. It would be like building a hard drive that cannot accept bytes that came from a camera, only a microphone. That can easily be done. But it would be pointless. You aren't seeing the futility of multiple sense modalities from a functional perspective. There is no function which cannot be expressed just as efficiently as a flavor as it could be as a digital code that has no flavor. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The argument is that mathematical information is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate an experience of flavor, color, etc. That's not an argument. It is an assertion without argument. The argument is that it is an assertion which is evidently true and has no counterfactual argument that is not evidently false. so there is no expectation that math has anything to do with it. Comp has no more credence in explaining flavor than would geography. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. The evidence of the brain does not show that flavor exists, or worse, that flavor could possibly exist. The evidence exist, as there are evidence for self-reflexive loop in the brain, and they can implement the self-reference which have been shown to lead to qualia (defined semi-axiomatically). What is the argument that something can 'lead to qualia', and why would self-reference acquire the power to generate qualia. This sentence refers to itself...does it have qualia now? If the work that the cells do creates flavor, The work does not have to create the qualia, only to make them relatively manifestable. If they are manifesting them, what creates them? The work of the computer will reflected those non necessarily representable feature, like the machine will distinguish its first and third person description. Only God knows that they are equivalent ways of seeing a part of the arithmetical truth, the machine will *feel* them as very different. Unavoidably so. Not unavoidably so. The machine doesn't need to feel anything, it only needs to make the location of arithmetical truth relatively
Re: Dialetheism
On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:30:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. If that were true, then the same math could not be expressed as both a sound or an image, but we know that it can. It depends which math. Some theories are categorical (defined completely the objects), and some are not and can corresponds to many realities. What mathematical categories could correspond to a sound? In the 3p, length waves + special information handling machine. In the 1p, the non communicable/provable/rationally-believable part of some self-referential intensional logics. For math to have an interior that looked like something, there would have to be some mathematical expression which only has an interior which is visible rather than auditory, olfactory, etc. But I have shown that such math not only exist, but develop through machine self-reference. Is that true though, or do you just want it to be true? You have to study them and judge by yourself. It does not need to be true for my argument going on, though. I need only that you can't prove them false, without assuming non- comp. I don't think that machine self-reference makes the development of any particular sense modality. It leads to many modalities. That's a verifiable fact. You're just exploiting the retrospective view. You are using the pretext of machine self-reference as a wildcard. I could make up any sense modality...the sense of wisdotherm, for instance, and you would claim that that to not only exists but develops through machine self-reference. No argument here. We already know from synesthesia and from playing with peripherals for electronic computers that this is not true. Similar experiences have been done on salamander, and sinesthesia illustrates my point, so that remark is a bit weird. Synesthesia shows that data is not tied to any specific sense modality, In humans and machines. so that were the purpose of sense merely to compress data input, there would be no plausible reason to have more than one sense modality. So sense does not merely compress data. It would be like building a hard drive that cannot accept bytes that came from a camera, only a microphone. That can easily be done. But it would be pointless. You aren't seeing the futility of multiple sense modalities from a functional perspective. The many modalities which appears can all still differentiate in multi- sense. There is no function which cannot be expressed just as efficiently as a flavor as it could be as a digital code that has no flavor. Why? Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The argument is that mathematical information is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate an experience of flavor, color, etc. That's not an argument. It is an assertion without argument. The argument is that it is an assertion which is evidently true and has no counterfactual argument that is not evidently false. Apart from 1p, seen from 1p, nothing is obvious in public 3p theories, especially around the mind-body problem. We already know that for machines it is intuitively and directly obvious that they are not machine, and that betting on the yes doctor is not a simple task for them. so there is no expectation that math has anything to do with it. Comp has no more credence in explaining flavor than would geography. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. The evidence of the brain does not show that flavor exists, or worse, that flavor could possibly exist. The evidence exist, as there are evidence for self-reflexive loop in the brain, and they can implement
Re: Dialetheism
On 26 October 2013 20:01, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. What I meant is that I don't have a problem with Comp theoretically or ideally - it doesn't matter to me one way or another if consciousness can or cannot be duplicated or emulated synthetically, and there is not necessarily anything wrong with the logic of why Comp should work, given the assumptions that we can make about the nature of our awareness and the functioning of the brain. The problem that Comp has is that it seems not to be true in reality. We do not see any non-organic biologies, or awareness that is disembodied. We don't see any computation that is disembodied. We do not see any appearance of symbols becoming sentient or unexpected stirrings within big data such as the entire internet that would indicate intentionality. To me, the actual story of human consciousness is one of nested superlatives - a single species out of a few hominids, out of several kinds of animals, out of many species of organisms, out of countless planets... It is not a story of ubiquitous opportunity. Nothing about machines seems to be reflect personal or unique characteristics, and in fact mechanism is universally considered synonymous with impersonal, automatic, unconscious, rigid, and robotic behavior. Hi Craig, thanks for the detailed response. I see Bruno has also responded, but I will look at that later. For my own part I can't see why comp should * entail* the existence of non organic biology or disembodied awareness, although it allows for these. What it does suggest is that one could build a sentient machine (given enough time and knowledge) but there is no reason such machines should have evolved - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are such machines, although obviously we refer to ourselves as organic. It appears that only certain types of molecules have the flexibility to take part in evolution starting from nonliving material, but that doesn't mean that inorganic machines are ruled out if we built then rather than requiring that they evolve. Machines reflect robotic characteristics because we haven't yet learned how to make them flexible enough. But then when people go wrong they also show such behaviour, sadly - examples abound, e.g. OCD. In light of the preponderance of odd details, I think that as scientists, we owe it to ourselves to consider them in a context of how Comp could be an illusion. We should start over from scratch and formulate a deep and precise inquiry into the nature of computation and mechanism, vis a vis personality, automaticity, intention, controllability, etc. What I have found is that there is a clear and persuasive case to be made for a definition of awareness as the antithesis of mechanism. Taking this definition as a hypothesis for a new general systems theory, I have found that it makes a lot of sense to understand the mind-brain relation as contra-isomorphic rather than isomorphic. The activity of the brain is a picture of what the mind is not, and all appearances of matter in space can be more completely understood as a picture of what the totality of experience is not. OK, I think I see what you're saying - a sentience of the gaps as it were? However obviously this needs to be formulated in a way that people who know about these things can understand and test. Bruno has done this with comp I believe, so rather than worrying about odd details, it would be better to show a flaw in his premises or his reasoning. Working with that view, and becoming comfortable with it can yield a completely new and startlingly simple perspective of the universe in which the ordinary and the probable emerge naturally from a deeper divergence within absolute and extraordinary improbability. Rather than duplicating awareness, constructions of mind-like bodies are inversions of awareness. Instead of developing unique personal perspectives grounded in the experience of an evolutionary history going back to the beginning of time, we get the polar opposite. All machines will only ever share the same impersonality, the identical evacuated perspective which is incapable of feeling or participation in any way. This is, however, great news. It means that AI is not a threat to us, not a competitor to humanity or
Re: Dialetheism
On 27 October 2013 13:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Build your non-comp theory. Comp implies the consistency (possibility) of such theory. I wish I had time to read all the above, but for now at least the bottom line seems to be here! -- 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: Dialetheism
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. OK. No problem with this in the comp theory. That's the point of the limitation theorems. Some truth can be accessible by machine, without them having to do any hard work. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste doesn't look like anything though, and it cannot ever look like anything. If it did, then it would be vision. If it could be vision, then it would be profoundly redundant to have both senses of the same data...(assuming that Santa Claus has brought the possibility of senses to begin with.) and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. I don't think it is. It seems clear to me that any mechanical accounting of sense implicitly takes sense for granted from the start. There is no functional difference between sight, smell, feeling, hearing, etc. There is no intensional nuance that ties to the possibility of any one of them - only a grey box where something like virtual proof could theoretically live. I can relate to your feelings, but I don't see why a machine could not too. You just assert it, but you don't really provide an argument. You do point on a difficulty, but a difficulty is not an impossibility, especially that computer science already explains why machines will find that difficult too, for their own accessible truth spectrum. Bruno Craig Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. It does. It might teach you what math looks like from inside. If that were true, then the same math could not be expressed as both a sound or an image, but we know that it can. For math to have an interior that looked like something, there would have to be some mathematical expression which only has an interior which is visible rather than auditory, olfactory, etc. We already know from synesthesia and from playing with peripherals for electronic computers that this is not true. It would be like building a hard drive that cannot accept bytes that came from a camera, only a microphone. Or you beg the question. keep in mind I don't argue for comp, but you are arguing against comp, so it is up to you to give some argument that testing a flavor cannot be a mathematical phenomenon. The argument is that mathematical information is neither necessary nor sufficient to generate an experience of flavor, color, etc. so there is no expectation that math has anything to do with it. Comp has no more credence in explaining flavor than would geography. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate Thanks to many cells doing a work learned through a very long time, may be. It seems immediate, but the evidences (brains) is that it is not. The evidence of the brain does not show that flavor exists, or worse, that flavor could possibly exist. If the work that the cells do creates flavor, then the flavor would exist for them and not for us. We cannot make the attachment of physics a condition for qualia but not for comp. You assume disembodied, unexperienced math, but I do not. You assume qualia contingent on math, but I assume the opposite. (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. OK. No problem with this in the comp theory. That's the point of the limitation theorems. Some truth can be accessible by machine, without them having to do any hard work. But there is no reason to suspect that truth can include sensations. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste doesn't look like anything though, and it cannot ever look like anything. If it did, then it would be vision. If it could be vision, then it would be profoundly redundant to have both senses of the same data...(assuming that Santa Claus has brought the possibility of senses to begin with.) and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. I don't think it is. It seems clear to me that any mechanical accounting of sense implicitly takes sense for granted from the start. There is no functional difference between sight, smell, feeling, hearing, etc. There is no intensional nuance that ties to the possibility of any one of them - only a grey box where something like virtual proof could theoretically live. I can relate to your feelings, but I don't see why a machine could not too. You just assert it, but you don't really provide an argument. You do point on a difficulty, but a difficulty is not an impossibility, especially that computer science already explains why machines will find that difficult too, for their own accessible truth spectrum. The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Dialetheism
On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. -- 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: Dialetheism
On 10/25/2013 4:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails It's not at all obvious to me that disagreeing with Craig entails failure. :-) Brent but not empirically since no one has proved/disproved the brain being TE. -- 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6772 - Release Date: 10/22/13 -- 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: Dialetheism
On 26 October 2013 12:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/25/2013 4:09 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully. Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with that then obviously it fails It's not at all obvious to me that disagreeing with Craig entails failure. :-) Sorry, I was posting in haste - I should have added as far as you're concerned or something similar. I should prob have said something like this. Comp presupposed XYZ, so obviously if you think XYZ doesn't hold, you will consider that it doesn't even get off the ground. (But tha's a failure of the axioms, not an empirical failure.) -- 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: Dialetheism
PS Post haste :) -- 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: Dialetheism
Craig, As sympathetic as I am to all of your various multisense realism projects and the different conclusions they are intended to imply, I must warn you: If you're going to try to prove black is white, beware the Zebra crossings...(and if you don't get it, read Douglas Adams and the ultimate disproof of God) Peace On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:54:45 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. Not exactly. Trivialism is more that indiscriminate sense of 'anything can be true or not true'. Diathelethism is about recognizing that there are limitations in the way that language can meaningfully represent the full richness of nature. -- 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: Dialetheism
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:58:16 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Craig, As sympathetic as I am to all of your various multisense realism projects and the different conclusions they are intended to imply, I must warn you: If you're going to try to prove black is white, beware the Zebra crossings...(and if you don't get it, read Douglas Adams and the ultimate disproof of God) It's not that black is white, it's that black and white are both the same thing in one sense (monochrome contrast), similar things in another sense (one of the group of things we call colors), and opposite things (black = absence of white). The important part is the multiplicity of senses and the relation of that multiplicity to symmetry and opposition. Thanks, Craig Peace On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:54:45 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. Not exactly. Trivialism is more that indiscriminate sense of 'anything can be true or not true'. Diathelethism is about recognizing that there are limitations in the way that language can meaningfully represent the full richness of nature. -- 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: Dialetheism
On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. Bruno Craig Bruno 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/groups/opt_out. 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Here's the deal...how about I go to the Garden of Eden and everyone else keep exploring until we finish. Ill never know the difference.. NOT EDEN PRIME though. And don't think about Red or 42 this time. Thanks,s Stephen On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: I have the perfect James Joyce! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? With comp, when you test the flavor of coffee, you do, actually, test the flavor of some math. That's what I am saying. It would have to be the case under comp. My point though is that it is absurd. Tasting something gives us no mathematical understanding. The understanding that flavor does provide is the opposite of math. It is immediate (although develops briefly through time as well), it is irreducible to anything other than flavor, and it does not consist of 'stepped reckoning' of any kind, it is an aesthetic gestalt. But you test it from the inside of math, and so it looks different from the math we learn at school. That it looks different is explainable by any Löbian machine, Taste doesn't look like anything though, and it cannot ever look like anything. If it did, then it would be vision. If it could be vision, then it would be profoundly redundant to have both senses of the same data...(assuming that Santa Claus has brought the possibility of senses to begin with.) and can be understood intuitively with some training in the comp thought experiment. The difference are accounted by the intensional nuance of Gödel's provability. I don't think it is. It seems clear to me that any mechanical accounting of sense implicitly takes sense for granted from the start. There is no functional difference between sight, smell, feeling, hearing, etc. There is no intensional nuance that ties to the possibility of any one of them - only a grey box where something like virtual proof could theoretically live. Craig Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On 24 Oct 2013, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote: On 10/23/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Sure. That's because logic assumes that if p=q then q can be substituted for p. Hence if you believe the morning star is a goddess and the evening star is a planet, you may believe a contradiction - but not if you know it. That is a bit unclear to me. Substitution of equivalent if always dangerous in modal contexts. The reason is perhaps more prosaic, which is that a machine who believe in its inconsistency believes in some infinite (non-standard) number(s), she agrees that 0 is not Gödel number of a proof of f, nor are 1, 2, 3, ... , but yet she believes in some number representing a proof of f. Humans have a big non monotonical logic layers, making them able to say I was wrong, and able to revise previews opinions. Evolution might exploit truth and relative lies too. That leads to complex questions. Correcteness is when you forget all the lies, and nothing more. If you survive that, you get Löbian by necessity, and your physics will not change, normally (with comp). No doubt that human actual theologies are more complex than the theology of the correct universal machine, platonist, and believing not in much more than the universal base (number, or combinator, or ...). But PA, ZF, are only sort of Escherichia Coli of the person. They get personhood by the intensional nuances of the provability predicate. Detrivializing their physics and theology (the simplest one as it might be, but it is already quite rich). Look how much information we already get in the UDA, where a person is defined by just the accessible memory (the diary entangled though their accompaniment in the annihilations and reconstitutions). In the arithmetical version, a person is defined by a universal number with enough introspection and induction ability. PA and ZF are well known typical example. And incompleteness allows to define a notion of knowledge associate to them, and a notion of observation. We all have a Löbian part, as believer in PA's axioms, for example. I think that that part is already conscious when we assume consciousness is invariant for the genuine universal digital substitution. The universal machine defines a canonical universal person, and the Löbian one, which knows, in some weaker sense that the Theaetetus' one, that they are (Turing
Dialetheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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: Dialetheism
On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Dialetheism
Wait I accideally replied to all! EVERYONE FORGET I METNIONED THAT NAME MING. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Dialetheism
color blindness? not sure what the connection is. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:25:48 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote: Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Dialetheism
you do now! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: color blindness? not sure what the connection is. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:25:48 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote: Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**D**ialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**march**al/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-li...@**googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Dialetheism
There, I just did it again. Baby BAby I just idd i t again. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Wait I accideally replied to all! EVERYONE FORGET I METNIONED THAT NAME MING. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Dialetheism
Ooops, I did it again, I played with your heart. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
Ming, stop confusing my taste buds, we're trying to have a serious conversation here.. Same with you, Lusi, Sherry, Mark, and Schonmei On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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: Dialetheism
Go meet Roger Please stop the spamming. 2013/10/23 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Ooops, I did it again, I played with your heart. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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. -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Dialetheism
On 10/23/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Sure. That's because logic assumes that if p=q then q can be substituted for p. Hence if you believe the morning star is a goddess and the evening star is a planet, you may believe a contradiction - but not if you know it. Brent Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. Bruno 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Stephen Lin - I may be forced to create a filter to automatically delete your messages if you don't have anything sensible to say. Do you? -- 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: Dialetheism
Yes I did. Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. Meet me in December 2011, by way of Queens College. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen Lin - I may be forced to create a filter to automatically delete your messages if you don't have anything sensible to say. Do you? -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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: Dialetheism
On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr -- 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: Dialetheism
Wisdom is the art of coming up with believable excuses for one's ignorance. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr But in infinite-dimensional state, the only true opposite is yourself looking back at yourself. -- 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: Dialetheism
Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
I have the perfect James Joyce! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dialetheism
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. Not exactly. Trivialism is more that indiscriminate sense of 'anything can be true or not true'. Diathelethism is about recognizing that there are limitations in the way that language can meaningfully represent the full richness of nature. -- 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.
