On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic
On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't had the
time to
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you
On 13 Mar 2014, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you
On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
--
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
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Not me (alas). Although it is visible when typing my response.
Cheers
--
Prof Russell Standish
On 13 Mar 2014, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:10, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Nice, I hope everyone see it. Does someone not see a lozenge? Here: ◊
Do someone not see Gödel's second theorem here: ◊t - ~[]◊t ?
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are
On 14 Mar 2014, at 01:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:
(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊ ?)
Yes I do!
Not me (alas).
Damned. I will need to use the more ugly instead of the cute ◊ !
No problem.
Bruno
Although it is visible when
On 3/13/2014 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can only be regarded as
shorthand for some tautology.
If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.
Then f also occurs in every world since (p ~p) can be formed in every world. But
On 14 Mar 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/13/2014 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can
only be regarded as shorthand for some tautology.
If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.
Then f also occurs in every world
the main thing (the truth of the experience) without needing to
define it.
Also, for the physical first person *experience*, Bp p, which is
only the knower, is not enough, you will need Bp t p, which by
incompleteness has its own logic, quantum like when restricted to
the sigma_1 truth
On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't had the time
to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't understand how you
On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,
On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t? Unfortunately I haven't
had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I
don't
Hi Bruno,
Sure, consciousness here-and-now is undoubtable. But the p refers to the
contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. I am in
pain cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt sensations
can be doubted, e.g. see
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:10:31 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Sure, consciousness here-and-now is undoubtable. But the p refers to the
contents of consciousness, which is not undoubtable in many cases. I am in
pain cannot be doubted when one is feeling it, but other felt
dissociative pathologies.
OK.
For me it all casts doubt on whether Bp p is an accurate
formalization for experience, but I might be missing something.
As I said above, it is a simplest meta definition which capture the
main thing (the truth of the experience) without needing to define
dissociative pathologies.
OK.
For me it all casts doubt on whether Bp p is an accurate formalization
for experience, but I might be missing something.
As I said above, it is a simplest meta definition which capture the
main thing (the truth of the experience) without needing to define it.
Also
21 matches
Mail list logo
