Hi Bruno Marchal
The 2p appears to be in synthetic logic such as in epistemology
(phenomenology or perception) and presumably in Boolean
synthetic logic operations such as AND, OR, XOR and NAND
operations, where apparently some form of
combination is used ?
Hi Russell Standish
2p is clearly needed for perception, as explained by Peirce.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
The categories once more
Firstness is emptiness, loneliness
Secondness is joining an internet dating site looking for a girlfriend
Thirdness is finally finding the right girlfriend
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody
On 28 Dec 2012, at 20:37, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
How do you know-- truly know-- that other
people are like yourself ? What proof can you offer ?
proving something makes sense only in a theory, but we never prove a
theory, we accept or not the evidences we can have.
Example:
We
On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
On 29 Dec 2012, at 07:21, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses
synthetic logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.
The following
On 29 Dec 2012, at 11:04, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p is clearly needed for perception, as explained by Peirce.
That kind of 2p can be explained in term of 3p and 1p. I don't think
it is fundamental, and we should try to stay as simple as possible. I
do agree with Peirce,
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.
Assuming you can prove consciousness is related to those
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis!!! (See after your remark) - John M
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the
The classic example
3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
2p = secondness = is when I feel the pain
1p = firstness = is when somebody stick me with a pin (Quale)
Also
3p is when I know and/or say that the coffee tastes bad (mind or reason)
2p is when I am tasting something funny
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you tend to combine 1p (the nature of the quale or input)
with 2p (how that feels, which I think should be very personal ).
These are often confused, some people saying that quale
is 1p, others that quale is the actual feeling (2p).
I think the categories are
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You could do something like that.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-29,
On 12/29/2012 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2012, at 03:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a
On 12/29/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm trying to recall (but can't) a particular author
who often writes what appears to be a text, but it's
really only an introduction. He never gets to the point
he seemed to be headed toward.
Others seem to have gone to the same
Hi Stephen P. King
Although I may have criticized you, I think you are very wise
in your remarks about reason (Bruno Also). Thanks.
Reasoning is probably more frequently conducted by analogy than
we care to admit.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time,
Hi Stephen P. King
There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who
had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to
fully understand something is to construct it.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
If God exists then His existence should be obvious to a blind man in a fog
bank, but it is not and the only reason that could be is that God has
On 12/29/2012 11:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who
had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to
fully understand something is to construct it.
Dear Roger,
Yes, we must construct it for ourselves to fully
On 29 Dec 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who
had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to
fully understand something is to construct it.
OK. That is intuitionism, or constructivism. Proving is constructing,
On 12/29/2012 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
There was also a wise italian philosopher centuries ago who
had a major premiss, namely, that the only way to
fully understand something is to construct it.
OK. That is
On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote:
The classic example
3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only
plural_1p. But no problem as, locally, first person plural behaves
like a 3p notion. That is indeed why we
Hi Roger,
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Pragmatism is does not provide truth in, say a Platonic or Aristotelian
sense.
It only provides truth as pragmatists define truth: namely that if A
causes B,
B is the truth of A.
Why not take the categories of all categories (besides that Lawyere tried
that without to much success, except rediscovering Grothendieck topoi).
I'm more interested in the smallest mathematical object in which all
mathematical structures are embedded but the category of all categories
On 12/29/2012 4:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3p is when we agree that the coffee is too hot.
1p is when we find it tastes very bad.
2p is when your wife ask you to clean the coffee machine.
So THAT'S why philosophers don't talk about 2p.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 12/29/2012 5:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis!!! (See after your remark) - John M
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's possible to prove that computers
Hi Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 Dec 2012, at 16:07, Roger Clough wrote:
The classic example
3p= thirdness= is when I react to the pain
Hmm.. this is the idea, except that with comp, this will be only
plural_1p. But no problem as,
On 12/29/2012 12:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
In french we say popularly that about taste and color we don't argue.
(Des goûts
et des couleurs on ne discute pas).
That's because Francophones have no taste, they just try to sell the notion that they do
for marketing ;)
In
On 12/29/2012 2:51 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Why not take the categories of all categories (besides that
Lawyere tried that without to much success, except rediscovering
Grothendieck topoi).
I'm more interested in the smallest mathematical object in which all
mathematical
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
2. That I exist or do not exist.
Proof that you exist:
If you are reading this you exist. Q.E.D.
Or at least it is proof that
29 matches
Mail list logo
