### On Being-- can it be part of a proof ?

Could this be why there are unprovable things ? That they unprovable because they involve Being itself ? Yesterday I listed three things I felt that one cannot prove or disprove 1. That God exists or does not exist. 2. That I exist or do not exist. 3. That computers can be conscious or

### Re: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

Hi LK Personal Right. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/27/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: LK Personal Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2012-12-27, 00:46:11 Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot

### As pearls to the swine

As pearls to the swine A logic engine can only deal with objective, publicly available meanings (Dictionary meanings, descriptions, Thirdnesses or IIIs). That is, logical propositions. Poetry or the Bible can thus appear to be nonsense to a logician. Which is no surprise, since a text

### Re: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs 3p = truth by calculation

On 26 Dec 2012, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list IMHO that comp iis true or not is equalvalent to the question does 1p = 3p ? where 1p= truth by experience (or actuality) and 3p = truth by description (by theory) With comp: 1p = 3p in Heaven. 1p is NOT = to 3p

### Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.

On 26 Dec 2012, at 19:26, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: information is not abstract, it's physical and is deeply involved with both energy and entropy. You confuse some notion of physical information with the mathematical

### Re: Dennett and others on qualia

On 26 Dec 2012, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Dec 2012, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote: On 12/24/2012 2:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We don't have to bet the brain is (Turing universal), we can prove it. Can we? How would you prove than every

### Re: Dennett and others on qualia

On 26 Dec 2012, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: John, On 24 Dec 2012, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Brent: we T H I N K we have an idea what 'qualia' may be and ACCEPT our figment on 'quanta' (i.e numbered 'objects' - figments as well).

### Re: Computers and the solipsim issue

On 26 Dec 2012, at 22:19, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, The question of whether a thermostat or a computer is conscious or not seems to be the solipsism issue, namely that only the computer (not us) can know whether it is conscious or not. But if I cannot prove that other minds than mine do

### Re: Ten top-of-my-head arguments against multiverses

On 26 Dec 2012, at 22:41, meekerdb wrote: On 12/26/2012 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think Tegmark takes the 1p indeterminacy into account, except in the quantum wave, but not on math in general or in arithmetic. I thought his idea was that in the infinite universe there are

### Re: Re: 1p= pragmatic or experiential truth vs 3p = truth by calculation

Hi Bruno Marchal OK, and I suppose that if 1p always equals 3p, we have achieved sainthood or life after death. :-) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/27/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal

### Re: Dennett and others on qualia

On 12/27/2012 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This is intuitive and amenable to thought experience, like the experience of the blind Mary which studies many books on color and qualia and still has any clue what it is like to be a seeing person. I think Dennett is right when he says our

### Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 06:21:06AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Good point. You are right, but we cannot do without 1p and 2p unless we want to live in Flatland (Thirdness, the publicly available world of 3p logic). Truths are stated in words, so it includes

### Re: The Princeton EGG project

That would be an extraordinary result, if true. It would require us to rewrite pretty much all of our physics textbooks. Lets just say that I will remain sceptical until it has been reproduced by multiple independent groups. Cheers On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:04:53AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:

### Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, 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. 3. That computers can be conscious or not. It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious

### Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

On 12/27/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote This is a silly game. There are different kinds and standards of proof. Mathematical theorems are proven by following defined rules of inference from given axioms.