Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Bruno I'm glad you follow. As I've indicated, I've been inventing this grisly teminology 'on the fly' in the attempt to make clearer some distinctions that I didn't feel were explicit enough, and I've probably found the process at least as irksome as others trying to follow it. Colin's version is more succint though it will be interesting to see how he defends it in detail. Hopefully, your roadmap will supersede my jargon, and we can express future exchanges in terms of this. Lets see. David --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Le 08-août-06, à 17:00, David Nyman a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf >> Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just >> G >> handled with care); > > Bruno > > Thanks for the summary, I'll look out for the roadmap. I'd just like > to clarify the role of FP2 above: > > Where FP1i is an individual first-person-as-instantiated, FP2 is its > analog in what I've termed the 'shareable knowledge base' (SKB) that is > part of the structure of FP1i. The reason I make this distinction is > that when I make some unqualified reference simply to 'Bruno', it is > not thereby clear whether this is meant to indicate 'FP2 Bruno' - i.e > the representation you or I have of 'Bruno' in the SKB - or 'FP1 > Bruno', the unique entity to which my FP2 analog refers. In > inter-personal dialogue, this can become really confusing because one > party may be conceptualising in an FP2-manner - i.e. thinking in a > 'naturalistic' way purely in terms of the FP2 representation of the > world and its embedded FP2 representations of first persons - when the > other (usually me, I must confess) is thinking in an FP1-manner - i.e. > extrapolating from the FP2 representations to their FP1 referents. Such > confusion may be implicated in 'Chalmers' delusion' and other puzzles. > I say something about this in my comments on your earlier posts. > > To be consistent, what I'm calling FP2 should be split along the lines > of FP1 into: > > FP2g - representations in the SKB of FP1g > FP2i - representations in the SKB of FP1i > > Does the above clarification make a difference? I still believe I can follow you, but I fear your vocabulary/acronym proliferation. I will not add comments, because those would be anticipation on critics you will do (no doubt) about the (future) "roadmap post". But thanks for trying to be clear and for being patient about that roadmap, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Bruno Marchal wrote: > FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf > Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G > handled with care); Bruno Thanks for the summary, I'll look out for the roadmap. I'd just like to clarify the role of FP2 above: Where FP1i is an individual first-person-as-instantiated, FP2 is its analog in what I've termed the 'shareable knowledge base' (SKB) that is part of the structure of FP1i. The reason I make this distinction is that when I make some unqualified reference simply to 'Bruno', it is not thereby clear whether this is meant to indicate 'FP2 Bruno' - i.e the representation you or I have of 'Bruno' in the SKB - or 'FP1 Bruno', the unique entity to which my FP2 analog refers. In inter-personal dialogue, this can become really confusing because one party may be conceptualising in an FP2-manner - i.e. thinking in a 'naturalistic' way purely in terms of the FP2 representation of the world and its embedded FP2 representations of first persons - when the other (usually me, I must confess) is thinking in an FP1-manner - i.e. extrapolating from the FP2 representations to their FP1 referents. Such confusion may be implicated in 'Chalmers' delusion' and other puzzles. I say something about this in my comments on your earlier posts. To be consistent, what I'm calling FP2 should be split along the lines of FP1 into: FP2g - representations in the SKB of FP1g FP2i - representations in the SKB of FP1i Does the above clarification make a difference? David > Le 07-août-06, à 22:12, David Nyman a écrit : > > > > 1) FP1g - primitive 'global' first person entity or context > > 2) FP1i - individual person delimited by primitive differentiation > > (which is agnostic to comp, physics, or anything else at this logical > > level) > > 3) FP2 - narrative references to first persons, as in 'David is a first > > person', an attribution, as opposed to 'David-as-first-person', a > > unique entity. > > 4) TP - third person, or structure-read-as-information, as opposed to > > structure-demarcating-an-entity > > > > OK, I copy this in some file so as to be able to come back on it later. > If I comment it here, before the "roadmap-summary", it will be > confusing. Still, before I send the "roadmap" I give the correspondence > for those who have followed your posts and remember my earlier > summaries. > > FP1g will most probably correspond to the "time/knowledge" modal logic > S4Grz; > FP1i will not be explicitly treated, but can correspond to any > particular relative implementation of a self-referentially correct > machine. Then S4Grz will still work, but its arithmetical > interpretations can vary; > FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf > Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G > handled with care); > TP: will correspond to the G and G* logic of arithmetical reference, > including self-reference. Of course the dissociation of the > corresponding logics into G and G* (and the non-dissociation of the 1 > person logic S4Grz = S4Grz*, is a key phenomenon which is forced by the > incompleteness phenomenon. G corresponds to the provable > self-referential statements and G* will correspond to the true > self-referential statements. That the set of true statements minus the > set of provable statements (that is G* \ G) is not empty is due to > Godel incompleteness. > > But there are other hypostases (person pov): the 0-person pov (More or > less Nagel's pov from nowhere) which can be just "arithmetical truth" > with the comp. hyp. It plays the role of the neoplatonist "ONE" in the > arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's hypostases. > Then there is the "matter" or "1-plural-pov" where "matter" becomes > apparent ... > > I will try to present a roadmap tomorrow or the day after. In the > meantime you could consult my SANE paper: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ > SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > You can also download the UDA slides for reference to its 8 steps > presentation. > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf > > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Not yet the roadmap (was: Are First Person prime?)
Le 07-août-06, à 22:12, David Nyman a écrit : > 1) FP1g - primitive 'global' first person entity or context > 2) FP1i - individual person delimited by primitive differentiation > (which is agnostic to comp, physics, or anything else at this logical > level) > 3) FP2 - narrative references to first persons, as in 'David is a first > person', an attribution, as opposed to 'David-as-first-person', a > unique entity. > 4) TP - third person, or structure-read-as-information, as opposed to > structure-demarcating-an-entity OK, I copy this in some file so as to be able to come back on it later. If I comment it here, before the "roadmap-summary", it will be confusing. Still, before I send the "roadmap" I give the correspondence for those who have followed your posts and remember my earlier summaries. FP1g will most probably correspond to the "time/knowledge" modal logic S4Grz; FP1i will not be explicitly treated, but can correspond to any particular relative implementation of a self-referentially correct machine. Then S4Grz will still work, but its arithmetical interpretations can vary; FP2: I do periphrases to talk about it. It is a confusing notion (cf Chalmers "delusion"). Mathematically it needs bimodal logics (or just G handled with care); TP: will correspond to the G and G* logic of arithmetical reference, including self-reference. Of course the dissociation of the corresponding logics into G and G* (and the non-dissociation of the 1 person logic S4Grz = S4Grz*, is a key phenomenon which is forced by the incompleteness phenomenon. G corresponds to the provable self-referential statements and G* will correspond to the true self-referential statements. That the set of true statements minus the set of provable statements (that is G* \ G) is not empty is due to Godel incompleteness. But there are other hypostases (person pov): the 0-person pov (More or less Nagel's pov from nowhere) which can be just "arithmetical truth" with the comp. hyp. It plays the role of the neoplatonist "ONE" in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's hypostases. Then there is the "matter" or "1-plural-pov" where "matter" becomes apparent ... I will try to present a roadmap tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime you could consult my SANE paper: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html You can also download the UDA slides for reference to its 8 steps presentation. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004Slide.pdf Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
