Re: Re: (mathematical) solipsism
Hi Stephen P. King Mind has no properties other than being nonphysical, so no problem. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-15, 16:51:03 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all physical things were created and which governs them. Dear Roger, That implies a subtle contradiction as the postulation of mind as primitive implies that its property of being a mind is somehow necessary and sufficient without any means that selects the properties from the class of all possible properties. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of innate properties. It seems to me that such thinking is just an appeal to authority and has no explanatory power. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 11/15/2012 11:28 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Mind is the fundamental nonphysical primitive out of which all physical things were created and which governs them. Dear Roger, That implies a subtle contradiction as the postulation of mind as primitive implies that its property of being a mind is somehow necessary and sufficient without any means that selects the properties from the class of all possible properties. This is the fundamental problem with the theory of innate properties. It seems to me that such thinking is just an appeal to authority and has no explanatory power. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 06 Nov 2012, at 15:30, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK. That's analytic uncertainty. Yes indeed. Almost the opposite of the comp indeterminacy. With comp we get many form of indetermlinacies and uncertainties. And analytic deduction cannot really tell us anything new, it can only give us a fresh perspective. Yes. But nor can a God, or a universe. I am not sure what you mean by new. But a new thing can be created with synthesis (intuiition,inference, induction, abduction), which is the trick that Einstein performed when he showed (very simply) that time is relative. OK, but this happens in arithmetic too, even without comp. And more easily shown with comp. This was invented I think, entirely new, not deduced. So by new, you mean contingent. But arithmetic is full of many contingencies. Even many type of very different sort of contingencies. I suppose this might be construed as a form of nominalism, and if so, realism can be expanded with intuition. Tell me what you mean by nominalism, as this term is often used differently by different people. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 07:48:07 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Isn't strong AI just an assumption ? Yes. Comp too. The existence of the moon also. The fact that I am conscious, can only be an assumption for you, and vice versa. The only thing which is not an assumption is private consciousness. All the rest are assumptions. Strictly speaking. Science uses only assumption and develop only *relative* certainty. A difficulty comes from the fact that the brain wired in us already many assumptions, which we are not conscious of the hypothetical nature. for example some birds assumes that the first things they see moving after birth is their parent, and we tend to do the same. But having parent is of the type theoretical hypotheses. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 09:43:16 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism. Bruno This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Isn't strong AI just an assumption ? Yes. Comp too. The existence of the moon also. The fact that I am conscious, can only be an assumption for you, and vice versa. The only thing which is not an assumption is private consciousness. All the rest are assumptions. Strictly speaking. Science uses only assumption and develop only *relative* certainty. A difficulty comes from the fact that the brain wired in us already many assumptions, which we are not conscious of the hypothetical nature. for example some birds assumes that the first things they see moving after birth is their parent, and we tend to do the same. But having parent is of the type theoretical hypotheses. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 09:43:16 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism. Bruno This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: (mathematical) solipsism
Hi Bruno Marchal Isn't strong AI just an assumption ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 09:43:16 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism. Bruno This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism. Bruno This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 11/4/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp entails Strong AI, which attributes consciousness to machines, and thus to others. You argument is not valid because it beg the question that number (related through the laws of + and *) emulated computation to which comp attribute consciousness. So comp is not solipsism. Hi Bruno, No, comp is not solipsism, it is the construction of a solipsistic mind. All minds are inherently solipsistic until they escape from their prison of consistency. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: (mathematical) solipsism
Hi Stephen P. King Although well-founded, solipsism still remains a psychological theory, a fact, if you will. As such, it belongs to the contingent world, not the world of necessary reason. There may be beings to which it does not hold. Mystics claim to have merged with the mind of God. Or perhaps some day a proof against it may be found. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 08:00:10 Subject: Re: (mathematical) solipsism On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] In the absence of a means to determine some property, it is incoherent and sometimes inconsistent to claim that the property has some particular value and the absence of all other possible values. In math this is called (mathematical) solipsism. Dear Bruno, How is it solipsism? Solipsism is: Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. My point is that numbers, by your notion of AR, are solipsistic as there is literally nothing other than the numbers. I reject AR because of this! Numbers alone cannot do what you propose. This post argues similar to my point: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=5944965 Conventional solipsism is a logical philosophy whose underlying views apply equally to mathematical philosophies of neopythagoreanism and neoplatonism as well as mathematical realism and empiricism generally. The well established philosophical principle of solipsism is that only the individual is or can be demonstrated to exist. But the problem is that if this principle were actually demonstrably true it would also make it false because the truth established would ipso facto make the principle beyond control of any individual. Nobody really thinks solipsism is true. But the difficulty is no one can prove or disprove the concept because no one can prove the foundations of truth in absolute, necessary, and universal terms. This article http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020context=philo argues against the claim that Intuitionism is solipsistic. I reject Intuitionism as a singular coherent theory of mathematics, but I do accept it as a member of the pantheon of interpretations of mathematics. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: (mathematical) solipsism
On 11/3/2012 9:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Although well-founded, solipsism still remains a psychological theory, a fact, if you will. As such, it belongs to the contingent world, not the world of necessary reason. There may be beings to which it does not hold. Mystics claim to have merged with the mind of God. Or perhaps some day a proof against it may be found. Hi Roger, If you can find a consistent definition of a mind for me, I will give you that proof. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
