Re: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
Hi Jason Resch Yes, that I am reading this proves to me that I am conscious, but not to you, which is what I mean by "proof". [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/30/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-29, 17:05:08 Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Roger Clough 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. ?.E.D. Or at least it is proof that your thought exists. ?t is not clear to me how you define "I". Jason -- 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. -- 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
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, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-29, 10:38:18 Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove 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 scientific method to prove or disprove the solipsism puzzle ? Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it works. Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the scientific method is. Brent Hi Brent, This is how things actually work! We don't need to have an exact definition of this or that, we operate with FAPP models and 'as if' definitions, we don't need exactness, so why is it treated as so important? I invite you to check out any of Jon Barwise' books, I like The Liar the most. It is a nice change of pace from the ordinary treatments of logic and semantics and might help you understand this issue of 'as if'. What makes you think I don't understand it? Brent Oh, well good, please go on and finish the point that you where making with : "Everybody solves it [the solipsism puzzle] by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it works. Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the scientific method is. ... " Stephen, Frankly. You cannot make a comment by saying "read that book and you will understand". You must make your point explicit (and you can add: see that book which inspired my point). If not, you are just saying "I know, you don't", and you stop to appear like the beginners/student you pretended to be. You appear as the one using argument per authority. I would be Brent, I would be rather angry. You did this to many other people (including me) too, and it just doesn't work. Always make your point explicit, and refer to the book or paper if you have use some idea there, but gives the idea explicitly. If not, it is an authoritative argument of the form "I know better than you". Only bad philosophers and fundamentalist do this. In this precise case, I don't follow your point, and I don't see how Barwise's book can help. Nor do I see that book as a change from ordinary logic. Bruno Dear Bruno, Please re-read the content of the thread above. I did exactly what you are asking, but I could have added another sentence to my initial remark: "There is no need for a priori knowledge of 'scientific method'." So to restate my remark on Brent's comment above: We do not need exact definitions of models to reason, all we actually use is 'for all practical purpose' and 'as if' models to come to conclusions and thus we can see the same at work in solving the solipsism puzzle. Not having an explicit a priori synthetic knowledge of 'the scientific method' in the sense of a memorized sequence of symbols such as "...systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." does not change a thing. It does, however, allow some people that are skilled in symbol manipulation to feel superior to others that are not so well endowed. Brent seemed to take for granted this point in his remark to Roger's request and seemed to be merely casting aspersions. I then tried to cast Brent's remark in a different light to make a point. The reference to Barwise's book was, as you write, "..add: see that book which inspired my point.." Barwise, with his co-writers, does a magnificent job, IMHO, of illustrating how non-well foundedness and reflexivity allow for understanding and knowledge to occur in a world where entities are not omniscient. We are fallible, finite and definitely not all skilled in linguistics. Some of us have disabilities and can still think deeply about complicated ideas. ;-) -- 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
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, 07:56:07 Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 physical movements. > OK. It goes like this: 1. Assume consciousness is caused by movement in the brain. 2. Assume that the brain movement is computable. 3. Then consciousness is computable. (4. But if consciousness is computable, then the physical world must be a product of consciousness rather than the other way around.) -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
Hi meekerdb How do you know-- truly know-- that other people are like yourself ? What proof can you offer ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/28/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-28, 13:29:55 Subject: Re: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove the solipsism puzzle ? Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model and it works. Problem solved - except for people who don't know what the scientific method is. Brent -- 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: Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
Hi meekerdb Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove the solipsism puzzle ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/28/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-27, 20:11:51 Subject: 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 Clough 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. Legal proof is by 'preponderance of the evidence' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Science doesn't even to pretend to 'prove' things, although it can prove some theories are false in the 'beyond reasonable doubt' sense. > Three things that one cannot prove or disprove > > 1. That God exists or does not exist. Depends on what you mean by "God". The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist because his definition is incoherent and also the evidence is against him beyond a reasonable doubt. But if he not omnibenevolent, like the Deist god, those disproofs don't apply > > 2. That I exist or do not exist. If you didn't exist you couldn't ask for a proof. > > 3. That computers can be conscious or not. Just like other scientific questions it is beyond a reasonable doubt that most computers are not, but if computers exhibit suffciently intelligent behavior their consciousness will be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Brent > 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. > > -- 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. -- 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: 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 prove or disprove The second one empirically proven, if I talk about myself. But I can't prove that the other guys exists or not. -- On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough 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. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/26/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen -- 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.
