Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
> Bruno and list:
>
> We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
> "understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow all
> existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind
> and logic...
Who can be sure of that?
> I like to leave a 'slot' open (maybe WE are in the
> restricted slot?) which is not accessible by our
> idideationaleans.
That's the relief with the loebian machine. She is forced to let a
rather big slot open.
Remember that the first sentences of the 3-personne are the humility
principle and the modesty principle.
It is just that for us to remain consistant we must accept that the
so-called material world is the last "emanation" of our "ignorance".
Godel-Lob-Solovay: ignorance is structured.
>
> Reality - whatever it may be identified by - is not a
> human artifact.
We are in complete agreement. But with the comp HYP (or weaker)
Reality, whatever it is, is an artifact resulting from some mixing
between lobian (not human) ignorancxe and arithmetical truth. This does
not contradict what you say.
> As this list agreed (at least I did)
> it is better to talk about a '(1st person?) perception
> of reality' i.e. of the part we can muster and in ways
> we can handle. It may include the 'Subject' concepts.
But if you refuse to bet on something thrid person describable
operating at the roots of the first person perception, you take the
risk of solipsism (the contrary of humility). Of course, any third
person proposition (even theorem in arithmetic) is doubtful, and some
amount of faith is asked upon.
Bon week-end,
Bruno
Received on Wed Feb 01 2006 - 12:12:01 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST