Re: belief, faith, truth

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:45:55 -0800 (PST)

Bruno:

--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true. The
'artifact' did not change.
I do not believe that we reached the "ultimate" level
in logic and mental capabilites as of Febr. 2006
>
>
> > 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.

If we can identify our ignorance. It is like
agnosticism:
ignorance about what? We have to know "about it" to
structure it.
>
> >
> > 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.

Solipsism can be humiliating: "I cannot be right".<G>
#rd person is not denied in my position: it is just
represented by MY 1st person interpretation of it, so
while "there is" a 3rd person "truth" it emerges in us
as our 1st person understanding.

>
> Bon week-end,
>
> Bruno
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 03 2006 - 17:47:06 PST