daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> Georges wrote:
>> daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>>>
>>> So Bruno says that:
>>> a) "I am a machine."
>>> b) "...no man can grasp all aspect of man"
>>>
>>> Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of
>>> humanness that is more than a machine (i.e.
>>> simply following a set of instructions).
>>>
>>> Jef and Brent say that we are machines
>>> who (that?) philosophize.
>>>
>>> Brent says that realizing we are machines is the
>>> beginning of (or another step in) the death of
>>> human hubris (arrogance).
>>>
>>> I thought that Bruno maintains that humility
>>> is on the side of realizing that we cannot
>>> totally understand ourselves.
>>>
>>> Pascal, "Reason can begin again when we
>>> recognize what we cannot know."
>>>
>>> Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Given that we believe in sense?
>>
>> Who/what gives that?
>>
>> Do we believe in that?
>>
>> Georges.
>
> Georges, you are using sense by asking those questions.
Well, all my education (and probably even my genes) tried hard to
convice me that I do. Still, I have a (very strong) doubt.
Obviously, things tend to appear just as if I would. But maybe just
as obviously as the sun tend to appear to be moving around the earth.
Obviously also, the "sense view" is very well suited for us to best
live and reproduce. This means it is almost always appropriate and
efficient for "everyday life" discussion and decision making.
But being appropriate and efficient in such cases does not mean at
all that it is correct. It does not follow that it is appropriate
everywhere, especially when we are in the kind of discussions we
have here, about what would be a machine or what it might mean that
reality actually exists.
I was just wondering whether people here were willing to have a
look on what they are sitting on.
> List,
> OK, we don't have to use any of those scary words like sense and reason
> and faith. We're just trying to get at reality. Or are people starting
> to get nihilistic? Have a little faith (oops) and let's talk.
>
> I suggest we start out by concentrating on the fact that Brent and Jef
> don't agree with Bruno's b) above. (And also perhaps Bruno doesn't
> agree with himself (Bruno's a) vs. b) above)). If we truly are
> machines, then by definition we should be able to (in theory) figure out
> the "list of instructions" that we follow.
I feel a flaw in the "then" just there whatever definition of
"machine" you want to consider.
Georges.
--
Email: Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden
CLIPS-IMAG, 385, rue de la Bibliothèque, B.P. 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9
Tel: (33-4) 76 63 58 55, Fax: (33-4) 76 44 66 75
Received on Thu Feb 09 2006 - 07:44:58 PST