Responses interspersed below.
Le 15-févr.-06, à 17:30, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
>> As Bruno said, now we really don't know what a machine is.
Bruno:
> Actually I was just saying that no machine can *fully* grasp *all
aspect* of machine. But machines can know what machines are. Only, if a
machine M1 is more complex than M2, M2 will not been able to prove the
consistency of M1, for example. And then if we are machine (comp) such
limitations apply to us, and this provides lot of informations,
including negative one which we can not prove except that we can derive
them from the initial comp act of faith ("yes doctor").
Actually I was referring to what you said in the "belief..." thread
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list.domain.name.hidden/msg08680.html
where you respond to my statement
>> This runs counter to the whole PHILOSOPHY (mind you)
>> of modern science, that we are simply machines, and that
>> there is no WHY.
with:
> This is due to the materialist who like to use the idea
> that we are simply machine just to put under the rug
> all the interesting open problem of (platonician) theology.
> Since Godel's discovery this position is untenable. Now we
> know that we don't know really what machines are. With
> the comp-or-weaker hyp, we already know that if we are
> machine then the physical laws emerges from in a totally
> precise and testable way.
Tom:
>> So in the absense of a precise definition, perhaps we end up running
away from ill-defined words like "machine", "reason", "soul", "faith",
etc., for who knows what personal "reasons".
Bruno:
> That is why I propose simple definitions. Reasoning = provability =
Bp = Beweisbar("p") cf Godel 1931. Soul = first person =
provability-and-truth = Bp & p = third Plotinus' hypostase. This can
look as an oversimplification but the gap between truth and provability
(incarnated in the corona G* minus G) detrivialises (if I can say) all
this.
>
> My fault. I will come back on this.
>
> Bruno
Actually, when I was talking about a lack of precise definition, I
wasn't referring to you, Bruno. I was talking about what happens in
the general conversation when we don't define our terms, or when we are
assuming different definitions based on different philosophies
consciously or unconsciously held.
On the contrary, I would echo John Mikes' sentiment that some of your
definitions seem too simple for my taste. I think I would agree with
your definition of reasoning though, but I take issue with your
definition of Soul = first person = provability-and-truth = Bp & p. I
think elsewhere you also define Knowledge as Belief & Truth, and I have
the same problem with that. These definitions seem too simple. These
seem equivalent to accidental true belief and accidental true proof.
They lack the justification factor. (I feel a reference to G*/G
coming. ;) ) Anyway, perhaps we can start a new thread if we want to
talk about this part some more, or this is probably what you've been
trying to explain to us all along in previous threads.
Tom
Received on Thu Feb 16 2006 - 13:27:41 PST