Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Re: Penrose's argument

Hi Carl,

> You can say that they understand truth in
> the same way you can say other humans
> understand truth: by observing their behavior.

That's what a behaviourist might say
and perhaps a solipsist might if there
are any such - but many philsophers would say you
don't do understand other humans that way.
You learn about them rather at the
same time that you learn about yourself
while you are learning language and
the other concepts that form your world.
So you understand them in a sense as
well as you understand yourself, maybe
their behaviour and customs are different
from the ones you are used to but
intrinsically they are human,
or more generally sentient, as you are
yourself.

If one were brought up with no communications
with others, one wuold have an undeveloped
sense of truth like that of an animal because
you wouldn't have language or any of the
things that distinguish us from animals
except that you would be ratber more intelligent
than your average animal, but couldn't be expected
to develop a language without anyone to talk to.
I'd say that then you still have the spark of
truth but need to learn about yourself
and others in order to understand it
as we do. Even chimpanzees, if they
understand lying and truth, can only
do that because of their interactions with
others.

Though there would be a lot of discussion
about how exactly we learn about it
and whether we have private worlds
as well at all, or whether that is
some kind of illusion (there, I think we
do in some sense but not sure if I
could well argue my case with a seasoned
philosopher who is well up on this
as that can be a bit hard to do if
they really challenge you, - you have
to have your wits about you)

Then, there is the matter, if we
do have private worlds, what form
do they take and to what extent
can they be shared with others.

> > So unless you say it also changes
> > the language in which it is written
> > as it goes on (and there is no
> > great advantage in doing that
> > as all computer languages are
> > universal as far as computing is concerned)
> > then that gives you a finite program
> > + data.
>
> Yes. But it might still be the case that
> G today is no longer G tomorrow.

Well probably I'll give up at this
point just because it is too much
hand waving and I'd like to see
what Roger Penrose has said about it,
after all I haven't spent years
researching this!

Just that I don't personally find
it very convincing an idea yet that
there might be some way to program
a computer to get around the limitations
and add in Godel sentences somehow
without doing it using an algorithm
that could be analysed by a human
and used to make a sentence for
the result by meta reasoning about it.
But then not much motivated to look
for ways out of the argument as
I find it convincing, and those
who don't already find it convincing
are the best ones to challenge it #
I suppose.

Perhaps we can take this up again
later after I have read his book
and read what he has to say.

Robert

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

Hi Robert,

> > You can say that they understand truth in
> > the same way you can say other humans
> > understand truth: by observing their behavior.
>
> That's what a behaviourist might say

As it happens, I am a behaviourist!

> If one were brought up with no communications
> with others, one wuold have an undeveloped
> sense of truth like that of an animal
//
> Even chimpanzees, if they
> understand lying and truth, can only
> do that because of their interactions with
> others.

Communication with others is behavior on
their part, and stimulus for you (and
vice versa, of course).

> Perhaps we can take this up again
> later after I have read his book
> and read what he has to say.

Sure. And I'll grab my copy on Easter, perhaps.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

Well put.....

A behaviorist, in the hard definition, denies the existence of the inner
subjective life, or at least considers it unimportant.

Another fact to mention is that the communion of 2 humans in a relationship
(marriage, partnership, etc., friendship) requires empathy and tenderness.
No behaviorist paradigm will satisfy these requirements for long....

-Aaron.

On Saturday 10 July 2004 01:00 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> If you ever have children , you will abandon this after 3 months!
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> > As it happens, I am a behaviourist!
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Re: Penrose's argument

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>