Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Free will. Oh no! [r--Misc]

 On Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:57:12 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
 >In article <31d43429.5857861@>, abelard writes:
 >>On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:25:32 +0100, Dave Bird typed:
 >Matt also said that consciousness is 'therefore' one of
 >the self-referential problems which causes mathematics
 >to have deep problems of definition.
 i doubt that matt referred to consciousness
    as self referential....but i'll leave that to matt.
 but you do seem to equate consciousness
    with self monitoring...
 how different these two i have yet to be convinced,
    but the problem seems to be moving back a step
    at i'll leave that on hold.
 >Here is my difficulty. As you base yourself in philosophy,
 not really so...i start from empirics.
    ....observation of the real world...
     that 'out there'....not forgetting
     that i am part of that 'out there'...
     despite also...from my point of
     view...being 'in here'.
 i also think in a paradigm, that is at odds
    with that, which i perceive in the society around me.
 >you must know that a word is just a sound for denoting
 >the acual object or idea referred to.
 no problem...i don't see matt as having any such 
    problem either....but we really must leave that to him!
 >Let us for now call them  and SELF_AWARE as a property of the
 >brain, and SELF_REFERENTIAL as a property of mathematical sets 
 right...let's ride with that for a line or three.
 >>but you are trying to define two forms of
 >>   self reference....i have yet to be convinced
 >>   they are logically different.
 >I find this a staggeringly weird statement.  All I can do
 >is define precisely what I mean by each of these apparently
 >very different things, and invite you to develop the argument why they
 a lot of this is word usage...and it is very
    very likely that we have rather different
    language fact that is certain...
 but how much correspondence there is
    we may find out by interaction.
 the *only* way to do that imv is by ref. to
    real world objects.
 >might be considered the same. Coming from a philosophical background,
 >you must be familiar with the idea that the description is not actually
 >the things it describes: the painting only REPRESENTS the landscape,
 indubitably...i have even referred to this in
    previous postings to your good happy.
 >it cannot BE or entirely inclde the landscape; 
 what is in any category at any *time* is a *choice*
    by an individual.
 the painting may be considered as separate
    from the landscape.
 only if you move on in time can you form a new
    meaning of landscape...say with the picture
    included in your definition.
 your suggestion almost suggests half in, half
    out, again fine as long as you only use one definition