 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook schrieb:
> Well, how about having a pre-debate meeting where you explicitly
> define all the words you're going to be using? XD
>
... and of course a pre-pre-debate, to define the language to use in the
pre-debate :P
(which reminds me of that dictionary entry "recursion: see -> recursion")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> schreef in bericht
news:4a77087b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I think people don't have an instinct for a particular language, but an
> instinct to learn whatever language they're around. Much like birds learn
> how to fly, pretty much reliably.
>
> Of course, if you're entire raised around non-verbal beings, the instinct
> to try to learn is going to get frustrated, just like you can starve
> without food even tho you have an instinct to get hungry and eat when you
> need to.
>
Yes. That is correct. I just browsed again through some textbooks dealing
witht his. We definitely have the inate "building blocks" for (complex)
language, but we need the proper environment (i.e. parents, other members of
the group) to trigger and control the faculty.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even tho everyone participating already knows what it means? Even when
> (Consider a recording of the debate being discovered by an alien culture
> 50,000 years in the future who have no other reference for the language...)
I don't follow. How would aliens 50,000 years in the future be participating
and already know what it means?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>> right.
>
> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
Again, that is not what I did.
> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew
> that for a fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
>
>> I can not prove it,
>
> You have justification for your belief.
>
> One can argue over whether there is sufficient justification to turn a
> belief in something that happens to be true into knowledge, sure. But no
> amount of confidence without justification will turn belief into knowledge.
The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
>
> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
> overstating their knowledge.
I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to
convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
ps
> If I said "I *know* Lincoln was the first president of the USA", what
> would you say? What if I was absolutely positive? Would you say I knew
> that for a fact? Or would you say "No, your belief is incorrect"?
I think I'd say that you have your facts wrong. That happens quite
often. Sometimes when I give a talk I end with the conclusion that 'what
is common knowledge may not be true'. Specifically of course when I have
just shown an example of that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>>> right.
>>
>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful", you've
>> eliminated the usefulness of the word.
>
> Again, that is not what I did.
"Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that believe
think they *know* they are right" is correct.
> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you were
kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping in front
of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your belief.
If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of the
USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.
As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one might
not know if there was sufficient justification.
>> Maybe I'm just a bit oversensitive, with all the people who actually
>> deep-down inside know they are *not* right trying to convince me by
>> overstating their knowledge.
>
> I am overstating, deep down there is no doubt, but I am not trying to
> convince you, so that is not incompatible with your statement
Right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 20:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 4-8-2009 1:46, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> What I said (and I think Jim is along the same line) is not that
>>>> knowledge is faith but that those that believe *know* that they are
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Right. Except by making it mean "I'm really *really* faithful",
>>> you've eliminated the usefulness of the word.
>>
>> Again, that is not what I did.
>
> "Those that believe *know* they are right" is incorrect. "Those that
> believe think they *know* they are right" is correct.
Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
>
>> The problem with this statement is in 'without justification'. That
>> unfortunately is not an objective term and that is where the problem is.
>
> It depends on how good your evidence is, of course. If you believe you
> were kidnapped by aliens while your entire family watched you sleeping
> in front of the fireplace, then you're without justification for your
> belief.
Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted,
even if you would insist they mere believe it.
> If you think you know that George Washington was the first president of
> the USA, you're pretty justified in believing that.
There was a trick question about that on QI some tie ago, I forgot the
point, however :(
> As I said, there are grey zones in the middle, of course, where one
> might not know if there was sufficient justification.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 21:10, andrel wrote:
> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but
then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be
agreed on. But that requires that you have to agree on how to make rules
proof rules etc.
Which a.o. shows that you don't have to agree on what constitutes a
proof, you can always go to a meta level. That even works for Euclid. I
think it is clear that somewhere on the third meta level we don't agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Only from the perspective of an outsider. Knowledge is not objective, I
> understand why you would like it to be so, but alas...
Well, we're kind of debating over the meaning of the word. What's the
objective word *you* would use for justified true belief?
> Which would not stop some people from knowing they had been abducted,
> even if you would insist they mere believe it.
OK. I'm just objecting to the use of that word to mean that you can know
something which you are justified in believing is false.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Isn't there a scene in Goedel Escher Bach where something is proven but
> then the focus turns on the proof rules, because they must first be
> agreed on.
This always happens when you try to make math tell you something about the
real world. The problem isn't with proving something mathematically. It's
with proving that the math is isomorphic to reality.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
