Scott,
PLATT:
> > As for eternal static patterns, the problem with assuming there are none
> > is the same as assuming there are no absolutes. Both are self-
> > contradictory.
SCOTT:
> Only if stated under the assumption that the statement is to be
> processed under the eye of two-valued logic. In any case, I was being
> critical of the assumption that there ARE eternal, non-tautological static
> patterns, and it is easy enough to knock that down by pointing one out.
". . . processed under the eye of two-valued logic." Great phrase. I
wonder if it's possible to do metaphysics without appealing to two-
valued logic? Any thoughts along that line?
> A while back I said that metaphysical statements should be thought of as
> being preface by "I invite you to think that ..." or just "I think (or
> don't think) that ..." rather than "It is true that ...".
Back in the dim, dark past at the beginning of this site someone
suggested that we preface our metaphysical statements with just such
words. Others pointed out it wasn't necessary because it was a "given"
in our discussions. The question was never resolved, maybe because
no one could agree on what was or wasn't a metaphysical statement.
> So would you
> still consider it self-contradictory if I said:
> I don't think that there are any eternal non-tautological static
> patterns, because
> a) I haven't run across any
> b) the mystics say there aren't
> c) to think there are leads us back to dualism, and its antinomies (and
> would violate the MOQ, since it would entail that DQ and sq are two
> separate realities, rather than being a dependently co-originating
> manifestation of Quality.)
Well, just for fun: a) and b) employ the eternal static dualistic patterns
of have/have not and are/are not, and c) employs the eternal static
pattern of "the first cut" required to think of any patterns, static or
otherwise. In fact, the co-dependence of opposites required to think at
all may be an eternal static pattern. As Plato said, "We cannot
conceive the One without the Many." Is that a tautology? Do tautologies
themselves compose an eternal static pattern?
PLATT (previously):
> > But that being said, we live with contradictions every day,
> > like the present never changes but everything that changes changes in the
> > present. (I wonder how those trying to create artificial intelligence
> > will handle such paradoxes?)
SCOTT:
> Indeed. It was realizing something like this (that we must be in some sense
> outside of time to be aware of time's passing) that caused me to drop out
> of the Cognitive Science program that I was in.
I'm with you. Human consciousness and intelligence is far wider and
deeper than dreamt of in AI's philosophy. If that's a metaphysical
statement, let me hasten to add, IMHO. (-:
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST