> Come on Mirek: "Theaetetical" is an adjective I have forged from > "Theatetus". > "Theatetus" gives 195.000 results on Google. > "Theatetus" wiki 4310.
Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in your papers thus one can easily match the word Theaetetical agains it. Let me quickly summarize the experience I had with "theatetical notion of knowledge" while reading one of your papers for the first time. Maybe I am an ignorant, then shame on me, but I have not read the Theaetetus. So I took a look at the Wikipedia and read "In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions are shown to be unsatisfactory." Hmm that really helps .., I told to myself and continued with reading. With an uneasy feeling of stepping into the water I eventually settled down to conclusion that you likely mean something as "true justified belief". I really wished you wrote it more straightforwardly without turning your readers quite unnecessarily down to the Theaetetus and inventing new words such as "Theaetetical". Anyway, I'd like to stop discussing this issue :-) since my only point was to give you a hint why I said that it is not easy to read your papers/letters. > Feel free to ask for any clarification, position > adjustments, question, at any level ...Do you understand what is the > comp hypothesis? Let us see if I get it right. Your comp hypothesis is 1) I'm a machine, 2) Each possible computation is Turing-computable, 3) Natural numbers and their relations do exist. This should not be confused with other quite common comp hypothesis that the universe is a big computer. This hypothesis entails the existence of a physical computer. Ad 1) I take the position that "I" is only a convenient temporary pointer to a part of universe. The pointer "Socrates' thoughts" is of the same quality. Ad 2) Breath taking. While 1) and 3) are assumptions of the kind "OK, let's think for a while that ...", 2) has the status of a thesis. I don't have any firm position on what could an objective reality be (and without a justification I tend to think it is inaccessible to us), but if there is any objective reality, 2) could be a statement about it. Ad 3) If natural numbers and their relations are the only entities which do exist then me, you, everything is a recipe of a Turing-computable number. OK, that is it. This is how I understand to your starting assumptions. Mirek --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
