> On 20 Jun 2019, at 14:36, PGC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 2:02:37 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jun 2019, at 06:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
>> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2019 5:41 PM, Pierz wrote:
>>>> Of course, a purely relational ontology necessarily involves an infinite
>>>> regress of relationships, but it seems to me that we must choose our
>>>> poison here - the magic of intrinsic properties, or the infinite regress
>>>> of only relational ones.
>>>
>>> I am not sure that a relational ontology must suffer from infinite regress,
>>> it can instead be self-referential. The ontology of "strange loops", as
>>> proposed by Hofstadter.
>>>
>>> Gotta read Hofstadter some day. I have thought of the possibility of
>>> circular set of relationships, but then the circular system itself would be
>>> a brute fact. Infinite regress is not necessarily something "suffered",
>>> unless what we are hoping for is some intrinsic property, some solid ground
>>> somewhere.
>>
>> But if you stop worrying about what exists (where "exists" is theory
>> dependent anyway) and think or relationships not a things but as
>> explanations, then you can have a virtuous circle of explanation, i.e. one
>> that encompasses everything. To explain/understand something you start from
>> something you already understand and work your way around. Empirically,
>> that's pretty much how we learn things...you always have to start from
>> things you understand.
>
> Absolutely, but that is the reason to not start from a circular explanation,
> but from a simple non circular like one, which, if Turing universal, will
> account for all circular processes. Then, this attribute mind to machines,
> and kill all reductionist conception that we can have on machines, and thus
> on humans too!
>
>
> You pretend that this immunizes people from evil
I claim that it destroys the reductionist conception of machine, like the one
hold by 19th century materialist, or more recently by Searle, and other
“anti-mechanists”.
> or that such approaches were inherently more truthful, more correct for
> purely aesthetic ("simple") reasons.
On the contrary. I claim it to be more simple, but anyone can try a non
mechanist theory, and for all what I *know* they might be correct. Yet, the
evidences obtained today favours Mechanism.
In science, we never know what we hit the truth.
> It's ambitious: you don't offer what may appeal to other folks and their
> sensibilities, you clothe it as "the real reason to not start circular”.
I just suggest that Brent’s virtuous circle theory is coherent with a non
circular ontology, like RA, and that it has to be possible, if mechanism is
true.
I put my hypotheses on the table, and I propose to share a reasoning. Ask any
question if you feel something is not valid.
Bruno
> You confuse logic, personal truths/opinions, and taste a lot for somebody who
> claims to have nailed qualia and sensation. This resembles the confusion of
> fanatics. PGC
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce23ab1c-dc1a-4135-9bec-feedfdd56836%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce23ab1c-dc1a-4135-9bec-feedfdd56836%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C72F0001-307A-4AB9-A80D-6949F4605D9F%40ulb.ac.be.
