I think that language can express beliefs. However, the precise details of the correspondence is probably a question mark. We do not necessarily know ...
These scientific patterns have an uncanny resistance to falsification in our part of the universe. Still, they are not the true laws of nature, becaus...
If a pattern emerges inside a world constructed by a particular set of axioms, and this pattern stubbornly resists falsification, i.e. counterexamples...
Language expressions that correspond to beliefs are meant to communicate beliefs. In the definition of knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief (JtB), n...
They are not the true laws of nature, which are unknown, and they are not universal either. These laws only exhibit an uncanny resistance to falsifica...
Yes, but it can still be amazingly hard to discover the path between conclusion (=theorem) and axioms/premises. Such path is the sequence of rewrite o...
A belief expressed as language may not depend on any subject's mental state. If you represent a belief as a language expression and feed such expressi...
I do not think that moral values are necessarily subjective. A group of people can objectively share a moral system, by accepting the language express...
I think that all three types of reasoning do not explain why new knowledge is discovered in the first place. They only kick in when we verify if a jus...
The language expression is an abstraction that seeks to represents the belief. It is the language expression that we communicate. It is processed in l...
I was referring to the beliefs of others, which are only known to us when they somehow communicate them. That is exactly what "isomorphic" refers to. ...
It is a language expression that is at best "isomorphic" with the corresponding belief, meaning that operations on the language expressions will still...
I am convinced that some beliefs can be expressed in language -- and copied outside the mind -- and communicated to others. I have not said that I bel...
I believe that every centralized system will become corrupt and will turn on its users. Now, I agree that this belief is quite ideological. Decentrali...
Not all beliefs are subjective, because some beliefs are deemed objectively justified. Furthermore, once a belief is expressed in language it is no lo...
That would be about one particular element or rule in a system of morality, and not about the entire class of morality systems, which is what the arti...
He does not literally say it, but it is obvious what he means. It is incredible how "critical thinking" is supposedly encouraged in state-controlled s...
The article, "Darwinian Morality" is yet another exercise in infinite regress, as well as a complete misunderstanding as to what "reason" is. Seriousl...
The idea that all beliefs are subjective, is not compatible with the idea that there exist objectively justified (true) beliefs. Therefore, objectivit...
As soon as beliefs are expressed in language, they are language expressions, which could possibly represent an uncanny correspondence with the real, p...
Yes, agreed. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, there is no mechanical procedure that can generally discover new theorems along with their ...
That is wrong, because "reason" is merely a mechanical faculty, that can be executed by machines. Humans can do it too, but are way less efficient at ...
It is a language expression. In principle, it has nothing to do with real-world "objects". There are rewrite rules that allow for carefully reducing t...
Your way of reasoning is one of infinite regress. You see, knowledge is either about correspondence with the real, physical world, when the knowledge ...
Morality is "subjective" to the context of the basic rules that you accept. The term "subjective" is not really appropriate here, though. The proper t...
Yes, Alan Turing's version uses quantification, but not a witness such as S = "S is not provable" as in Gödel's original proof. I also believe that th...
Well, yes, you can trace the rulings to a set of basic rules. Whose attitudes these basic rules express is another matter. The setup would still work ...
Verification only occurs when the second no-nothing uses a sound procedure to double check the first no-nothing's justification. We do not ask the ver...
They do not create knowledge. Read Wikipedia's No original research page. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original ...
Epistemology is not mathematics nor science. It has its own requirements and procedures. Consensus does not matter in mathematics. In principle, it al...
It is not about verificationism. It is about verifying that all formalisms and procedures were followed. Furthermore, verificationism is not accepted ...
Verification in this context means that the method was correctly applied. It does not mean that the results are correct. Since a diagnosis does not se...
There is pretty much a good consensus on the three core, formal knowledge-justification methods: axiomatic, scientific, and historical. Furthermore, t...
No, not at all. I did not say that the justification had to be some kind of extensive verification. I only said that I wanted to verify the justificat...
It does not work like that. Document 1. "Your mole is cancerous". Document 2. Evidence for document 1. So, where is document 2? I only work with docum...
You have the knowledge claim and then you have evidence/justification that supports it. We are talking about two different documents. For example, doc...
Not true at all. The answer to a jurisprudential question (such as a fatwa) will declare a particular behaviour to be morally permissible or impermiss...
Normative rules lead to rulings, which are simply language expressions. A machine can traverse rules and produce a ruling. There is no need for a huma...
Beliefs that are not expressed in language or not possible to express in language are ineffable. They are not part of knowledge. You must be able to e...
I have to interject the Church-Turing thesis to your comparison of both sources. Your evaluation is legitimate knowledge only if there exists a purely...
So, let's forget about any ineffable moralities that cannot be expressed in rules, and limit ourselves to moralities that can. Humans can make inferen...
Such belief must be expressed in language. Ineffable beliefs cannot possibly be knowledge. A machine can store language expressions and use them in in...
Knowledge as a justified (true) belief is a tuple of two language expression: the knowledge claim along with its justification. A machine can perfectl...
We would first have to agree that a morality is a set of rules. In that case, derived moral rules are not "valued" but evaluated. A machine is perfect...
Comments