It's not the truths that are timeless. It is the information recorded in a memory. — apokrisis
Thus the further thing of the interpreter must either be addressed by the metaphysics, or else it sets up the familiar homuncular regress. — apokrisis
Hence we have Pattee's focus on how a molecule can function as a message - how DNA can code for a protein that is then an enzymatic signal to switch on or off a metabolic process. — apokrisis
The information recorded in a memory is not a temporal event? — Janus
I can get the notion of temporal displacement, how it enables freedom from the constraints of particular times, but I can't see how that translates into timelessness or eternity. — Janus
The dualist solution to this apparent regress is very simple. — Metaphysician Undercover
but the troubling question is as to what such timeless truths really consist in beyond our thinking of them. — Janus
What does the "timeless truths really consist in beyond our thinking of them"? Moore's hand. — Banno
Meh. Not unless we need to. — Banno
If you accept the metaphysical extravagance of an SR block universe, then you have no grounds for rejecting those further metaphysical extravagances. — apokrisis
But either way, that we don't know if some statement about the future is true or false does not make it neither true nor false. — Banno
That we do not know the truth of some statement does not render it neither true nor false. That's the case for a wide range of statements, including statements about the future. — Banno
I rather like the block universe — Banno
You mean that statements are essentially timeless, while the world itself has temporal structure. — apokrisis
As I've acknowledged before; I accept the commonsense truth expressed by Moore's gesture. It might be understood as a timeless truth in the sense that it does not depend on any particular time. But Moore's having of hands is nonetheless, it would seem, a temporal truth; it is difficult to see in what sense it could be a truth if there were no one around to think it. I mean, we can think it as being, in a sense, always and forever true that Moore had hands, but that is a purely logical timelessness. What would that truth inhere in if there were no logical beings? Would it still be able to 'hang around' somehow? — Janus
Super interesting interview. I do wish these people would drop the outdated 'inside/outside' / 'internalist/externalist' vocabulary though. The distinction - when taken in the absolute - is not helpful, and the more philosophically astute move would be to show how they are largely misleading when thinking about thought. As tends to be the case, these people are rehashing - in a more neuroscientific key - findings that phenomenologists have established for half a century or more now. *sigh* — StreetlightX
Yeah. Bring on the soul-stuff. That'll work. — apokrisis
Banno gets this, but refuses to address the issue of what is a principle. Sam26 proposes hinge-props which are somehow different from principles, perhaps a special sort of principle. But Sam26 doesn't seem to be able to explain how to differentiate a hinge-prop from an axiom, or a self-evident truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's a bit convolute. Again, this does not apply only to statements about the future; there are plenty of other sorts of statements which are true and yet unknown. It's more just pointing out the difference between belief and truth. — Banno
Your statement concerns a possibility of which there is as yet no fact of the matter. The PNC fails. — apokrisis
...to determine whether it is justifiably believed as either true or false. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.