From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Tue Nov 02 1999 - 17:25:27 MST
The problem with Putnam's theory is that you can't get humans, capable
of *forming* models, without a pre-existing reality to create them. So
internalism doesn't strike me as being very self-consistent. In my
philosophy, which is called "Externalism" for a very good reason,
external reality predated humans, who evolved to model that reality.
You can't "prove" reference, of course, because if that were true our
thoughts would define reality. (And of course, I don't believe in
instantiation, especially of Turing-computable behaviors, but that's not
the point.)
To me, this sounds like another version of that old dilemna of "How do
you prove that rational thought works without assuming the rational
processes you use for the proof?" Or in other words, "How do you
explain your theories to a rock?" And the answer... is complicated, but
I discuss it in the new triple-size page on "Logic" in the latest
version of the TMOL FAQ released two days ago.
http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/logic.html
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html
Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns
Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:41 MST