Aurino,

>>>But this is not a matter of biology, it's a purely logical issue. Can we deal with logic on its own terms, or do we always have to relate logic to something else? Sure, biology has played an important role in solving the problem but the problem itself is completely abstract, and if we are not able to conceive of an abstract solution we can't possibly accept any "concrete" solution and still claim we are being rational. Is that hard to understand?>"We have good reason to accept that digital calculators are built on solid principles. Whenever we check one calculator's output against any other, they almost always match" Can you see a problem with that? (hint: it's not on the "almost always", although that has something to do with it)>What I'm curious about are the foundations of our knowledge.>>>

Just to be sure, you aren't talking about the foundation of our knowledge in terms of knowledge as the world really is (i.e., ontology), correct? You are referring to the foundation of knowledge that we happen to treat as knowledge (i.e., epistemology), correct? Usually the later is referred to as a justification of knowledge rather than a foundation (I'll explain later).

>>>All of a computer's knowledge can be reduced to two states and two two boolean operations. What about our knowledge, what is it founded upon?>If you can't answer that then I'll take it that you think the problem is indeed intractable, which leaves the question of how is it that evolution solved it?>>How do you build knowledge out of nothing?

• Metaphysics the way I see it - ezekiel - July 25, 2001 - 03:47 UTC
• So God did it then? - aurino - July 25, 2001 - 13:29 UTC
  • Let's clarify more - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 15:18 UTC
    • Progress indeed - aurino - July 25, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
      • Information comes from trial/error (learning). - alexander - July 25, 2001 - 18:07 UTC
      • More clarification needed - harvey1 - July 25, 2001 - 18:18 UTC