On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, John G. Rose <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hey Jim, > > If you replace all your references to God with a G(x) or say a G(od) that > would at least get some of these people thinking > John, I thought about doing that before. By the way, I am not saying that solving the problem would be a proof that G(x) inspired me, I was explaining that this would constitute supporting evidence. I was hoping that some people would realize that since many people have believed in god or thought about his existence it might be realized that it is a fairly natural kind of thought event. Secondly, every theory has some detachment from the objects of the theory. All of our knowledge consists of beliefs. And finally the testing of theory is a fundamental part of rational behavior. Skepticism is not the same as a rational evidentiary method, it is an assertion. Many of our beliefs are unproven and the evidence that comes from experience is more likely to be in contention then it is to be in unison. The best way we can test a theory is to use it as a part of a complex of theories. If the theory helps us to work within a complex situation in some way then that would be supportive of that theory. On the other hand, it is obvious that the one theory might be wrong but if the other relevant theories are good then we might be able to use it in a complex situation anyway. So we have to find ways to test an important theory once in a while. My argument that it is extremely unlikely that I will solve the problem, and the problem is not a contest that will definitely produce some winner (who would win even though he overcame great odds to win), so this shows that there is a strong falsification factor associated with the event just as Karl Popper thought there should be. (I am not advocating falsification as the true conveyor of science, I am just saying that this is indeed a viable test against skeptical criticism regardless of what Tintner thinks.) There is one strong criticism of the method, and that is that someone else might have a similar feeling that his god had inspired him where his idea of god was something very different from mine. To look at a similar case, a person might feel that his education allowed him to solve a problem and that if did solve the problem then that would support that theory of attribution. Well the attribution to education is not in conflict with the attribution to inspiration, so that is not a problem to me. The first criticism though, where someone might attribute an unlikely success to a different idea of a god, is a problem for my test, but I am not talking about idealized perfection. What you are really seeing in the criticism of my talking about this is just dull prejudice. It is not good enough to find a highly critical method of testing faith in God, to some, the mere mention of faith is outrageously unacceptable. The irony, if it was irony, is that is also quite obviously a prejudice against using rational evidentiary methods. But why would someone in this group who is interested in a cutting edge science like AGI be prejudiced against using rational evidentiary methods with belief systems? To protect his fantasies that he possessed some privileged view of the field even though he hadn't achieved much success in it. On this last criticism I am not saying that I am any different than the rest of you, I am saying that the rest of you are not that much different than me. However, I am a little more wary of projecting my internal conflicts onto some external face then some of the rest of you. Jim Bromer On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, John G. Rose <[email protected]>wrote: > Hey Jim,**** > > ** ** > > If you replace all your references to God with a G(x) or say a G(od) that > would at least get some of these people thinking (with the exception maybe > of Tintner). They can’t grasp what God is mathematically as they dwell on > the existence of a proof of God’s existence not God as a mathematical > expression of what his existence means to us and AGI better have some idea > of what God is otherwise it’ll think we’re all p-zombies... and that might > not go so well… hint hint...**** > > ** ** > > John**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jim Bromer [mailto:[email protected]] > **** > > The theoretical objects are:**** > > 1. God**** > > 2. Me, inspired by God according to my conjecture.**** > > 3. A computer program that I would be able to write if I had/have been.*** > * > > **** > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10561250-470149cf> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
