At 15:05 16/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Possibly making you not better than them. But this not that
simple. They do not disagree with dialog and argumentation.
Rather they argue in different ways and/or with different

OK, so I perhaps did not understand you fully. I thought they did not even accept AR, or "2+2=4" for the sake of the argument.

> >If they finally have to abandon these positions due to the amount
> >of evidence in favor of it, the last line of defence for their
> >conception of a personal God and for a significant role for Him
> >could be at the level of artihmetical realism. Artihmetical
> >realism by itself (not from a distinct personal God) is therefore
> >seen as evil by them. As I mentionned, they usually do not put it
> >that way. Rather they argue that such a view would prevent the
> >foundation of human dignity and the like.
> They make probably the same confusion of those who believe
> that determinism is in contradiction with free will.

I would say that one of the concern they have behind this is the
question of free will versus determinism (and/or randomness). You
and others might see this as making "the same confusion of those
who believe that determinism is in contradiction with free will".
But there might also be more than one conception of free will
and we could also consider that what they are doing is trying to
defend another conception of free will that the one which is not
in contradiction with determinism (and/or randomness).

Look, I have no problem at all with any people open to defend
they point, I am always prepared to make evolve my own position.
But I really don't appreciate those who wants to impose any
position (even mine). By its very nature free-will is hard to define
and I quite believe there is as many conception of free-will
than there are free-person.

Though we
may or may not share this conception, I don't think that we can
dismiss it. The only thing we can say is that they cannot convince
us of it or possibly even of its meaningfulness but in the same
way we have no ground to prove them they are wrong.

No problem as long as they don't use authoritative argument.

Basically, they want to believe that we humans are not reducible
to numbers and I think that such a reductibility cannot be proved
either way.

Er... No scientific proposition can *ever* be proved. Only refuted, or confirm. Except perhaps a tiny part of intuistionist mathematics.

Also I understand that one could feel offended by the
idea that he could be reduced to mere numbers (not more but not
less he would feel offended by the idea it could be reduced to a
set of interacting molecules) even if these ideas are considered
as just hypotheses. They want to believe (and they want to be
generally believed) that there is (much) more than this in human
beings (and incidently in themselves).

It is ok, in principle. It all depend on the way they will make us to believe their proposition. I am used to met people who are shocked by the idea of being a machine. I think those people ahave just a lack of trust in themselves. If I like myself and if I learn that I am a machine, then I will say "formidable, some machine can be nice like me". If I dislike myself, and I learn that I am a machine, then I will say "I knew I was just a stupid machine". Just to say that if someone has the faith (or some deep faith) he/she will not be afraid by *and* hypothesis. Those who are afraid by hypotheses are really afraid of the fragility of their own ideas or of their own faith.

> Actually I tend to think that Godel's and other incompleteness
> result makes comp a sort of vaccine against reductionist view of
> self and reality (and arithmetic).

This is not obvious to me. Maybe what "reductionist" actually
means needs to be clarified.

Sure. It is a very big thread by itself.

> You know "reason" works only through doubt, and through the ability
> to listen to different opinions.

I tend to agree but it does not seem enough just to say it.

I guess it is not enough. As I said it is linked to "trusting oneself". This trust is given, I think, by appropriate love and education from generation through generation. That is, a very long work. may be some shortcut exists, but there is probably no universal simple recipe.

> Now with Godel we can say more,
> which is that "good faith" never fears "reason" and rationality.
> Sincere Faith can only extend Ratio, and is always open to dialog.

It seems that there exists other conceptions of what "good faith"
and/or "Sincere Faith" should be. Idem for "Ratio".

Which one?


Reply via email to