Hi John,

You referred me to your web page on "Science Religion, a Historical View". Here:

I read it with great interest. I could agree up to a point, which I will try to make clear. And then I comment your last post.

You are using human natural science and human science (history) to relativize religion.
And then you are doing the same to relativize an, admittedly widespread, "religious" belief in science (say).
"Religious" with quote is always put for some pejorative view of religion, that is a view with "authoritative arguments".

Somehow let me say that I agree 99,9999999999999999...%. But it remains a stubbornly infinitesimal point of disagreement (even if I totally follow your critical conclusions on the "religious" science).

To make clearer my critic, I will relate it with both Descartes systematic doubting procedure (which I would argue is at the origin of modern theoretical sciences), and the Buddhist notion of *the center of the wheel" which provides a good image.

Of course I don't know what is a human being. But, as you know, for reason of clarity and modesty, I have *choose* a theory, and I have even choose a theory sufficiently precise so that we can derive precise conclusions. All what I say must be remembered as having been casted in the frame of that theory.

I don't want to be specific on the details. The theory, in its intuitive description appears already in "The question of King Milinda" and many other old "religious texts", but in his modern form, applied to animals, it is attributed to Descartes and is called "mechanism", and I take the digital restriction: digital mechanism, or computationalism, or just comp.

Now, with comp, there is a little problem in your strategy. If human are machines, by using human sciences to relativize human science, you will applied a computable transformation on the space of the computable transformations, and it can be shown that you will get a fixed point. It is like making rotating a wheel: all its points-propositions will move (put in doubt) and be relativized except one: the center of the wheel.

This fixed point is related to the space of the un-doubtable, but the epistemological price of comp will be that science must be (provably!) modest. All (sufficiently rich, universal) theories are necessarily hypothetical. This happens when we enlarge the space of the sound human platonist reasoner into the space of the Lobian machines.

What is the fixed point? in a nutshell it is science itself, but where science is understood as an ideal of communication conditionned by hypothetical statements (some scientists forget this; most forget this when talking on colleagues' fields).

You put the finger on one of the main difficulty to
keep the dialog 
between logician and physicist: they interchange,
almost but alas not 
completely, the use of the words "theory" and
"models". Logicians use 
the word "model" for the intended reality they want
to describe with a 
theory (like the painter how call the naked person
in front of him, the 
model). The painting, is the theory, the little
things we put on a 

JM: $fine. I like that kind of 'model' if she(!) is
I differentiate also the "simulation" model, as the
mathematical or physical simulation of a thing to make
it accessible to our feeble knowledge. Now MY model:
as you know I think in totality (wholeness) at least I
try. Our mind is incapable of envompassing ALL, so we
select segments we can handle (if we can...) and
REDUCE our vision to them (=MY reductionism). Such
segment is a (MY) model if it disregards the 'rest of
the world' (as it should to serve our feeble mind). It
can be a person, a theory, a science-topic, a thought,
a car, or anything topically (or functionally)
surrounded by boundaries (our mental model-horizon). I
took the word from Robert Rosen. A limited model is
what we can use in our thinking. If we widen it beyond
ALL boundaries it becomes a "natural system", maximum
model (nonsense) = the 'thing' itself. This is my
vocabulary and you cannot argue about it - it is MINE
(ha ha). 
There is nothing wrong with model-thinking, it helped
us to all we know of the world and to our technology.
Not to 'understanding' the connections.

Why? There is only a (necessary) problem with understanding 'understanding'

Wriong it is,
if we draw 'universal' conclusions from considerations
upon a model - regard it universally valid.

I have no models in that sense. The theory which is isolated from the machine's interview is embeddable in number theory.

As in the
sciences (including I think logics, which is cut to
the thinking habits of the HUMAN brain (mind).

No. It is build frrom the consideration of being the less dependent on prejudices or even just meanings. And there are many many logics. You should explain why you think science (and not its mediatic "religious" perception) is cut for human thinking habits, when the whole story of science and logic illustrates a (never ending) abstraction of all our contingent conditions.

is a model, with all the 'explanations' WITHIN the

For those who assumes the explanation-closeness of the physical world. Not everyone accept this, and it is well know that all physics attempt to get a coherent talk of consciousness, mind and first person have failed. As for me, the concept of a physical world is just epistemologically incompatible with my working hypothesis.

Von Bertalanffy's System Kohler's Gestalt opened the
way and Bohm made it the implicate (sort of). Rosen is
lost in explaining within the science language for a
reductionist audience (he was (+1998) a mathematician-
biologist) and started to generalize from models. I
started from generalities (nothingness) and "modelled"
down myself to common (human!) sense. We met. (Never
in person, I even did not read his books). 
The thing IMO is future thinking, not as you put it
below. We don't even have expressions to talk with.

Rosen has misunderstood the impact of Church thesis. I think. We can come back on this.
An excellent book on Church Thesis is Judson Webb's book (ref in my Lille thesis, in my url).

We will come back on this but remember that once you
say yes to the 
doctor (for the artificial brain) then that brain
does not vehiculate a 
model of you, but you yourself (assuming comp).

$I am not clear with that 'doctor' if it is a machine,
it can only 'vehiculate' within its boundaries: a
model of me. "I" am part of the totality with certain
affinities (I am just working on how to define that)
which make me LOOK like an individual. Maybe 'comp'
may help, (again something not clear to me).

I definitely think it could.

$which of course are all models cut from the total
inteconnectedness by topical boundaries. Incl: theory.

The third person description are indeed cut from that interconnectedness, given that you comp 'soul" can be "saved" on a finite disk. The first person keep all its whole-related infinite interconnectedness. Actually comp protects that first person. Comp is really a vaccine against all namable reductionism. 

Except in politics, I would say big regression,
isn't it? 

$No, I see the same brutal beast with different tools.
More organization, more hypocrisy, more sneaky/lying.

OK. But much less blood, and much less starvation. 
Much less sincere spiritual concerns, but that has a long complex history.

$depending how you define as the nonreligious theology

Truth *about* machine   (as opposed to truth provable by (correct) machine)

as a pantheistic wholeness? then I agree.

"pantheistic wholeness"?  is still but a (human) name. Sound lobian machine are more wise by staying mute, here.

What is god
in such weird idea: the change? the interconnection?
the informative efficiency? Ask me 200 years from now.

Never ask me. If you have the cognitive ability to understand an answer (which I don't have), you would have the ability to get the answer by yourself.

Of course I have use "religion" in its pejorative
sense; its means 
anything using authoritative argument.
The nest millenia? It will be "pschhht!" or,
something like an 
uncontrollable creative big bang, from what I smell
from comp.

$Pessimist! We came a long way from the cave and
before that, I am an optimist, unless we overshoot our
own intelligence (do we really have sone?) and

This is more or less what I was trying to say.

Not humanity, it will be over within a

If there is just one present or future, there will be continua of future for humanity. 

but the biosphere with its evolving conscious
creatures in the run. Thinking clouds? non-matterics? 

In those futures where  humanity lasts, humanity will take many shapes. What is important is memory of its past(s): geographies and history.

I keep my mind open as long as it works.

I wish you the best,


Reply via email to