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).
Why? There is only a (necessary) problem with understanding 'understanding'
I have no models in that sense. The theory which is isolated from the machine's interview is embeddable in number theory.
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.
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.
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).
I definitely think it could.
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.
OK. But much less blood, and much less starvation.
Much less sincere spiritual concerns, but that has a long complex history.
Truth *about* machine (as opposed to truth provable by (correct) machine)
"pantheistic wholeness"? is still but a (human) name. Sound lobian machine are more wise by staying mute, here.
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.
This is more or less what I was trying to say.
If there is just one present or future, there will be continua of future for humanity.
In those futures where humanity lasts, humanity will take many shapes. What is important is memory of its past(s): geographies and history.
- Re: subjective reality Bruno Marchal
- Re: subjective reality John M
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod