Hi, Bruno, Thanks for your considerate reply and for whatever you expressed your consent to. I try to address the rest:
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. JM: I always had doubts about that 'center of the wheel' idea: it MOVES with the wheel, whether we see it or not. > BM: > Of course I don't know what is a human being. JM: I am just working on how to view it (us?) - not as the 'model' (remember my term) but as a non-entity within the totality, interconnected with 'them all' but in various efficiency (strength? depth? closeness?) which must be a natural(?) distinction in our 'modeling'. It may lead to a tie between wholistic and reductionist views beyond "our choice and taste". I am tempted to apply (my so far denied) 'attractor' concept used lately on the list by Ben Goertzel's blog. >BM: > But, as you know, for reason of clarity and modesty, > I have *choosen* 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. (JM: Precision exactly pertinent to the "model" ways by cutting out the uncomputable 'rest of the world') > >BM: > > 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. > > 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). JM: see my remark above. The fixed point is moving around and can be regarded fixed only in a model-view of itself - the reductionist "science" I mean. I see no real disagreement, I just continue into a wholistic image. > > JM earlier: > > I differentiate also the "simulation" model, as > the > > mathematical or physical simulation of a thing to > > make it 'understandable(?) > > 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. > BM: > Why? There is only a (necessary) problem with > understanding 'understanding' JM: a loaded word! > > Wriong it is, > > if we draw 'universal' conclusions from > considerations > > upon a model - and regard it universally valid. > > BM: > 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 ['topically reduced' models called the] > > sciences (including I think logics, which is cut > > to the thinking habits of the HUMAN brain (mind). My Mail does not take a longer post and 'lost' the rest of your writing, sorry John M
