Le 07-déc.-06, à 18:07, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> In a way my advice would be almost the opposite of Stathis'es.

Hmmm.... It is like in IRIDIA, I got contradicting suggestions ....

>  If you're selling a book, getting religion into the title is a good 
> move.  I think you're misusing "theology" by holding to an archaic 
> meaning - but if you call your book, "Theology of the Machine" or 
> "Cyber Theology" it will help it sell and you can immediately 
> establish that you are using "theology" in an unconventional, 
> tongue-in-cheek sense.

Machine Theology ? It seems not too bad ....

I must think deeper. Perhaps I will try to explain better why I feel 
the need to distinguish science and theology and still keeping the idea 
that we can preserve a scientific attitude doing theology ....
It is related with the fact that, at least in a first but important 
approximation, the modal logic G will play the role of "science" and 
the corona G* minus G should play the role of theology. Then a lobian 
machine M can prove the whole of the <science/theology> of a simpler 
machine m, and lift that result by abductive inference about herself. 
Anyone saying yes to a doctor do, implicitly or explicitly,  such a 
move. With comp, doctor appears as kind of (modest and cautious type 
of) priester ...

I like also the idea of using the theological wording to cut at the 
start the reductionist prejudices which goes along with the traditional 
(pregodelian) understanding of the mechanist thesis. We really don't 
know what are universal machine capable of. If we are ourself universal 
machine (and no more than universal machine) then we can prove from 
that assumption that we cannot really know what are universal machine 
capable of.



 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to