On 17 Jun 2011, at 19:59, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jun 2011, at 21:20, benjayk wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed)
universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps
even
maximally conscious.
What could "maximally conscious" mean? My intuition says quite
strongly that
consciousness is a dynamic open-ended process and that there is no
such
thing as maximally conscious (exept maybe in the trivial sense of
"simply
conscious at all").
I tend to think that consciousness is the same for all conscious
being, except that prejudices coming from competence can make it more
sleepy.
What is it that is the same about consciousness? Consciousness is -
or at
least appears - very heterogenous.
You might have to distinguish consciousness (homogenous) and the
content of consciousness (heterogenous).
With the self-consistency analogy, consciousness is Dt (consistency of
"1=1") and the content of consciousness, or the consciousness of
something is Dp (consistency of p). Of course things are more subtle
and consciousness of p is more akin to (Dp OR p) than Dp.
The less axioms you have, the more models (realities) are available,
and consciousness is related to the inference of those realities. It
is the bearer of semantics.
The only thing that I can easily see as being the same for all
conscious
beings (or, for that matter states of conscious being) is some sense
of
subjectivity or self-consistency (whatever is experienced is
experienced).
But this is quite trivial and it is a very weak statement.
Like zero, or the empty set. Those are trivial, but also key concepts
to progress. The pure consciousness of the Robinsonian machine (not
yet Löbian) is trivial from her point of view, but is crucial for any
enrichment of that point of view.
In a sense, it is *not* trivial, because you will not find many people
even accepting the plausibility of that idea.
Especially because it seems like some consciousness is inacessibly
"weak".
A methaphor for this is peripheral sight. There is something there,
but it
is hardly perceivable and to you have to look at it and at this
point it is
not peripheral sight anymore.
That can be a good analogy. I can also compare it with "seeing closer
and closer to one blind spot", up to the understanding that is is
creative and ... well, stunning and blinding.
In the same way I think consciousness in deep sleep or the
"consciousness"
of the universe before the development of complex brains might be
like that,
existent, but ungraspable due to its hazyness (without objectifying
it,
which doesn't capture its essential character).
I don't think it is hazy. Our memory of it is hazy and can only be so.
I think it fits the fact that the material world developed from
apparent
unconsciousness to conscious beings much more nicely then "pure" /
"perfect"
/ "maximal" consciousness in the beginning (or rather outside of the
beginning - eternal - and giving rise to the beginning).
So in this way it makes most sense for me to say that consciousness
can be
different among different beings or states of beings in every aspect
but the
most trivial.
I'm not sure, though, how this fits with COMP, so I'd be interested
in your
thoughts on that.
I have an argument (the UD Argument, UDA) which is supposed to show
that if the brain works like a digital machine at some description
level (called the substitution level), then the material worlds comes
from the gluing property of numbers dreams. A numbers dream is a
first person view on infinities of computations. This explains how a
coupling consciousness/realities emerges from arithmetical relations.
It gives a neoplatonist view of the "fundamental reality", with the
arithmetical truth playing the role of God (Plotinus' ONE),
provability/believability (the provability predicate of sigma_1
complete numbers) playing the role of "man", the truth about it
playing the role of the "divine intellect". And the conjunction of
truth and believability/provability playing the role of the first
person (the knower), etc.
Matter appears as the border of the (sigma_1+ oracles) reality. It is
the border between the provable and the unprovable, and is obtained
with the conjunction of believability and the non believability in the
false (consistency). Etc.
It really makes fundamental physics a branch of number theory/computer
science.
Human consciousness seems to rise from matter, but consciousness
precedes it and in some way is filtered through a sheaf of numerous
parallel histories indirectly detectable below our sharable
substitution level (plausibly the quantum one).
It is just that the most trivial state of consciousness is not
entirely trivial. Neither from the comp mathematical perspective, nor,
I think, from the first person experience perspective.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
So, paradoxically, consciousness might be maximal in the case
of absence of knowledge and beliefs.
In some situations this might seem true (like some drug experiences or
states of meditation), but in some the opposite seems to be the
case. When I
dream (and have a hazy consciousness) I often have less knowledge
about the
world and hold less beliefs then in normal life.
Or you can have other beliefs. Also, it is not necessarily hazy. Our
memory of it can be very hazy and sometimes inexistent.
I would say that consciousness might never be hazy. Only our memory of
it can. In the slow (non REM, non dreaming) sleep, consciousness can
be cristal clear, but an hazyness comes from the fact that from
instant to instant, the consciousness seems to jump and forget
(usually completely) the instant before. It really ask for some work
to be aware of being conscious in that state, because it is naturally
difficult to reflect the consciousness in such circumstances. In fact
it helps to figure out better the difference between consciousness and
self-consciousness. Not only there is amnesia, but there is an amnesia
of the amnesia, and an amnesia of the amnesia of the amnesia, etc.
I think that some experience can even be *non memorizable*, notably in
the slow sleep(s). You live them as true experiences, but they the
experience itself is not representable with your neurons. A bit like
an experience of amnesia itself.
There is an 'agnosologic' path for any brain: that is, an order of
elimination of parts (neurons, molecules, it depend on the level)
which is such that the elimination keep your consciousness completely
invariant, from your point of view. You have the feeling that nothing
special happens. You don't notice. At some point you will be blind,
but you will have forgotten anything related to vision, and if someone
ask you if you have notice anything, you will answer that you are
fine, and have not yet notice anything. And this go up to the complete
elimination of all parts. This suggest also that you result into the
consciousness of say, the universal Robinsonian machine (perhaps the
Löbian one I don't know). They live in Platonia, out of time, space,
etc.
For example I often don't
believe in a consistent reality (which really is a big bunch of
interrelated
beliefs) and thus don't wonder about crazy things happening.
I doubt so. You do bet in their consistency, which is relative to your
belief. Those beliefs are not true, but in dreams we are consistent.
Remember that even the inconsistency of PA (Peano Arithmetic) is
consistent with PA. Consistency is very cheap. "(0 = 1)" is
inconsistent, but "provable (0 = 1)" is consistent (f is inconsistent,
but Bf is consistent, G* proves DBf).
Sometimes I
seem to be incapable of believing, because there really is no person
to hold
a belief. These are often very interesting dreams, because they are so
unlike the waking state.
When I am lucid dreaming (and thus feel much more conscious) I am
believing
more things, like "I am dreaming", "I am Benjamin, an 21 old human",
"What
happens in this dream will most probably not directly influence the
waking
world", "This dream will end", "I can just wake up if I want",
"Nothing in
this dream can hurt me", etc...
The clarity might be an illusion, but there is really nothing
suggesting to
me that it is.
Many non lucid dreams can be very clear, and sometimes, even the
memory we have of them can be very clear (the realist or super-realist
dream). But don't confuse the state itself and the memory of the
state, they might be quite different.
So I feel that whether you feel very conscious or not doesn't
necessarily
directly relates to whether you (strongly) hold many beliefs or not.
Yes, I agree. I do argue for this. It is part of my point.
It is
just that you can't know / believe much with a hazy consciousness.
So that from your first person perspective "more is possible", and
consciousness "intensity" (not content) seems to be in relation with
those possibilities. But the word "intensity" is not the good term. It
is hard to describe. So it seems we do agree.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can't even conceive what this could be like.
Well, some drugs can help with that respect.
I know what you're getting at, because on some drugs it might seem
like
you're maximally conscious, because you lose sense of time and space
and
feel unified with something greater, which can feel like being an
stable,
eternal, "absolute" experience.
I experienced something like this and it was very profound and
influenced my
thinking quite strongly (not only positively, though).
That is the common problem in all exploration, we don't necessarily
find what we wished for.
So in this way I can conceive what one could mean with maximal
consciousness.
OK. Perhaps a better expression is "maximally free consciousness",
because it is not so much consciousness that is maximal, but his
possible spectrum of possibilities. It is more initial consciousness.
The problem is rather that I don't know how I could know that this
is in any
way really a maximum, rather than "maximum" just being an metaphor
to convey
what I experienced, like saying "This was the best movie ever".
Because of
this I don't see what kind of experience could accurately be called an
experience of maximal consciousness.
Remember that I assume comp, and here, even the classical theory of
knowledge (where knowing = believing something which happens to be
true, although we might not know that for sure). Such a total amnesic
consciousness is maximal because it correspond to the consciousness of
*any* universal number (before he falls in the extreme knotty
intrications of the relation it can have with (infinities) of other
universal numbers, which actually will filter out infinities of
computational histories. It is almost the consciousness of the
universal person (assuming comp), the one which differentiates or
bifurque on their consistent extensions. It might be trivial, but it
is that consciousness which originates the coupling consciousness/
realities.
The more I reflect upon it, the more it becomes more clear for me
that it is
just a experience of relative importance like any other experience
(albeit
it is a very profound one). I am amazed that there are such
experiences, but
nevertheless I don't assume that such a state is somehow the maximum
of
consciousness, just because we are tempted to use this as a
description of
such a state.
It is more an initial state of consciousness. The one responsible or
all others. The others are filtrated by beliefs enrichment, which are
form of self-selection. That is what the brain will do, but brains are
not initially material. Like matter, they emerge from the gluing of
*all* numbers dreams. It is (and has to be) counterintuitive. From
inside, it looks (and has to look) like the opposite.
In fact it would be quite dissapointing to me if this state was the
maximum
of consciousness.
"maximal" was a bad wording. It is more initial consciousness, or
maximally free consciousness. The problem comes from the 'Galois
connection' between numbers equations (syntax) and variety of
solutions (semantics). It exchange maximal/terminal with initial/
minimal.
After all, it'd make consciousness limited.
Consciousness is a prison (Rössler) in the sense it is unescapable,
but it is non limited. It is an unboundable, prison (making it the
most inescapable prison). There is no exit door of reality, but there
are exit door of physical reality (assuming comp).
The thought that this probably is just one mode of consciousness the
brain
is capable of generating (or maybe more accurately manifesting)
sounds much
better and much more plausible to me. Technologically enhanced
brains or
consciousness run on hardware specifically design to create mystic
(or just
generally good) states of consciousness could surpass those states
to an
unimaginable degree. This possibility makes me very excited about the
future.
What a bigger and more sophisticated brain can do is a memory of that
state. We need more neurons to understand the inner view of the state
with less neurons. There are some treshold. But bigger brain can gives
bigger pains, and bigger anxiety. let us try to not develop a big-
humanity-child fearing to be swallowed by a black hole. We have to
"initiate it before about what death can be according to different
(hopefully serious) theologies.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then adding induction gives them Löbianity, and
this makes them self-conscious (which might already be a delusion
of
some sort).
Why do you think it could be a delusion? This would be a bit
reminscent of
buddhism. For me it sounds like quite a terrible thought. After all
it would
mean all progress is in a way illusory and maybe not even desirable,
whereas
I really wish (and pragmatically believe) that eternal progress is
the thing
that can fullfill our ideals of truth, conscious insight and
happiness.
I am no more sure on this. I can understand the appeal of the idea of
progress, but progress might just make pain more painful, frustation
more frustrating, etc.
Well there is certainly something to this. Plants probably don't
suffer
much, but "further progressed" organisms like mammal, do.
This might be a good thing, though, because through pain organsims can
quickly learn what they don't want, allowing live to evolve faster
in the
direction of what we want. Pain surely is bad, but probably better
then
indifference towards the worst things.
But even though progress temporarily makes life more painful, it
seems quite
impossible to me that that this will always be the case. Pain is
already
(often) quite unuseful for modern human.
I am not entirely sure of that.
So there is no reason why we should
keep pain as soon as we can get rid of it. And I have little doubt
we will
have the ability to do this. Why shouldn't we? We already can largly
rid us
of pain by drugs, it is just that this works crudely and with many
side
effects (mostly addiction and adverse effect on congnition and
behaviour).
Well, it depends. That happens mainly with legal drugs.
I do hope for some reasonable changes.
After we leave behind pain and strife and come together in peace to
learn
and blossom ever faster, our lives may become very glorious, and
they will
become only better.
I appreciate your optimism.
Of course we can't see into the future and we don't know what
obstacles
there might be on our way, but ultimately I have no doubt the good
will
prevail in a drastic way.
The platonists identify god and good (and truth!). God is a universal
attractors of souls. But souls tend to lost themselves and forget
about all that, regularly, leading soon or later to catastrophes.
Golden era are possible, and I am optimistic for the long run. But
this can take a lot of time, and although the human are good candidate
for some spiritual prosperity, they are wrong to believe that they are
the last word of god. Spiders, or more modest animals are not yet
eliminated. Now, if the mystical machine is correct, the 'terrestrial
identity' of the winner does not really matter.
We are already on a promising way, from what I
see.
There are dark era. It is due to the half enlightened people who talk
too much, and of the bureaucrat which kills the joke by explaining it
with too many papers. Theology is the most fundamental science, and as
such, it is the one the most often stolen to reason by the heart. Hell
is literally paved with the good intention, assuming the comp
assumption. It is akin to the second incompleteness: BDt -> ~Dt.
Also, what is the alternative to progress? I have yet to see any way
to
escape progress.
You are right. Progress is not man made. It never stops. It is time.
Even so called enlightened people are still obviously
subject to change. They are just in a generally stable / peaceful
(but often
dispassionate) state of consciousness.
Don't confuse the samadhi (feeling of infinite peace) with
enlightenment (the discovery of the other side).
And drug experiences may seem
eternal, but they clearly aren't from the sober perspective.
That why no drug can replace a good course in theology, if that could
exist. But they can help, like, actually any life experiences.
Furthermore I believe the idea of progress not being desirable opens
up
large philosophical problems, too. The universe apparently has a drive
towards progress. If we assume the world makes any sense from a
point of
conscious beings it wouldn't have this drive if there wasn't
something to
gain by this.
If there wasn't, there would be a fundmental error in in this
omniverse.
There is too much perfection in the fundamental principles of the
omniverse
(as shown by math) for me to believe that.
But perfection does not really exist, even in Platonia. The "real
progress" is when we invite the devil at the table of negociation. We
cannot fight it for its eliminination, but can help the situation so
that it hurts less. i do believe in education, and civilization. But
sometimes we decline, because we are overwhelmed by the complexity of
special interests. Regularly the liars takes power. And I'm afraid
this is a common natural process, which nature itself uses many times,
and I don't know since when comes the first lie. In any case I think
that the meta-ethic of comp is harm reduction, not any ultimate
victory of the good against the bad.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Truth is simply not fulfillable,
Well, it's certainly not completly fullfillable. But this can be
seen as a
good thing and encourage us to do fullfill more of it.
OK.
Everything can
eternally be improved, no matter how good it already is.
OK. But this is a risky enterprise, and some delusions have to be
expected. Nobody can decide for you what is good and bad, but many
will try.
The greatest truth is the truth that is beyond itself and the
greatest being
the one that is greater even then itself - thus not completely
fullfillable
but constantly self-fullfilling in its becoming. Retracting into
stasis or
mere apparent perfection would be contrary to this, wouldn't it?
Perfection is the beginning, I'd say, and not the end.
Yes. We do agree on this. I should have definitely use "initial"
instead of maximal.
But then you might agree, with the platonists, that perfection can
only lead to imperfections.
For Plotinus, 'matter' is really where God loses control. It is beyond
its determination. With comp, it is the uncertainties on the
consistent extensions.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
and happiness
is more in equilibrium and balances than in the pursuit of bigger
satisfaction.
I don't buy this dichotomy. I think as we find balance we can easier
pursue
bigger satisfaction and as we pursue bigger satisfaction we can find
balance.
We just have to be careful not to understand balance as indifference
and
pursuit as stress.
OK. That is difficult.
Instead we should try find calm, clear-headedness and
peace through balance in our lifes - and fun, excitement and
motivation
through relentless pursuit of our deep wishes and hopes.
Some wishes the death of their neighbors. Some hopes the devil or evil
will be eradicated, but then eradicate what looks evil to them, and
they becomes the evil. Of course it is already less grave if they do
this when smoking cannabis instead of drinking alcohol, so local harm-
reduction type of solutions do exist.
I see this clearly in myself. It's when I actually pursue things
that are
important to me that I find contenment (sometimes there comes stress
and
anxiety with this, but overall it is clearly worth it).
Almost all happy people pursue something they think is important.
Monks are
rare and not nearly all of them are happy, I think.
Many people are not happy. The richest are not the most happier.
Happiness is a quite subtle thing.
Having goal and purpose is important, OK.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But then comp might be wrong, and I might miss the
point
But, yes, comp leads close to buddhism, and to ethical
detachment..
Does this really have much do to with COMP? I don't see this, at
least.
Maybe you could explain. Optimally without too much mathematical
terminology, because even in case I understand it I can't really
connect it
to practical matters.
Computationalism is a bit an intellectual drug taking. It leads to a
travel near inconsistency. I am close to such an inconsistency, and
plausibly escape it by reminding constantly that I have no clue if
comp is true, and thus no clue if the consequences of comp are true.
But comp escapes the inconsistency, technically, by paying another big
price: it cannot be connected to practical matters, except by personal
understanding (intellectual or experiential).
Buddhism is vast, but the ending little vehicle and a big part of the
whole Mahayana (great vehicle) is very close to Plotinus and to the
idealism of comp. Comp, thanks to digitality and Church thesis,
provides a more rational view, actually very close to the initial
Pythagorean intuition.
We cannot use it in the field of ethic, because it contains build in
the respect of the idea that comp might be false, so it suggest just a
form of respect for the others based on a doubt about our own
interpretations. Comp, or the universal machine itself, teaches that
the virtue are not teachable, and can only be communicated by examples
and practices. It cannot lead to a normative theory. It cannot be
preached.
I am wrong to say "ethical detachment", it is more a vigilant state of
mind with respect to ethical attachment. I think the human history is
full of examples showing that ethical attachment, especially when
institutionalised, leads to ethical catastrophes. What comp says is
that the truth is inside ourself, or, for those who are lazy to look
inward, inside the universal machine. This asks for doing math. What
do we find there? Marvellous but complex living ideas, that nobody
can predict what they will become, or how they will be used, or even
interpreted by the complex universal fellows we may have, or their
children.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
A machine is intelligent if and only if it is not stupid.
A machine is stupid when one of the following clause is satisfied:
- the machine believes that she is intelligent
- the machine believes that she is stupid
I don't like this definition. Assuming you are either stupid or
intelligent
and you know and believe this definition, you either are intelligent
but in
denial of yourself or you are already stupid in the first place.
That does not follow. You would be in denial of yourself if you
believe in your own stupidity, but you can just not believe in your
stupidity. You can, luckily enough, doubt it.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now that theory admits a transparent arithmetical interpretation.
Replace "intelligent" by consistent (Dt), and stupid by not
consistent
(~Dt, that is Bf). Then the theory is just Gödel's second
incompleteness theorem, and is a sub-theory of G* (BDt -> Bf).
There seems to be a relation between intelligent and consistency,
but for me
it still seems like a stretch to identify them.
Remember that I use the term 'intelligence' in its mystical
apprehension (like Sri Aurobindo, or even Krishnamurti and Bohm). It
is not competence (like with the QI tests). I wrote sometimes
intelligence/consciousness, as opposed to ingenuity/cleverness/
competence/talent/work.
Also it is not clear to me why Gödel prevents you from consistently
believing that you are intelligent. From what I see it just implies
you
can't prove your intelligence (there is always an unprovable part of
your
intelligence that is obviously true - and thus believable - but not
provable
from any given axioms).
OK, but I model "believable" by "provable". That is what
incompleteness suggests in the case of ideally correct machines
(arithmetically correct machines). Bp -> p (= they are correct), but
they cannot prove/believe that Bp -> p. They cannot prove, nor even
define, their own correctness. In particular they don't prove Bf -> f.
Then the theory above are just theorems in arithmetic.
Dt = "I am intelligent/conscious" (= I am consistent, or 'there is a
reality, truth is possible")
Bf = "I am stupid"
BDt -> Bf (true and provable by PA), and note that Bf -> f is true but
non provable; by the correct machine.
BBf -> Bf (true but non provable, not really assertable, even as an
axiom: danger: uncommunicable truth).
Hmm... I *am* guilty here of communicating something non communicable.
Apology. Just assume comp + bet on your own consistency (without
taking it for granted!).
Bruno Marchal wrote:
An obvious defect of that theory is that it makes pebbles
intelligent.
But then, why not? Who has ever heard a pebble saying that it is
intelligent, or stupid, or said any kind stupidities. Like with the
taoists, the wise person keep silent.
Well, I think you just gave a reductio ad absurdum of your theory.
It seems
pragmatically unwise to me to define intelligence in a way that is
many ways
opposite to what we usually call intelligence.
I think people confuse intelligence/consciousness with competence/
ingenuity/cleverness/talent/work.
Clearly we should keep silent
if we have nothing to say, but this is just a small part of
intelligence.
We have to limit our feeling of superiority. "I am intelligent" or "I
am happy" is not an assertion made by intelligent or happy people,
except as jokes or in some intimate ways.
If all wise persons kept silent
the stupid people would dominate
communication and be the only ones spreading their ideas, which is IMO
clearly not a good goal for intelligent persons.
They have to kept silent only on their intelligence (and thus on the
intelligence of others). They can still say "I love Einstein when he
says ...". Instead of judging Einstein intelligent, or stupid.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Roughly speaking a machine becomes stupid when it confuses
intelligence and competence and begin to feel superior, or inferior,
and begin to lack some amount of respect for his living being
fellows.
I can see this.
And then you know that if someone tell you that your are stupid, or
intelligent, he means only that he hate you, or that he want to
manipulate you. Again, this should not be taken literally. It is true
only in the case of ideal correctness, and it makes no sense in
intimate relationship, where person reports first person experiences
in *private relation* (with the second person point of view). The
Gödel "B" is really the "rational third person communicable belief",
not necessarily the everyday beliefs which tend to mix the person
points of view.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
"Science" per se, does not lead to intelligence, as I think it is
sadly illustrated by those last centuries. Science can kill
intelligence, and science without intelligence can lead to hell,
especially if science is confused with a sort of theology, instead of
being used to genuinely tackle, interrogate, the (theological)
fundamental questions. Humans cannot yet accept their ignorance.
OK, but then I didn't say that doing science is sufficient for
intelligence.
I think it is, initially, and hopefully in the long run.
But people attached themselves to their beliefs and can deny evidences
for local interests. Good science can lead to bad science.
But it helps, as it confronts us with reality, with is where I believe
intelligence lies.
I completely agree.
The last century has been a triumph for science and I think we've
become
much more intelligent during it. Our morals have improved much and
superstition has a less firm ground now.
The only progress is in democracies. But they have drawback, and we
have not succeeded in maintaining the separation of powers. Many
people suffer a lot from this, and in the long run it leads to
pyramidal powers where a minority steals the wealth of a majority.
Democracies have been a partial remedy on this, but have led us come
back to this when powers separation, and independence of organizations
are sick or disappearing.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have already argued that science, well understood, is born with
Pythagorus, and is ended with the apparition of the roman empire.
Fundamental questions are still complete taboo, for most scientists.
They mostly do not talk about them in the scientific community, but
they
often do have a great interest in them personally. The problem with
fundamental questions is that they are hard to settle with evidence
and
talking about it yields little objective progress which probably is
why it
is not much of a topic in the scientific community. Many think they
are
simply too difficult to tackle right now.
But *that* is the big mistake. The greeks have invented science
including theology at the start. Then science and theology have been
stolen by politicians (the roman empire). A bit of science has come
back to the academy, but theology has not yet followed. It might
explain why we are nowhere in the human sciences, and why barbaric
behavior still exist, and is widespread.
To reintroduce theology in the academy means to reintroduce the right
of doubting and theorizing; the right to ignore, and the necessity,
for the rationalists to be agnostic on all gods, be it the physical
universe(s) or the <one which has no name>.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no question to rise any doubt on the theology of Aristotle.
Many ideas of Aristotle are not widely believed anymore, but you
probably
mean materialism. I agree that this is a problem, in that it makes
people
ignore the fundamental facts beyond physical space and time (eg
numbers).
But then materialism is most often meant as naturalism as opposed to
belief
in the supernatural, belief in things not accessible through reason
that
intervene in the world.
Well, the reason why there are numbers is not accessible to the
possible reason of universal numbers.
But I see that you see the problem. OK.
And I think this is a useful belief.
It is just that now many scientist throw out the baby with the
bathwater and
- for example - try to make the truth of ineffability of subjective
experience into something irrational. I don't believe this reflects
that we
have abonded real science, but that we must learn to better
distinguish
between claims that seem irrational from some perspective and claims
that
really are irrational.
The problem is not so much that they condemn the irrational. The
problem is that they make the very mistake that they condemn. They do
believe irrationally in a primitive universe, when science comes from
a doubt on this, and leads to more doubt, on this.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Neither atheists nor Christians can accept that.
I would consider myself an atheist by most people's conception of
atheism
and I acknowledge the shortcomings of materialistic "theology".
May be you live in a society where atheists are a bit agnostic. I live
in a country where some (perhaps many) atheists are radically against
agnosticism. Atheists are not just not believing in God, they do
positively believe that there is no God (of course most means the
Christian God, and take for granted some naïve literal christian
doctrines). But the worst is that they take for granted the material
universe, and so they are double believers. They believe in NON_GOD,
and they believe in the god MATTER.
I do have concrete problem with radical and influent atheists. They
are more barbarian (and subtle) than inquisition. But then, the
situation might be different in other continents.
Personally I consider atheism as a radical objective ally of the
"naïve" christians. Atheism is a form of christianism. They fight,
above or below reason, together, against science, doubt, and
platonism. They make the living of their statu quo, and they embrace
dogmatically most of Aristotle theology.
I like very much when John Mikes says that he does not believe in the
God that the atheist needs to be atheist.
So there is
at least one counterexample :).
You don't look too much like an atheist to me.
And to be honest, my atheistic friends /
family are quiet open to questioning materialistic dogma.
Consider you as lucky. But frankly I think this shows that they are
agnostic, not atheist, really.
Some of my friend like to consider me as an ultra-atheist, because I
don't believe in the main Aristotelian God: the primitively material
universe. Of course, I am just, as a professional theologian, totally
agnostic, toward any God, even matter. Rationally: I know nothing. As
a scientist, I can only suggest theories, and reason *in* those
theories, and then be confronted to the facts.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free thinking is a myth.
Well, yes, most people largly simply believe what they are told.
I was meaning that most people who apply free thinking lose their job
or are send in asylum, or in jail, or are ignored, etc.
But
nowadays you can meet many people that are open to a wide variety of
ideas
and you can speak about them mostly without being suppressed.
No more in many academies.
So we are a
lot closer to freethinking than ever before.
Yes, and no. In the café and at home: surely. In the media and
academia, it really depend where you are.
But there is still a long way to go. The school and the state and
most of
the religions are still severly restricting free thinking, and
unfortunately
even more, free action. You can't even freely decide what to ingest or
freely provide the most important services (and the ones most
demanding
freedom) like education, security, law and currency.
Yes. And honestly, to be burned for your idea is a mark of respect.
Nowadays things are more subtle and hypocritical. At the same time,
their are more sane, because in fine, people does not attack so much
idea than personal position, which is more sane, but also more sad and
boring. New ideas and debate get hidden in the processes.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are not even burned alive
for your ideas, today, which is a mark of acknowledging the existence
of you and your ideas. Today, obscurantism has developed more
efficacious means. This results in an impoverishment of ideas, and in
powerful mediatic propaganda.
Yes, is there still is much propaganda.
But I don't know where you live that you think there is an
impoverishment of
ideas. New ideas are blossoming, even though they only slowly
displace the
old, widespread, ugly weeds. Our culture(s) is/are more diverse than
ever.
That might be a bit superficial.
There are people of many different religions and world views and
political
views living together. Of course many valid ones are still not
universally
respected, but at least widely tolerated. You now can be an atheist,
muslim,
communist or homosexual in Germany
Yes. In Germany. Especially in Germany. But even in Germany, the
"beast" is still alive. The roots of violent intolerance and the
willingness to exploit it are still living well everywhere in Europa.
and still live a mostly normal life and
rarely be persecuted without hiding what you believe in or are.
Whereas 70
years ago...
My personal experience, which I do not want to talk about, does not
confirm this. In many places it look like that, and it can tend to
that, but then it is often not really like that. The most used of all
theories is still "the boss is right".
Bruno Marchal wrote:
A good example is the politics of health
and prohibition, which destroys lives and minds more efficaciously
than atomic bombs.
I agree. Politics doesn't really care for scientifc truth, but it
never did
(and I think it never will, which is why we should get rid of it).
?
We should vote for honest opportunists and get rid of corrupted
politicians, and separate politics from lobbying and anything private,
and things like that. But politics, elections and money have been the
vector of the "progress" you defend above. To criticize politics per
se would be like condemning the blood cells for feeding the cancer. We
should heal the political system, not get rid of it. Before such
systems, it was only many wars between many conflicting interests.
Just that we live in old rotten democracies, under 1500 years of quasi-
crackpot human sciences, with some exceptions of course and some
prowess, like notably the liberal democracies.
But this is not a good example that we don't do good science.
Science has
just begun - and only a minority practices it - but this is not the
fault of
scientists.
Science does not exist. Only a scientific attitude, which is the
attitude of those having the courage to admit their ignorance. It is
something natural, but fragile, because of the fear sellers which
exploits by lies the human creedal willingness for personal benefits.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
