Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi benjayk, > > I might comment other paragraphs later, but for reason of time and > business, I will just go on some points. No problem, comment on what you want and when you feel like doing it.
Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> You can expect that a theory which unify all force will not be *that* >>> simple. Now, with comp, if you like simplicity, you should like that >>> the theory is a little theory of numbers (and that the observers is >>> that same theory + the induction axioms). All what I explain in the >>> quote can be defined precisely in that theory. >> It's interesting, but I can't wrap my head around it so easily and I >> am just >> too lazy to study it. I don't think it would be much use for me. > > The whole approach is not instrumental. OK, but this has not much too do with whether studying the theory feels useful for me personally. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Shit happens, provably so in the comp theory. We can practice harm >>> reduction, but we cannot eliminate the bad. And, indeed it has its >>> role in the big picture. >> Yep. But harm reduction often does not work that well. You know, like >> reducing harm by illegalizing drugs. It easily leads to >> authoritarianism. >> And it may easily be anti-progress. Progress means also great new >> dangers. > > The harm-reduction philosophy comes from anti-prohibitionism. The idea > is to inform people. It really comes from, I think, the fact that oral > tobacco is much safer that smoking tobacco, which was hard to accept > for those who are 'religiously' against tobacco. It is known that it > is prohibition which makes the drug dangerous, so harm reduction > really means the stopping of prohibition, and sending strongly > addicted people to the hospital instead of jail (like we do with > alcohol). > Basically HARM REDUCTION = ANTI-PROHIBITION. Sure, from your and my perspective this is clear. But from some people's perspective, it's seems clear we need prohibtion to save people from themselves. The point is, we can never really be sure if harm reduction really reduces harm. We never know. Harm reduction is especially critical in this respect because some form of "harm reduction" may be extremely catastrophic. Some people might say we need to stop technological progress for reducing harm, and indeed their are some relatively plausible arguments that technological progress may create massive harm. But it may equally be true that technology may create heaven on earth and solve many absolutely critical problems, and without it, we are doomed. In this case stopping progress would create disastrous harm. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>>> But the ultimate soul (God), does >>>> not fall, as in a accident. It falls, because this it what it always >>>> does. >>>> It falls into itself. >>> >>> All right. But not always, only one half eternity (so to speak, >>> again). >> Hm... When exactly does he not fall? > > When heart and reason makes peace. I am not sure if this works. Peace really only comes when you get comfortable with falling - otherwise you will only feel at peace when you feel (potentially illusorily) safe. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>>> In my mind the creatures are God, >>> >>> [you are probably not supposed to say this. Enlightened people >>> already >>> know, and lost souls cannot grasp] >>> >>> You can say things like "I love logic", or I love this or that >>> plant". >> I think you are a bit too anxious about saying the forbidden things. >> But you >> are right, it won't really help. But then, a soul that's really lost >> cannot >> be helped. It has to find it's way on its own. > > It is worst than that. By telling incommunicable truth, you aggravate > the situation of the soul, or you make it fall. This may be true. But then, it's critical souls that souls learn not to believe what other people say and trust themselves. So it really does not ultimately matter what you say. The more they believe a thing you said that they really shouldn't believe, the more they will realize the consequences of blind faith. I acknowledge that this may be used to justify saying anything, and I am okay with that. Telling "incommunicable" truth may still inspire people to find what the communcation hints at. I can't communicate the feeling at looking at my screen, but I can still say "I see a screen. Do you see the screen in front of your eyes, too?" Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Well, in my mind "inconsistent" things are just labels that we can't >> attach >> some precise meaning to. If I say 1+1=3 is true in the usual natural >> numbers, you just don't know what I mean. You might say I am >> "wrong". But >> maybe I just have another conception of the usual natural numbers as >> you do, >> or pretend so. :P We can always play this game of relativizing >> descriptions. > > Yes, like you can always visit France with a map of Germany. > Inconsistency is a Löbian machine's right. > But you were the one mentioning "use"! And a map of Germany, in > France, is of no use (unless you are planning an invasion, of course). Sure. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Well, with comp, all the rest is just 0, 1, 2, ... plus two >>> operations. I don't ask to assume a lot. But with less than that, the >>> hypostases becomes trivial, and you can no more see how the Soul >>> emanates from the Noùs which emanates from God, and you cannot see of >>> the soul is led to the building of matter appearances. >> I just think we don't need the assumption of the existence >> 0,1,2,3,... We >> can use it without pretending it exists "out there". > > If you say that we can use it, you already accept it is "out there" in > the weak sense I am using. Hm... But you often speak as if it has independent ontological truth, which is far from a weak sense. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Because we need to study the relation between a truth, like 1+1=2, >>> and >>> a belief by a "terrestrial little ego" B(1+1=2). >> But we can use different levels of epistemological truth for that. > > OK. Then "1+1 =2" means God believes that 1+1 = 2. > B(1+1=2) means benjayk (or some other machine) believes that 1+1=2. I like this a lot more! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32141918.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
