Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I can relate with many things you say.
> Indeed I can argue that the universal (Löbian) machine already relate  
> on this, too.
> But science get rid only on subjective judgement in publication  
> (ideally), making them universally communicable.
> But considering the subjective influence themselves, science prohibit  
> them only by bad habits, ignorance, since about theology has been  
> abandoned to or stolen by the politics (523 after C.). it is just a  
> form of (sad) prohibition. It is above all "unscientific".
But that's necessary, in some way. If we try to make the very subjective
communicable, we run into the problem of making the uncommunicable
communicable. Either science fails there, or it isn't very good science
(reproducible and clearly presented) anymore. If we start to include
subjective influence, suddenly our research won't be very reproducible and
can't be very clearly presented in an objective way, which are standards for
good science.
I don't think that the scientific community excluded subjective influence
purely because of dogma, but because it is so hard to research that it is
virtually impossible to obtain good results, and so it quite justfiable to
exclude (as a first approximation of what consistutes valid science) such
research from science. It is at most fringe science, like parapsychology.
I think the mistake of many scientist is to act like fringe science (or "not
quite science anymore") is not also a valid tool for gaining insight, just
like mysticism. That's just dogma, scientism.

You are right that we can publicate subjective things without subjective
judgement, but that's not science as commonly understood, as this requires
much more than that (also well designed experiments,
reproducibility,etc...), it is just a part of science.

In a way fringe science and non-suprestitious mysticism is the continuation
of science; it continues its tradition of skepticism and open-mindedness,
but transcends scientific limitation. It is just a more difficult realm, in
the sense that we have to be more clear and honest and non-dogmatic and
careful and skeptic than in science to really gain useful insights.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> And here, according to the machine's comp theory (AUDA) you might be  
> rather true, but cross what can be communicated without making some  
> non provable assumption clear. Or you should add something like "I  
> hope that ...".
I have no clear assumption, and what I say are just thoughts, I am not
saying there are the truth. I think there are very interesting and possibly
useful thoughts, though.
I am not even hoping that, it is just what I think, and it happens to
include hopeful thoughts - but it is not rooted in hope. I am just not a
person rooted in hope (quite the opposite actually, I tend to be afraid and
I don't really feel like what I say is what would come out of what one could
hope. It is much more promising than anything one could hope for (like
heaven), and is so big that it naturally comes to us to find it very

You are right that unfortunately in our times it seems better to make clear
at the start that you are not dogmatic about what you say, since it is so
common to assume that you think what you write is true. I often don't do
that because I don't even believe in what I say myself. I really can't find
any thought that I don't doubt almost immediatly.

Ultimately every thought and every theory and every assumption is worthy to
be doubted, we just have to learn to not be dependent on our beliefs to
really do that. I don't even think a belief can be true, it can be useful,
that's all, and beliefs that you hold very firmly tend to be of little use.
I treat all these ideas of the conscious singularity as ideas, not as dearly
held beliefs. If it happens it is going to be infinitely unbelievable

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to