On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>>>> All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
> >>>>> run
> >>>>> the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do
> >>>>> that.
>
> >>>> It's not because you can program's them to being slavingly dumb to
> >>>> do a
> >>>> thing *that's the only thing they can do*, that's a "program" mean.
>
> >>> That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
> >>> anything else than what you already do.
>
> >> But is that not what you do, and vindicate, by telling us that you
> >> don't want to study the work of other people, or that you cannot
> >> assume comp if only just for the sake of reasoning?
>
> > My goal is not to be intelligent or to be interested in every idea, it
> > is to explore the implications of this particular set of ideas.
>
> You write well, but I'm afraid that you have to develop your learning
> ability, and it is only by exploring the implications of different set
> of ideas that you will learn the difference between arguing and
> advertizing an opinion.

A superficial survey of the total set of ideas is what I'm after. I
was an anthropology major. I'm not trying to understand the customs
and truths of any particular culture, I'm trying to see through all
cultures to the underlying universals.

>
>
>
> >> A lot of your comment are preventing the meaning of trying to discuss
> >> further because you beg the question systematically. In a sense you
> >> are saying that comp cannot be true, because your know that your
> >> opinion is the correct one. We can't argue then.
>
> > I'm saying that comp does the same thing, as does every religion and
> > philosophy. They are all different ways of making sense of the
> > universe and the self. All I'm doing is looking at what they all have
> > in common - sense.
>
> That is not what I am doing. On the contrary I wish the philosophy and
> religion adopt the standard of science, which is modest hypothetical
> communication, without *ever* claiming the truth, but trying valid
> reasoning in hypothetical frames. It is the only way to progress.

But science doesn't put itself in the hypothetical frame - which is
fine for specific inquiries, but inquiries into consciousness in
general or the cosmos as a whole have to include science itself, it's
assumptions, it's origins and motives. There was progress before
science, so it is not true that it is the only way to progress.
Science itself may be just the beginning.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Intelligence is the ability to
> >>> make sense of any given context and to potentially transcend it,
>
> >> I can agree, although then even human might have a limited
> >> intelligence, as humans cannot a priori transcend all context, or you
> >> are making a gros assumption on humans. Again a new assumption in an
> >> already very long and fuzzy list.
>
> > I'm not assuming humans have unlimited intelligence. We are smart
> > monkeys in some ways and really dumb in others.
>
> >>> which
> >>> is why it can't be programmed or simulated (but it can be imitated
> >>> trivially for specific functions).
>
> >> And now a big assumption on machine, which is already refuted by the
> >> diagonalization routine.
>
> > Comp automatically refutes challenges to comp. It does so in the only
> > way that makes sense in comp terms - by showing that logic compels us
> > to accept it's evidence.
>
> On the contrary. Comp leads to a counter-intuitive view of reality,
> doubly so for Aristotelians, and it does not ask to accept its
> evidence, but only for its refutation. You get it all wrong, Craig.

That's what I'm saying is that it is reverse psychology. Comp seduces
with humility. It is the ultimate anthropomorphism to see the entire
cosmos as completely real except for our own experience which is
somehow completely illusory yet has ability to precisely understand
its own illusory reasoning. Instead of the special child of God, we
become the insignificant consequence of an immense non-god.

>
> > Faith does the same thing in reverse. It says
> > you have to see through logic and embrace a deeper truth.
>
> It suggests a theory, and derive propositions, accepted in the frame
> of that theory.

The theory and propositions can be arbitrary and contradictory. It is
more about charismatic identification and ritual participation.

Craig

-- 
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.

Reply via email to