On 14 Feb 2012, at 23:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.
Yes. But it is science only as far as we present the theory in clear
hypothetical way.
The rest is pseudo-religion or insanity.
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.
I like to say that science has begin, in Occident, in -500, and has
ended in +500. Thanks to the jews and arabs, the half of science has
come back in the enlightenment period. The so-called "exact" one, so
that the political power can continue his fear business selling by
using the inexact results of the inexact sciences. That's cool for the
bandits.
In the East, science has begin earlier, and disappear later, but the
situation is not much brilliant.
I don't believe in science, but only in scientific attitude, which is
mainly modesty, brought by the understanding that any public knowledge
is conjectural. Scientific statements are beliefs, which means that
they are open to be refuted, indeed they ask only for that.
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.
No. It is the complete contrary. Comp de-anthropomorphizes, for if the
cosmos is a building of the mind, it is not a building of the human
mind, but of the mind of all universal numbers.
The entire cosmos is seen as unreal (primitively) but our experience
of it are not illusory, once we understand that they don't refer to
anything primitively physical.
Only the last point is basically correct. Yes, we are not a special
child of God. It depends on us to get closer, but we are not well
placed to dictate to God which creatures he can find special. If
humans don't care about themselves, they might give an advantages to
spiders and bugs, perhaps. But again, there is no reason to derive
from this that we are insignificant consequences of an immense non-
god. I don't see how you derive this.
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.
I have nothing, in principle, against religion, and rituals, and
charismatic identification, as long as
- children are somehow protected from "crazy" parents (not simple to
do, of course)
- religious movement are transparent (not secret) and agrees on mutual
respect for other religions,
- the state exists and remain separate from the religion.
- theological research is allowed to come back to academy and is made
independent of confessional religion (no more taboo).
Then confessional religion can be seen as temporary filling
explanation gap, which might help some anxious people.
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 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.
