On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Yes. But it is science only as far as we present the theory in clear
> hypothetical way.
> The rest is pseudo-religion or insanity.

Or it could expand the scope of science.

> > 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.

In this area though, I want science to even be modest about it's
modesty. We can't be sure what attitudes are appropriate for
approaching the ultimate mysteries. I find that if we include all
attitudes, they form a high quality symmetry with a lot of obvious
correlation as well as a lot of subtlety and nuance. Through that
symmetry we can see that modesty is not a neutral statement, it is a
subject-neutralizing bias. This voyeuristic perspective is ideal for
studying objects, but only when those objects do not include
ourselves. We should understand that we may not be able to find
ourselves in a microscope, any my view explains why that is probably
the case. Who we are is rooted in idiosyncratic identity as well as
generic process. You can't get one from the other. They are opposite
sides of the same thing.

> >>>>> 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.

Right, but that is what I'm saying. De-anthropomorphizing the universe
(or mechanemorphizing) is anthropomorphism by reverse psychology. It
is to assume that we are capable of escaping our own perceptual bias
entirely and see ourselves clearly as nothing very special. It is the
ultimate conceit. Our view of the cosmos is so great that we must
humble even ourselves before it. This is only possible to do if we
psychologically withdraw from our mortality and identify with pure
transparency itself. To see the universe as X, we must become non-X; a
generic voyeur position unique in all the cosmos - an all doubting,
all powerless non-entity. This becomes a problem when you add
consciousness into the cosmos. We jump to the conclusion that it is
possible for an observation to be universalized - for truths and
perceptions to exist independently of a concrete subject. We should
instead be more modest about this, deconstruct our assumptions about
universality and try it the other way - with subjectivity and
objectivity being part of the same finite experiential sense.

> 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.

Because if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic

> >>> 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.

Yes, it's hard to think of a good way of protecting kids from crazy
parents in any case. Which is really a pretty big problem I'm afraid.
I would rather see science address religious questions in a satisfying
way than a return to religion though.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to