On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
<SNIP>
BRUNO: I mainly agree [that there are two types of truth, one ruling
the objective world, the other, being subjective, ruling the
subjective world]. But then why coming with factual assertion, about
a Jesus guy. I can accept the parabolas,
but I can't take a witnessing of 500 persons, in the writing of a
quite biased guy (Paul), from a reasonable perspective,
as an argument, and it all make dubious any assertion you can add.
ROGER: This won't convince you, but the Bible should be read as a
little child (in trust and faith),
so questioning the number 500 just doesn't happen... and if you read
the creation story as a
bedtime story, all you can say is WOW! I try to read the Bible that
way.
Some baby birds consider that their parents are the first moving
object they identify at birds. I think that the humans consider as
sacred the first book they heard about. Bad habits.
And no luck for me perhaps, as I have got an atheist education, and my
first book was "Alice in Wonderland", and it has been my bible for
long ...
Luckily my parents have wisely evolve to agnosticism.
BRUNO: Your theory above is better, though, and close to the
universal machine's own theory, actually.
Science is only a modest and interrogative inquiry. It is rooted in
the doubt, and ask only question. Theories have all interrogation
mark.
It is the separation between science and theology that makes people
believing that science = truth, when the truth is that science =
doubt,
but with a willingness to make the assumptions as clear as it is
needed to be sharable, and questioned.
ROGER: Objective truth, not subjective truths such as morals.
Subjective truth cannot be objective, but they still can be object of
objective sharable theory.
BRUNO: You say "Religious truth is only certain too an individual
and cannot be shared", but note that is the case also for
consciousness,
and all hallucinated states. If you cannot share, don't try, perhaps.
ROGER: Agreed. But scientific truth (like religious truth) must be
accepted to be useful or meaningful, and acceptance is a value or
a subjective judgment (which cannot be shared).
OK. That's why both statements "machine can think", and "machine
cannot think" are not scientific, nor is the "yes doctor". But we can
still derived validly other statements from there. The choice of a
(scientific) theory is not an entirely scientific activity. Science is
not normative, making it less inhuman that many institutionalized
religion.
Bruno
<SNIP, END>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
