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 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 .


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.

Reply via email to