On 14 Sep 2012, at 14:14, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

Objective things are things that can be measured (are extended) and so are quantitative.
Numbers can apply. Science applies. Computers can deal with them.

Subjective things are inextended and so cannot be measured directly, at least,
nor dealt with by computers at least directly.

I think a more practical division would be the body/mind split.
Perhaps set theory might work, I don't understand it.

Set are useful for the math, but we need much less for the ontology. Non negative integers are enough.

With comp you can define the mind by the laws of though and laws of mind of the machines, basically given by George Boole (the laws of thought) and George Boolos (the unprovability of consistency, 1979, or "the logic of provability" 1993). George Boolos' book contains a chapter on the Bp & p "solipsistic thinker".

I will say a truism. If you want learn about comp, take a look at computer science. It is enough surprising to be cautious with negative judgment about machines.

Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/14/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-14, 04:09:27
Subject: Re: science only works with half a brain


On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb,


ROGER: Hi meekerdb

First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so
it only works with half a brain.


MEEKERDB [actually it is BRUNO]: Bad decision. You are the one
cutting the "corpus callosum" here.

ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a
subjective measure.
Apples and oranges.

You are too much categorical. Qualities can have objective features
too. Modal logic, and other non standard logic are invented for that
purposes.
Geometry and topology can have non quantitative features, also.





Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category.

Model theory studies a form of meaning. If you decide that something
is not scientific, you make it non scientific.



So science
can neither make nor understand meaningful statements.
Logic has the same fatal problem.

Only if you decide so.






BRUNO ?: Not at all. Logic handle both syntactical or digital
transformations, and its
"dual" the corresponding semantical adjoint transformation. There is
proof theory and model theory.
Meaning is handle by non syntactical mathematical structures. There
are many branches in
logic, and semantic, alias Model Theory, is one of them.

ROGER: Those are all tools for working with objective data such as
numbers or written words.

Not at all. Model studies infinite structure, some of them have no
syntactical or finite counterparts.



Then what do you do with subjective data ? Obviously you must throw
it out.

On the contrary, even with just the UDA, consciousness is the basic
notion at the base of the whole reasoning (which annoys of course
those who want to keep it under the rug). You are either a bit unfair,
or ignorant of the UDA.
Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p stuff
are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical
3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to
computations.




BRUNO To separate science from religion looks nice, but it consists
in encouraging nonsense in religion, and in science eventually.

ROGER: Religion deals mainly with subjective issues such as values.
morality, salvation, forgiveness.
These are inextended or nonphysical human/divine issues.

Yes, but that does not mean we cannot handle them with the scientific
method. If not you would not even been arguing.




The Bible was not written as a scientific textbook, but as a manual
oof faith and moral practice.

OK.



Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts,
quantity, numbers, physical data.

If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing factual
claims, and stop proposing normatible behavior.
Science can study its own limitations, and reveal what is beyond
itself. Like in neoplatonism, science proposes a negative theology,
protecting faith from blind faith, actually.




BRUNO: Science cannot answer the religious question, nor even the
human question,
nor even the machine question, but it *can* reduce the nonsense.


Bruno
ROGER: You can try, which is what atheists do.

No atheists have a blind faith in a primary universe. They are
religious, despite they want not to be. A scientist aware of the mind-
body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for more
information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates so well.



As I say, there are a few errors in facts in the Bible.

Yes, like PI = 3.


But physics and chemistry have no capabability of dealing with
meaning, value, morality, salvation, etc.

OK. Like electronics cannot explain the Deep Blue chess strategy. But
computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains already
why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation.
Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing discourse on
many non material things, including knowledge, meaning, etc.

As I said, you are the one defending a reductionist conception of
machine, confusing them with "nothing but" their appearances.

Bruno













Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05
Subject: Re: victims of faith


On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb

Science is science and religion is religion
and never the two shall meet.

I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true
religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah ' Faith,
it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in
conflict.

The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the
Church from saying
heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused
by sin,... The
problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'.

Brent
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
--- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni

"The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an
atheist deserving of punishment.
---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of
Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim,
The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not
BCE.

The son of the founder of the Bah ' Faith said, "If
religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a
religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two
wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with
which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present
day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike
with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the
scientific discoveries of the time.

We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said,
?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Jason


-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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
.




-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@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 .

--
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