Hi Stephen P. King
My stance there is absolutely anti-materialist.
Where do you see a materialistic statement ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
*From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
*Time:* 2012-09-14, 12:40:45
*Subject:* Re: science only works with half a brain
On 9/14/2012 8:14 AM, 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.
You are assuming an exclusively "materialist" stance or
your comment. Bruno's ideas are against the very idea.
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net>
> 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
> 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.
>> 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
> or ignorant of the UDA.
> Its role consists in showing that the subjective data and the 3p
> are not easily reconciled with comp, as we must explain the physical
> 3p, from coherence condition on the subjective experience related to
>> 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
> 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.
>> Science deals entirely with objective issues such as facts,
>> quantity, numbers, physical data.
> If you decide so, but then religious people should stop doing
> 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.
>> 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
> body problem can only be agnostic, and continue the research for
> information. Atheists are Christian, as John Clark illustrates
>> 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
> computer science explains Deep Blue strategy, and it explains
> why there is something like meaning, value, morality, salvation.
> Computer science deals with immaterial entity, developing
> 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.