On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:55:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> G K Chesterton wrote:
>>
>> > For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or 
>>> not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. 
>>>
>> That is absolutely true, there are more ways of being wrong than of being 
>> right, so if you don't care if your ideas are self consistent or not (for 
>> example if you don't care that X is not Y and X is not not Y) and if you 
>> don't care what words mean (for example if you don't care that if changing 
>> X always changes Y and changing Y always changes X that doesn't mean that X 
>> caused Y) then you have much more freedom over what you can believe than a 
>> logical man does. 
>>
>
> The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn. There are many 
> things related to consciousness which can't be defined in the terms we have 
> learned from manipulating public objects. No state of awareness is uniquely 
> one thing and not another. All phenomenology is multivalent and impacted by 
> intention and expectation.
>
>
> I can make sense on this.
>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> If you want all the parts of your belief system to fit together the range 
>> of things you can believe in is severely limited. And finding ways all the 
>> parts of the universe fit together in a self consistent way is hard, very 
>> hard, so often the logical man must just say "I don't know I'm not 
>> certain", they religious man on the other hand is always certain but seldom 
>> correct.  
>>
>
> The logical man is a man whose religion is logic. Not that I'm opposed to 
> logic, it just can't penetrate to the cause of awareness. Logic is always 
> an a-posteriori analysis of a sensory-motor experience.
>
>
> I can agree with this. But no more if your replaced "logical" by Turing 
> universal. Machines and numbers are beyond logic. That is the unexpected 
> lesson of the 20th century math, and which makes comp consistent with 
> experiences.
>
>
I am happy to entertain the idea that Turing universal (hyperlogic? sense?) 
extends far beyond 'logic', even to a sublime degree, but what gives us a 
reason to see this plane of hyper-extension as the identical plane of 
subjective qualia? I don't see that Turing hyperlogic could or would evoke 
geometry, much less flavor, feelings, images, etc., and especially not 
realism. 

Instead, I see the extension of arithmetic truth as orthogonal to 
subjectivity - an invisible, intangible, web of infinitely narrow 
quantitative associations. Nested - sure, massively complex and 
multi-layered, veridical, predictive, bursting with proto-morphological 
wonders, definitely. What I don't see though is any aesthetic coherence. No 
room for experiential preference, embodiment, moral orientation, no 
presentation or presence of any kind. The mechanism of the Turing machine 
is arbitrarily conjured out of nothing - suddenly there is a phenomena 
which we know as 'read/write', and a local read/write head which interacts 
causally with this movable, controllable 'tape'. There is motion and 
control, continuity and memory, encoding schemas which bring arithmetic 
into local interaction somehow. The whole machine can be simulated on 
another machine only because the original machine includes this list of 
inherent capacities, which are to me, undoubtedly sensory-motor and 
pre-arithmetic.


>
>
>  
>
>>
>> >  there is a very special sense in which materialism has more 
>>> restrictions than spiritualism… The Christian is quite free to believe that 
>>> there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development 
>>> in the universe, but the materialist is not allowed to admit into his 
>>> spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.
>>>
>> The Christian is not allowed to admit the slightest speck of doubt that a 
>> invisible man in the sky sent His son, who was also Him, to be tortured to 
>> death by humans even though he loved His son, who is also Him, very much 
>> because otherwise he could not forgive humans even though He is omnipotent. 
>> Even though He is omnipotent torturing His son, who is really Him, for the 
>> crime of eating a apple is the only way He could forgive the torturers. The 
>> Christian is not allowed to admit the slightest speck of doubt that it 
>> makes sense that if I'm mad at you and then you torture my son to death I 
>> will no longer be mad at you.
>>
>
> No argument there. I only disagree with you on religion in the sense that 
> I don't think the fictions which have been created are arbitrary. They 
> reflect metaphorical illustrations about consciousness itself, and when 
> taken figuratively all myths can reveal important insights. It's only when 
> people take them literally that it causes problems, and as long as physics 
> refuses to take consciousness seriously, people will continue to take 
> religion literally.
>  
>
>>  
>>>
>>> > The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a 
>>> chain of causation…"
>>>
>> I don't know when Chesterton wrote that but he lived until 1936 and by 
>> 1925 physicists, the ultimate materialists, did not believe that history or 
>> anything else was "simply and solely a chain of causation"; however it is 
>> unlikely that Chesterton ever knew this and like most self styled 
>> philosophers remained blissfully ignorant of all scientific and 
>> mathematical discoveries made during the last century or two.  
>>
>
> Are you referring here to the addition of randomness or probability to the 
> chain of causation? 
>
>
>> Incidentally I found some more ideas of Chesterton. In 1290 Edward 1 
>> expelled the Jews from England and Chesterton writes that Edward was a 
>> "just and conscientious monarch"  and acted correctly because the Jews were 
>> "as powerful as they are unpopular and the capitalists of their age" so 
>> when Edward "flung the alien financiers out of the land" he acted as 
>> "knight errant" and was the "tender father of his people".  Even in 1920 
>> Chesterton thought there was still a "Jewish Problem in Europe". Hitler had 
>> his Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.
>>
>
> Even anti-Semites can have valid insights.
>
>
> Correct. An example is Henry Ford. He was correct on health, oil and hemp, 
> but close to the nazis about the Jews. Clark argument was of course invalid.
>

Ford was a bit of a psycho patriarch to his employees too, but if it 
weren't for him, we probably would still have only a one day weekend. Even 
Hitler thought that what he was doing for his country was a good thing. In 
the end, can you blame only the evil crazy guy for being crazy and evil, or 
does some fault lie with the millions of supposedly sane citizens who 
happily followed the crazy guy?

Craig
  

>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to