On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 21 Apr 2013, at 18:40, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes >>>> utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown >>>> us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing >>>> plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand >>>> a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even >>>> helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The >>>> missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not >>>> to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Religion is what happens when people put theology out of science. >> >> >> Bruno, I'm still not sure I understand your definition of theology. Is >> it the same as metaphysics? > > > > It will depend on your definition of metaphysics :) > > I would define the theology of a machine, or of a possible person/soul > locally supported by a machine relatively to a (universal) machine by the > set of statements which are true about the machine (and that the machine can > justify or not, believe, or not, observe or not, hope for or not, etc.). > > This is a general definition which is agnostic on many points in debate > between Muslims, and Christians, abramanic believer and atheists, Hinduists > and buddhist, etc. > > It follows Plato's definition of God, as the ultimate truth, or reason why > we are here and now, that we can search (not necessarily something that we > can find or communicate). > > Then it happens that with comp, science has to bactrack to the theology of > Plato, where the physical reality is a product, or projection, or shadow, or > border of something else 'in the comp case: arithmetical truth, and so in > comp arithmetical truth plays the role of God, or the one, or the outer god, > etc. > > You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon between > Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as Neoplatonism > announces a coming back to Pythagorean ontology. One of the Enneads of > Plotinus, "On Numbers" is a crazily deep analysis of the role of numbers in > theology.
This one? Marchal B., 2007, A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus' Theory of Matter > Theology is just the science of "everything", which by definition includes > God and Santa Klaus. A statement saying that such or such God does not exist > is a theological statement. > > It is just my agnosticism which make me use the term in the most general > sense. Then, in the frame of this or that hypothesis, we can get such or > such precisions. I like how you explain it. From a pure "marketing" standpoint, you might avoid a lot of unnecessary intellectual resistance by using a different term. On the other hand, some of your colourful personality would not come through, so who am I to say... > > >>>> There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I think it >>>> can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other >>>> neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with >>>> consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. >>> >>> >>> >>> Careful! >>> Some people don't think, but are still conscious, most plausibly. I guess >>> you were joking. >> >> >> I meant the opposite: people who think but are not conscious. I'm >> half-joking. > > > OK (I was half serious) :) > > > > >> >>> You are right about Damásio. he confuses  p and (( p & p). >> >> >> Not sure I understand. Doesn't p => p ? > > > Yes, but only God knows that. > > Precisely (but I will give the detail on FOAR): if B is Gödel's provability > we have that G* proves p => p, but G does not prove it. You can guess it > as if G prove  f => f (with f = the propositional constant false, and "=>" > the logical implication), then it would mean that the machine proves ~ f, > and so the machine would proves its own consistency, contradicting Gödel's > second incompleteness theorem. But G* proves it, and proves that the machine > is correct: p => p. > > This is capital. It is Gödel's incompleteness which makes provability > obeying the logic of believability, and which gives sense to the Theaetetus' > definition of knowledge for machine. Ok, I need to read more. > > > > > >>>>> I agree on intelligence, but I don't feel less conscious when I'm >>>> >>>> sleepy. Just differently conscious. I'm a bit sleepy right now. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's something amazing with consciousness. It exists in different >>> modes. >>> We are not trained to develop vigilance during sleep, but sleep produces >>> a >>> lot of intriguing altered state of consciousness. >> >> >> Yes, it's so frustrating to not be able to come back with the full >> memories. > > > > For REM dreams and non-REM conscious episode, it is a question of a (lot of) > training, but some plants can help. > For example calea zacatechichi (legal everywhere except in Belgium), I've seen that once mentioned before in the context of lucid dreaming. > or some > coleus plant, or salvia, etc. > For teh salvia experience itself it is more difficult. > The best is to have a > diary, and note the experience quickly after, but usually, you don't recall > a part of the experience. Out there, you can understand why it is better to > not recall it, as it does not make sense hereby: it makes you inconsistent, > a bit like a machine who listen to its own G*. > > Bruno > > > > 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 email@example.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. > > -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.