On 09 Dec 2013, at 05:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2013 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different
things and not muddling the distinction. The Abrahamic religions
make a positive virtue of faith:
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
--- Martin Luther
Every machine who want to be simply correct with herself cannot not
tear her eyes out of his Reason, or if you prefer, cannot avoid
discovering the gap between Truth and Proof.
Now, of course, I can recognize that Luther sentence can also be
exploited by "politics", and that is the whole weakness of
theology. But that is a reason to be even more rigorous in that
field, not less.
A good course in non confessional theology could list the drawback
of the theological faith, when blind.
“When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything
else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which
we have to believe…. I warn people not to seek for anything
beyond what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to
seek for. In the last resort, however, it is better for you to
remain ignorant, for fear that you come to know what you should
not know…. Let curiosity give place to faith, and glory to
salvation. Let them at least be no hindrance, or let them keep
quiet. To know nothing against the Rule [of faith] is to know
everything.” --- Tertullian
Same remark, but here, the "politics" idea seems prevalent (and is
bad). the idea to separate science from theology is responsible for
such use of "bad faith".
Today, after listening to the machines, we would say the contrary.
Like "if you have faith, never drop reason, as reason can only be
extended by faith, and never been contradicted. If you feel a
contradiction, ask yourself if you have not been abuse by some
politics who want to manipulate you."
"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
--- John Calvin
Authoritative argument, I guess.
You identify faith with "blind faith". But "blind faith" is
something which exist because for centuries you were burn alive
if you did not have the "blind faith".
Events that were justified and approved by theologians.
Rational Theologians have been persecuted, exiled, banished from
science and academies. That is why there are "pseudo-theologians"
approving authoritative violent method of convicting people. That
would stop when we will decide to come back on a bit of seriousness
on the issue. That cannot be done in one day, but listening to the
machine will help. They have very few prejudice, and can hardly be
said to defend a religion, except for their belief in classical
logic, but nome forbid to also listening to intuitionist machine if
they want. (That does not make much sense in Platonism, though, and
is equivalent with listening only to the first person (SAGrz)
associated to the machine, and not to the "scientist" (G)
associated to the machine).
Blind faith is a remnant of terrorist politics, like the religion
has become on some ground.
No it's a remnant of religion - which inspires and justifies
terrorist politics.
A remnant of pseudo-religion, due to the fact that we are not yet
free to think in that aera. It is forbidden by atheists and
fundamentalist alike.
But you evade the point that these three quotes are by theologians
who helped found religions, Catholocism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism,
that are still believed by billions of people. You are calling
these "psuedo-religions", which shows how far your have distorted
common usage.
They are pseudo-religion according to their own standard. They give a
name to what is not nameable, and they invoke it for terrestrial
normative purposes. it is not religion, it is politics.
My definition of "religion" should suit everybody, believer and
disbeliever (and agnostic). The theology of the machine M is the truth
about machine M. (Or the set of all arithmetical true propositions
with M as a parameter). The science of the machine M is the same with
provable at the place of true. This helps to distinguish religion from
science, from the machine points of view, and to discuss how much the
machine can prove and discover sharable propositions in his or another
machine's theology.
Computer science explains well why "truth" can play the role of a sort
of spiritual transcendental entity for the machine, and indeed, how
machine get mystical about it, and *can* have incommunicable
experience about it. In that setting, just being conscious is already
usefully seen as a mystical state, even if only on degree 0. It is a
gate toward many different possible states of consciousness. Some of
them might have deep relation with truth, entailing possible sort of
personal trust toward truth, akin to a sort of (non blind at all,
given the experience) faith.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
