Dear Bruno, Hear Hear!
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > > *From:* email@example.com [ > mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> > ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM > *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org > *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational > reality > > > On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote: > > > My 15 year old son asked me "Why do people believe in God?" > > > Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in > numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, > discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and > proof about them. > > Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is > impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not > understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children > believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc. > > We all believe, consciously or unconsciously, in God, in that large sense > of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when > we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them > for direct terrestrial purposes, where "God" is only an authoritative > argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used > the most). > > >>Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to > grow spiritually. They are governed by people who want steal the > responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in > spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. > > Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it > harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes > these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the > worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling > them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed > towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the > individuals controlling the belief establishment. > Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions > seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. > > > > I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be > genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to > communicate what is strictly incommunicable. > > Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe > literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make > them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that > we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope > in meta-self-correctness). > > > > > on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the > currency of religion; > > > > Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything. > > > > it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a > stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the > populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) > where these organized belief systems prevail. > > > If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if > theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate > the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and > progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the > "monopoly". > > This asks for some amount of courage or "spiritual maturity". Maturity > here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This > has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer, > especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the > party ... > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.