On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people
on this planet once used: the word "Life" refers to some organic
matter filled with elan vital.
Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws
of carbon chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly
contain carbon nanotubes and 2D carbon Graphene sheets. And I have
no idea what "elan vital" is and those who like the term have even
less idea than I do, but whatever it is if meat can have it I see
no reason why a computer can't have it too. So even by your
definition a computer could be alive.
To be sure there was no misunderstanding, I do not seriously
subscribe to that definition of life. Rather, I was using your own
phrasing to show how it can be ridiculous it is to hold the
meanings of words cannot change and must remain absolutely static.
For we find that the meanings of many words change and evolve along
with our understanding of the world.
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
rhetorical I'd really like an answer: If there is no all
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you
think it adds to clarity to call that principle "God"?
I consider this question equivalent to asking "If there is no elan
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call
those organisms life?" Asking this question illustrates the
attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which
to me seems little different from a kind of "ancestor
worship" (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common
kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
religions, though each religion also adds various additional things
on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our
theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these
attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update
accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word "life" when we
discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly,
even if we were to determine God is not "omnipotent", or not
"conscious", should we abandon that word and come up with something
else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about
some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have
an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to
adopt knew words each time we learned something new.
But that's a false analogy. "Life" was something we could point to,
so it makes sense to say we discover it does or doesn't have some
attribute. But "God", since we stopped looking on Olympus, has just
been defined by some set of attributes: Creator of the universe.
Definer of morality. Your ultimate value. Love. Omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The necessary being. So it makes
no sense to ask whether god has an attribute. The attributes are so
varied and inconsistent that the word has become meaningless. It's
then just a muddle to say, "I'm going back to the really real
original meaning." The original meaning was one of many superhuman,
immortal beings. To pick Plotinus'es meaning, or Kronecker's, is no
different than just making up another set of attributes and saying
they define god.
The problem is that once you suppress "God", you will make Matter into
a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of
authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still ignored by
most scientists?
To say "I don't believe in God" is quasi-equivalent with saying "Now
we have the answer to the fundamental question", which is just a
crackpot kind of statement.
Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their
precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a
concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only
atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition.
Atheists are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both
prevents the rise of the scientific attitude in the field. Both
promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and both promote the
absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and
pseudo-religion.
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 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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.