On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, <ghib...@gmail.com
<mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:12:34 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 26 Apr 2014, at 21:15, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 26 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, 'Chris de Morsella
<cdemo...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List
<everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
*From:*everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo
Menezes
http://infinitemachine.tumblr.com/image/83867790181
A nice weekend to everyone!
Nice graph; that gives a refreshing perspective on
religion... as
a human evolution of cultural behavior and norms, similar
to say
how language has a nice tree going back in time.
Indeed. It seems plausible that religions are local maxima of
cooperation strategies. In recent History (compared to the time
scale
of this graph), attempts to engineer new cooperation strategies
require the removal of existing religions. This was the case in
both
the communist revolutions (Bolshevik and Maoist) and the
enlightenment
revolutions (American and French). But naturally evolved
religions are
highly-adapted, resilient organisms.
Very nice graph. I appreciate the remark below it, which asks
for some
the grains of salt.
I am not sure we can eliminate a religion, but we can
substitute it by
another (better or worst) religion.
Perhaps it's useful to make the distinction between religion as the
social
construct and religion as the private experience.
Without forgetting religion as truth, or possible truth.
Neither social construct nor private experience are easily related
to that
truth, even if they depend on it.
"cooperation strategies" needs some goal/sense, for which the
cooperation makes sense, and such goal refer to some implicit or
explicit religion or reality conception, I think.
I'm not so sure... Maybe our goals can be traced back to simple
things
selected by evolution, that all relate to survival + replication.
Then it
all collapses into complexification, and the goals only exist when
seeing
from the inside -- the species, organism, etc. This can lead to a
view of
public religion as more of a consequence than a cause.
Nothing is obvious for me here. Even if in the 3p, our evolution is
based
only on duplication and survival, it does not mean that all this
makes does
not acquire sense from higher order perspective (like in arithmetic,
technically).
To survive relatively to a universal machine you have to be locally
self-referentially correct relatively to that universal machine, but
globally + taking into account the first person indeterminacy, and
thus
accounts of a non computable complex structure confronting us,
things are
less clear to me.
Most of the arithmetical truth is non computable.
Only god(s) know(s) where iteration of survival + replication can
lead.
Maybe we have the potential to transcend biology, but I believe that
remains to be seen.
Well, there is transhumanism, which is a sort of will to apply comp
as soon
as possible. Google seems to have decided to invest in that
direction.
Then we have the biological shortcuts, the plants which succeeded in
building molecules capable of mimicking some brain molecules. This
can
transcend biology at different levels.
For the 3p long term destiny, I doubt we will completely abandon
the carbon,
but we will probably come back to something close to a little
"social"
bacteria, "with radio and GSM", constituting a giant computer. The
virtual
1p will not necessarily change so much: we will still see ourselves
as
humans with arms and legs. This can take a millennium, and that
bacteria,
(which becomes quantum at low temperature) will expand in the arms
of the
Milky way.
You say that everything will be normal, we'll be human with arms and
legs, then
you say something highly psychedelic :)
Nice to see buddhism and taoism there, but where is (strong)
atheism/materialism? Hmm.... :)
The graph says v1.1, so maybe you can issue a bug report :)
Where would you say it branches from, in that tree?
I would say from the greeks, and then in some growing percentage of
the
abramanic religions. (But it certainly occurs also elsewhere, like
notably
in some branch of Hinduism and Buddhism).
Platonism is not dead, just dormant, in basically all religions
(if not in
all brain or universal numbers).
We will get virtual, but that is relative, and from the absolute
view we
already are (assuming mechanism).
Sure, "virtual" is like "natural", I'm not sure it means anything.
In the arithmetical reality there are two kinds of place we can
access,
those where we keep our memories, and those where we don't. Both are
infinite in numbers, but have different relative measure.
Apparently (salvia reports) we can abandon all memories, and then
retrieve
them. How can we be sure we retrieve the correct one?
Doesn't this problem already arise without salvia? I remember having
this type
of doubt as a kid, along with are doubts like "Is stuff conscious?".
Adults told
me that these hypothesis were absurd. Adults still tell me that, but
I'm less
and less convinced...
telmo, would it be ok to clarify the relation t matter you don't see for
consciousness? Do you mean you don't see as true he hypothesis that matter
is
conscious ? Or you don't see that the physical bring produces consciousness?
I mean the hypothesis that the physical brain produces consciousness. I'm not saying
it's false, I'm just saying that there is not reason to give more credence to this
hypothesis than others: for example, that mater is a byproduct of consciousness.
For all the stuff that is covered by the current scientific paradigm, we either have
understanding or a glimpse of understanding. For example: we don't know how the brain
stores memories, but we understand enough basic principles that it is possible to
imagine a progression from our current level of understanding to full understanding. We
know about neurons, how they connect in a complex network to create an asynchronous
computer and so on. This initial knowledge already leads to technology, like face
recognition. But with consciousness, we don't even have a glimpse of understanding.
There's no gradient of complexity to climb. We don't even know where to start.
So I propose that the current mainstream scientific belief that the brain produces
consciousness is mysticism.
