On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:48 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2014 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:48 PM, <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. > > > Is the effect on consciousness of matter, e.g. drugs, brain trauma, mere > mysticism? > No, of course not. Nor is it neuroscience mysticism -- although it feels a bit like they are trying to reverse engineer a computer by measuring the electromagnetic fields around the CPU. But I understand, they do what they can with the technology they have. Eventually, I think that understanding the brain is computer science problem. But I digress. All this activity, including the effects of drugs and brain trauma on behaviour, would be equally predicted by modern science if we were unconscious zombies. So why are we conscious? How does the first-person experience arise? It is saying that we have even the beginning of an explanation for that in the context of modern neuroscience that I call mysticism. Many people believe we do, and this is where dogma starts to creep in -- believing we are less ignorant than we really are. Telmo. > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
