On 27 Jul 2014, at 15:56, David Nyman wrote:
Yes, that is still assumed at Step 7. But it's interesting that Bostrom gets quite close to some of the implications of UD*.
I don't think there is any coincidence here. Bostrom mentioned the UDA and the FPI in his talk at the ASSC 2004, but like many he did not succeed in referring to my name, as it is badly seen in some circle like some people witnessed already (when drunk enough). Bostrom acknowledged this to me.
Just the lasting consequences to what I have been asked to describe in "the secret of the amoeba".
The academy is the best thing in the realities, yet, it too *can* sucks lamentably, and always, note, when people attribute protagorean virtue to themselves, like "free-exam," or "scientific", ...
You might not agree, but as much as I think theology should go back to academy, I think philosophy need to go back to the coffee club (as it tends to do, actually).
"Academic philosophy" is sometimes used as authoritative argument against science domain, when all honest researcher know such disciplinary frontiers are tools and means, not answers or theories. We tolerate a big amount of lack in rigor in the human sciences, and that explains in part the misery of many on this planet, and our perpetual repetition of similar errors in our human relations.
It is not that science would have an answer. It is precisely because it has none but an invitation to look by oneself, in oneself.
Bruno 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/d/optout.
