On 07 Oct 2014, at 02:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:20 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 10/6/2014 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and in machine, and in the mystics, that is the correct use of
the term. It is very reasonable, and it prevents at the start
the confusion between the serious research and the political/
social brainwashing or the popular superstition.
It continues the confusion that the established religions rely on.
The exact contrary. The established religions continue to support
that confusion, because they fear the questioning.
Somehow I appreciate the catholic church, because it has shown
that it can revised its opinion,
Though it may be 400yrs late.
and even makes into its principle that the interpretation of the
bible is a complex matter, for theologian, historians, scientists
to work on, and to exclude the fairy tale literal interpretations
on it. For example it revised most of its anti-semite statements
under Jean-Paul II. It revised its statement on Galilee, too
(although the Church is wrong on this, actually, and was correct at
the time of Galilee, as the Church asked him to accept that his
idea was only a theory (!).
You sound like an apologists: The Church not only wanted to Galilee
to say his idea was only a theory, they wanted him to accept that
their idea was THE TRUTH - and they were willing to torture him as
their argument.
Note that Al Gazhali, a 10th century muslim who was not much keen
on Neoplatonism, already tried to explain that theology should
never contradict scientific observation and logical conclusions.
Then why is it any more than science? Why suppose it has a separate
domain?
Any more "what" than science?
I'm not sure I understand but why would beliefs, observation, and
the beliefs concerning observation of some unspecified entity with
comparable intelligence and self-referential ability to our own; why
would these necessarily have to be in some sort of finalized, clear-
cut competition?
They only appear to be in some competition because immaterialist
point of view has been prohibited for centuries. Somebody arguing
agnostic position will look like defender of gods to physicalist and
like a scientific non-believer to anybody choosing more canonical,
literal interpretation of some theology.
And in posing the question, don't you assume some point of
reference, from which such truth can be reasoned, judged,
ascertained or related to in some form? Aren't you perhaps
presupposing some truth or god pov enough to ask the question?
I'm not sure about clean cut domain separation because theology on
one level is personal, between person and their priest/doctor/
shaman, the point being we don't have to cede theology to hacks and
thieves as we can take various 1p povs from the personal level of
the people that choose to share and examine them in objective,
interpersonal level from critical distance, according to any
standard or value we choose, taking the reasoning into shareable
scientific framework.
Perhaps the dichotomy itself is flawed as I see no clean way of
separating.
The same problem occur with psychology. To make it into a science, it
is enough to add interrogation mark, and never pretend we know the
truth, and explain that we have only theories, which can be revised.
But a lot of psychologists fall in the religious trap, and "defend"
their ideas like pseudo-priest. the whole human science are sick from
that separation between theology and science. It gave the bad example!
And you can't avoid that if you don't use reason in that field.
It is a like the medication. It is not dangerous, but become so
quickly when made illegal.
So you think opium and heroin only became dangerous when made illegal?
Or mandatory, with certain medical advice of dubious soundness in
the past centuries making this a real scenario. The ability to stop
pain for pleasure, the benefits and problems pertaining to such
ability, should have always stayed a medical/health/private issue
instead of becoming a public legal one.
Extraordinary potential use and abuse issue from such ability, where
due to the paradox, pleasure superimposed on pain/pain beaten via
dosage, there is no objective public sphere decidability on
"everybody's safety at all times"; only private health/theological
decision to be made which is tricky, and to which we'll stay naive
as long as we presuppose ourselves to be a bunch of children that
dare not to ask the question because we make each other pee in cups
for more and more employment.
In a harm minimization background, the considerable layers of legal
problems, their costs, the social stigma that encourages hiding and
dishonesty... all of that would give way to "merely" the body mind
paradox of a substance capable of dialing down the hold of substance
P for drowsy euphoria and trickiness around dosage and dependence
issues.
It's not heaven and hell, like some legalization position would have
us believe. It is still confronting danger and death, as we do on
daily basis; but confronting those without the medieval legal,
economic, social layers of unnecessary cost, that turn a paradox
into globalized mess and waste of our values and wealth.
OK.
In life and in religion, the choice is between logic and war.
Between question without answer and answer without question.
What is your problem with the consequence of computationalism,
beyond it looks quite shocking from the aristotelian perspective
(but then quantum mechanics is arguably as much shocking)?
I don't know what you mean by "have a problem with"? Do you mean
fail to believe in?
And the point is that it is testable. It already explains (and
enlarge) the quantum weirdness, the existence of the person and all
the ineffable about them, their lack of names, etc. It explains the
rôle of mathematics or arithmetic, and the discourse of the
machines already illustrated they can access their own non
justifiable annulus G* minus G, and its intensional variant,
plunging the theory of quanta in a more general theory of person
qualia.
But those things may have other explanations and it may be that it
explains too much...and predicts too little.
Brent
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--- Stephen Henry Roberts, historian (1901-71)
Concerning last lines above: besides the old argument via
intellectual intimidation "If you don't understand me on my terms...
you are an idiot" it's also "I believe in one god less than you,
nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"; which is grounded in assumption that "less is
more". I'd be skeptical on possible business with Mr. Roberts, even
if I know historians count backwards. PGC
Bruno
--
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.
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/d/optout.
