Ah nice - your interpretation makes perfect sense. And in that case, I guess it is 100%. How "complete" is your agreement with Gödel?
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:08:37 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > > I interpreted the higher beings in the sense of "multiple realizability", > as Turing wrote in his 1950 paper, > > "The fact that Babbage's Analytical Engine was to be entirely mechanical > will help us to rid ourselves of a superstition. Importance is often > attached to the fact that modern digital computers are electrical, and that > the nervous system also is electrical. Since Babbage's machine was not > electrical, and since all digital computers are in a sense equivalent, we > see that this use of electricity cannot be of theoretical importance. Of > course electricity usually comes in where fast signalling is concerned, so > that it is not surprising that we find it in both these connections. In the > nervous system chemical phenomena are at least as important as electrical. > In certain computers the storage system is mainly acoustic. The feature of > using electricity is thus seen to be only a very superficial similarity. If > we wish to find such similarities we should took rather for mathematical > analogies of function." > > > So aliens or beings on other worlds, or in other universes, need not be > made of the same particles, or same elements/chemicals as we, if it is the > functions/patterns/mathematical relations that determine consciousness. > > I read the formal rights in the same way you did, that ethics/politics is > an objective, rather than subjective science. > > Jason > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> OK, I think it's 100%. I'm just not sure what it means that the higher >> beings are connected by analogy not composition, and "formal rights >> comprise a real science" (unless he means there is something objectively >> knowable about ethics). That said, the higher beings thing sounds like >> something I *would* agree with, if I understood it... ;) >> >> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:16:09 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote: >>> >>> Which of the 14 points did you not agree with? >>> >>> As for his ontological proof, I think that was more something he did for >>> fun, to see if he could impart some rigor to Anselm's argument. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the >>>> drivel of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something about >>>> that specious piece of sophistry? Other than that I'm in 87.5% agreement >>>> with him... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> 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 [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.
