On 23 Feb 2017, at 21:45, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/23/2017 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Feb 2017, at 01:08, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/21/2017 11:03 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
do you think we are that sure how to identify intelligence and
consciousness?
Intelligence (inter-lego)
I identify from the linguistic origin (Latin) as READING
BETWEEN THE (properly) EXPRESSED FEATURES - to detect additional
sense (maybe hidden so far).
Are you going to Bruno on me and adopt some meaning that a
thousand years out of date.
I can't let you say this Brent. I use always the most common terms
used by everybody, except the dogmatic minority. I have hundreds of
book on theology, written mostly by christians and muslims, on
neoplatonism, and they all use the term "theology" and "god" in the
greek sense. They don't even mention that they use the greek sense
as it is compeletely natural in a non-dogmatic context. The
restricted sense is the popular, non scientific sense used by
believers in special tradition.
It is rather incredible, but constant, that the strong-atheists
insist so much on the dogmatic (and pseudo-religious) definitions.
In science, all theories rename all the terms. We change the
theories, not the terms, which would lead to confusion and would
hide the progress. You could as well say that Earth does not exist,
because it has meant for many centuries: a flat thing on which we
walk.
The difference is that the billions of theists on the round thing we
walk on still use "God" to be the Abrahamic superbeing.
Really? Interesting. Maybe they are right or close to right.
Obviously, as scientist, we have to do the math, in our favorite
theory to see if that matches, and of course, I have already point to
some discrepancies with the "God" of the universal machine, much close
to proclus theology (sic) or Plotinus, Moderatus of Gades.
Nevertheless, note that each main branches of the Abrahamic belief has
kept some sub-branches which basically match that theology (of the
universal classical machine).
In theology, only the con men could pretend that science has decided
between Plato/Parmenides/Pythagoras and Aristotle. Mocking theology or
philosophy of mind makes people confusing physics and metaphysics/
theology.
Better not lost the spirit of rigor in all domain. The assumption of a
primary physical universe is cool, but might need to be tested with
the (immaterialist) "theology" of the universal number (G, G* and the
other "hypostases").
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
