On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:38:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2018, at 16:03, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net> >> >> >> You're dodging my point. The "issue" of how we have subjective >> experience only seems to be an issue because in comparison to the >> "objective" experience of matter where we can trace long, mathematically >> define causal chains down to...a Lagrangian and coupling constants or >> something similar, which is long enough and esoteric enough that almost >> everyone loses interest along the way. But some people (like Vic) are >> going to say, "But where does the Langrangian and coupling constants come >> from?" and "Why a Lagrangian anyway?" My point is that when we can give a >> similarly deep and detailed account of why you think of an elephant when >> reading this, then nobody will worry about "the hard problem of >> consciousness"; just like they don't worry about "the hard problems of >> matter" like where that Lagrangian comes from or why a complex Hilbert >> space. >> >> >> Why can't I worry about those things? Where does the Lagrangian come >> from? And why use a complex Hilbert space? I don't think this is the >> underlying reason for saying that the "hard problem" of consciousness >> dissolves on solving the engineering problems. Solving the engineering >> problems will enable us to produce a fully conscious AI -- but will we then >> know how it works? We will certainly know where it came from..... >> >> Bruce >> > > When it comes to science I have to back what Bruce says here. > > > Me to. The clever machines of tomorrow might be the descendants of our > bugs, not our programs … > But I think the universal machine is very smart, it is us who don’t listen. > > > > All knowledge faces the limits of the Münchhausen trilemma, where we have > three possible types of arguments. The first is the basic axiomatic > approach, which generally is the cornerstone and capstone of mathematics > and science. The second is a "turtles all the way down," where an argument > is based on premises that have deeper reasons, and this nests endlessly. > Vic Stenger found this to be of most interest with his "models all the way > down." The third is a circular argument which would mean all truth is just > tautology. The second and third turn out to have some relevancy, where > these are complement in Godel's theorem. While in general we use the first > in science and mathematics we generally can't completely eliminate the > other two. However, for most work we have an FAPP limitation to how far we > want to go. Because of that if there is ultimately just a quantum vacuum, > or some set of vacua, that is eternal, we may then just rest our case there. > > > > > Yu risk to eliminate consciousness, and the machine’s explanation of > consciousness. > > Assuming mechanism, we know exactly why we have too assume a universal > machinery, and nothing more. Then we can use the whole of mathematics to > derive the phenomenology, including matter, and compare with what we > observe. > > > > > If one wants to do philosophy or theology that may be fine, but one has to > make sure not to confuse these as categories with the category of science. > > > No. That is the habit since theology has been stealer from science by the > con-man. > > Maybe you know a theology which does not need science, that which does not > need modesty, caution, critically open, etc. > > The problem when you forget hat theology is a science, is that you take > the risk of imposing some theology or metaphysical axiom, like if today’s > science did solved the Plato/Aristotle extreme disjunct. > > > > > Maybe as Dennett says, philosophy is what we do when we do not understand > how to ask the question right. > > > That is science. Bad philosophy and bad science is when we assert a > problem is solved, when it is not. > > > > In that setting at best we can only do sort of "pre-science," but not > really science as such. Theology is an even looser area of thought, and I > generally see no connection with science at all. > > > > Theology is just Metaphysics with the understanding that we must do a bet > of some sort, be it on some physical thing, (a material universe), or a > metaphysical things (the Tao?), or a mathematical, or musical, whatever > things. > > If you study the history of occidental science, theology is the science > which brings mathematics and physics, and mathematics was a source of > inspiration for many non physical realities to be conceived. Most of them > being often mathematical in nature. > If you study theology from Pythagorus to damascius, you will understand > that it is science, even if one using a non communicable data (a first > person experience). > Then theology is responsible for the birth of mathematical logic too, much > later. I have given references. >
*This may be a simplistic pov, but since there was IMO no Original Sin, there was no need for a Sacrifice for its forgiveness. Under this view, Christianity is overwhelmingly an illusion. And since Theology seems to be primarily an extended argument about the historical history and truths about Christianity, it too is essentially worthless; an extended wrangling over nothing. AG * > > No, the problem is that, for historical reason, we have separated theology > from science, which was necessary to associate religion with politics, > which, is OBVIOUSLY what the blasphemy is all about. > > Not all theologian are duped, but things have not been simple for the > pagan and non confessional theologian, after 529 in Occident, and after > 1258 in the Middle-East (where the theologian banished from Occident > survived a bit of centuries). > > The Renaissance was incomplete. All sciences came back to … > science/reason/observation, except theology, for the contingent reason that > theology is still in the hand of “argument-of-authority”. > Institutionalised religion are machine to prevent religion, and mystical > experience, and theorising about what we se and don’t see. You are right, > theology is a looser era, as long as we fear to use reason in that domain. > Now, if you read the theologians, instead of the secret text, you can see > that some theologian are not duped, and can be quite good, and the > christian,muslims and the jewish theologies, have has school quite close to > neoplatonism, which is quite close to the universal (Löbian) machines > discourse, which I insist is testable, as physics is in the head of that > machine, to put it shortly. > > Science without religion is blind self-destructive technology. > Religion without science is fairy tales, obscurantisme and manipulations > all the way long. > > Only bad faith fears reason. Only bad reason fears faith. > > Sincerely, > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > LC > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma> > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
