On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 9:13:29 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Nov 2018, at 21:27, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:38:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Nov 2018, at 16:03, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> 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 * > > > That comes from the 1500 years of brainwashing. I use theology in the > sense of Plato, not the Gospel. Only atheists believe in JC, >
*Really? It seems you never met any Christians on a personal level. If you did, you'd see how uninformed you are. AG* > except for the TV evangelist, which are arguably con men. > That was the goal of the Christian after 529. To make us forget that the > original question of the greeks was about the existence of a (primary) > physical universe. God exist by definition: it is, by definition, the truth > we intuit to be larger than ourselves. > *I really doubt the question about the nature of matter has been forgotten. AG * > > Bruno > > > > > >> 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 [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. >> >> >> > -- > 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 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 [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.
