On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:32:51 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:12:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Dec 2018, at 18:01, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:27:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6 Dec 2018, at 14:20, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:21:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 Dec 2018, at 17:19, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:37:13 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2 Dec 2018, at 21:25, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:02:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/2/2018 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 19:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/30/2018 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perspectivism is a form of modalism. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nietzsche is vindicated. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting. If you elaborate, you might change my mind on Nietzche, >>>>>> perhaps! >>>>>> All what I say is very close the Neoplatonism and Negative Theology >>>>>> (capable only of saying what God is not). >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ >>>>>> 6.2 Perspectivism >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of Nietzsche’s reaction to the theoretical philosophy of his >>>>>> predecessors is mediated through his interest in the notion of >>>>>> perspective. >>>>>> He thought that past philosophers had largely ignored the influence of >>>>>> their own perspectives on their work, and had therefore failed to >>>>>> control >>>>>> those perspectival effects (*BGE* 6; see *BGE* I more generally). >>>>>> Commentators have been both fascinated and perplexed by what has come to >>>>>> be >>>>>> called Nietzsche’s “perspectivism”, and it has been a major concern in a >>>>>> number of large-scale Nietzsche commentaries (see, e.g., Danto 1965; >>>>>> Kaulbach 1980, 1990; Schacht 1983; Abel 1984; Nehamas 1985; Clark 1990; >>>>>> Poellner 1995; Richardson 1996; Benne 2005). There has been as much >>>>>> contestation over exactly what doctrine or group of commitments belong >>>>>> under that heading as about their philosophical merits, but a few points >>>>>> are relatively uncontroversial and can provide a useful way into this >>>>>> strand of Nietzsche’s thinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nietzsche’s appeals to the notion of perspective (or, equivalently in >>>>>> his usage, to an “optics” of knowledge) have a positive, as well as a >>>>>> critical side. Nietzsche frequently criticizes “dogmatic” philosophers >>>>>> for >>>>>> ignoring the perspectival limitations on their theorizing, but as we >>>>>> saw, >>>>>> he simultaneously holds that the operation of perspective makes a >>>>>> positive >>>>>> contribution to our cognitive endeavors: speaking of (what he takes to >>>>>> be) >>>>>> the perversely counterintuitive doctrines of some past philosophers, he >>>>>> writes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such >>>>>> resolute reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with >>>>>> which >>>>>> the spirit has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently >>>>>> in >>>>>> this way for once, *to want* to see differently, is no small >>>>>> discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future >>>>>> “objectivity”—the latter understood not as “disinterested contemplation” >>>>>> (which is a non-concept and absurdity), but rather as the capacity to >>>>>> have >>>>>> one’s Pro and Contra *in one’s power*, and to shift them in and out, >>>>>> so that one knows how to make precisely the *difference* in >>>>>> perspectives and affective interpretations useful for knowledge. ( >>>>>> *GM* III, 12) >>>>>> >>>>>> This famous passage bluntly rejects the idea, dominant in philosophy >>>>>> at least since Plato, that knowledge essentially involves a form of >>>>>> objectivity that penetrates behind all subjective appearances to reveal >>>>>> the >>>>>> way things really are, independently of any point of view whatsoever. >>>>>> Instead, the proposal is to approach “objectivity” (in a revised >>>>>> conception) asymptotically, by exploiting the difference between one >>>>>> perspective and another, using each to overcome the limitations of >>>>>> others, >>>>>> without assuming that anything like a “view from nowhere” is so much as >>>>>> possible. There is of course an implicit criticism of the traditional >>>>>> picture of a-perspectival objectivity here, but there is equally a >>>>>> positive >>>>>> set of recommendations about how to pursue knowledge as a finite, >>>>>> limited >>>>>> cognitive agent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. But I do not oppose perspectivism with Plato, and certainly >>>>>> not with neoplatonism, which explains everything from the many >>>>>> perspective >>>>>> of the One, or at least can be interpreted that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pure perspectivism is an extreme position which leads to pure >>>>>> relativism, which does not make sense, as we can only doubt starting >>>>>> from >>>>>> indubitable things (cf Descartes). But Nietzsche might have been OK, as >>>>>> the >>>>>> text above suggested a “revised conception” of objective. >>>>>> >>>>>> With mechanism, you have an ablate truth (the sigma_1 arithmetical >>>>>> truth), and the rest is explained by the perspective enforced by >>>>>> incompleteness. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My reading of Nietzsche is he thought that there are many different >>>>>> perspectives and one can only approach the truth by looking from >>>>>> different >>>>>> perspectives but never taking one of them as definitive. This goes >>>>>> along >>>>>> with his denial and rejection of being a system builder. I think he >>>>>> equated system builders with those who took their perspective to be the >>>>>> only one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nietzsche is famous for two quotes: >>>>> >>>>> *God is dead!* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, he said that. But I think he was talking about Santa Klauss-like >>>>> notion of God, not about the Neoplatonic conception of God. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *What is the Neoplatonic concept of God and how does it differ from >>>> Spinoza's concept, which IIUC, is some sort of pantheistic monismt? TIA, >>>> AG >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, Spinoza is often compared to Neoplatonism, and nobody doubt >>>> that his work is influenced by Neoplatonism. I just come back (two weeks >>>> ago) of a colloquium in logic and metaphysics where Spinoza was disced a >>>> lot. Spinoza describes substance as being self sustained entity, and seems >>>> to distinguish from Aristotle primary matter, so that his conception of >>>> reality is often described as neutral monism. That being said, his >>>> substance is still very Aristotelian, and not much like something in a >>>> dream or video games. But then, that is not entirely clear in Plotinus too >>>> (by some aspect, mechanism go farer than Plotinus, at least for the >>>> motivation). >>>> >>>> The “god” of neoplatonism is the ONE, which is though as non >>>> describable, non definable, and responsible for the Plato world’s of >>>> ideas, >>>> and then for the soul, and eventually for matter which is defined >>>> negatively by what god (the one) is unable to determine. Matter is when >>>> god >>>> lose control, and is typically associate with evil in the (neo)platonic >>>> tradition. You can compare the ONE with the class of all sets, or with the >>>> “everything” (if that exists). Plotinus argue that it is not a being, it >>>> is >>>> only responsible for all beings, but it is out of the reality (somehow, >>>> the >>>> God of Plotinus do not exist!). >>>> >>>> With mechanism, the notion of arithmetical truth plays the role of God >>>> (it is non definable, and responsible for all provabilities and >>>> computability’s notion, including the knower/soul, consciousness, and >>>> eventually matter). >>>> >>>> You might read my PDF on Plotinus, on my URL (on the front page) for >>>> more on this. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> *Truthfully, these Neoplatonic gods, inclusive of Spinoza, seem pretty >>> bor-ing and IMO don't add anything to our knowledge of the Cosmos. OTOH, >>> Jesus is dramatic but the overall Judao-Christian idea of God seems pretty >>> dumb. This "God" is inconsistent in His behavior and only a delusional fool >>> would trust Him. AG * >>> >>> >>> >>> If you are interested in the cosmos, you can study cosmology. This >>> assumes some cosmos, but is neutral on its nature. >>> But if you are interested in the fundamental science (metaphysics, >>> theology) then it is a different domain. >>> >> >> *These fields are quite distinct from "fundamental science”. * >> >> >> Only since 529. Only because theology has been stolen to the academy to >> be used as an oppression instrument by pseudo-politics and states. >> >> >> >> >> *No testable hypotheses; conclusios not based on empirical data. AG*. >> >> >> Only since 529. Those proposing theories and empirical verification modes >> were persecuted. They escaped in the Middle-East, where unfortunately the >> made “stealing” was made in 1248. >> >> Of course, I provide a counter-example, by showing that we can test >> mechanism/materialism, and the test favour mechanism on materialism. >> Physics seems to NOT be the fundamental science. >> >> >> >> >> >> In that domain, you can understand that Mechanism is not compatible with >>> Materialism, and that the cosmos is not the ultimate reality. Its >>> appearance comes from something else, non physical. >>> >> >> *Play it again Sam. Succinctly, how do you define Mechanism and >> Materialism, and why are they incompatible? AG * >> >> >> >> Mechanism is the idea that our consciousness results only from the >> physical functioning of the brain, or the body (in some generalised sense). >> To be “functioning” (and biologically reproductible) implies digitalness >> (or you can assume it outright). >> >> But then it is easy to understand that a universal machine cannot >> distinguish a computation supporting him/her and executed by this or that >> Turing complete system. In particular, it cannot distinguish a computation >> run by a God, or by Matter, or by arithmetic (which is Turing complete). >> This means that to predict anything empirically, it has to emerge from a >> statistics on all (relative) computations (seen by the machine). When we do >> the math, we do recover already that the observable of the universal >> machine (an arithmetical notion, see Turing) obey a quantum logic, with a >> symmetrical hamiltonian, etc. >> Up to now, Mechanism won the empirical test, where materialism remains on >> the side of the philosophical ontological commitment, without any evidences. >> >> Mechanism is just the idea that we can survive with a digital computer in >> place of the body or the brain. It assumes the existence of a level of >> substitution where we survive a functional digital substitution. >> > > *Let's assume such a substitution is possible. How do you go from that, to > some existing "universal machine" doing anything? As for physicists being > materialists in the sense of believing there is nothing underlying matter > as its cause, I have never heard that position articulated by any > physicist, in person or on the Internet. AG * >
*If your goal is/was to explain consciousness, and believe in mechanism and the digital substitution you've described above -- which seems to be the case -- then you've gotten your explanation of consciousness and it's nothing more than the conventional expectation of materialists. AG * > > >> Non-mechanism assumes actual infinities in nature, and is inconsistent >> with Darwinism, molecular biology, thermodynamic, quantum mechanics. >> >> If the logic of matter (Z1*) extracted from the universal machine >> structure was violating the empirical physical reality, that would be >> extraordinary, but, thanks to QM, it fits better with the facts than >> materialism, which has never succeeded nor even propose an experimental >> test. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> The god of Plato and the neoplatonist is by definition the fundamental >>> reality. >>> >> >> *I read some Plato as an undergraduate. Don't recall any "god" in his >> writings, * >> >> >> He uses the term God. But Plato’s God is simply the truth that we search, >> with the understanding it is above us. Plato identified it at some point >> with the “world of ideas”, but the neoplatonist will consider that the >> world of ideas emanates from some absolute and non describable truth. With >> Mechanism, the arithmetical truth is enough (and at some point, even a >> quite tiny part of it will be enough, but in a non provable way). >> >> >> >> >> *or from any source that it defines "fundamental reality". AG * >> >> >> Many scholars agree on this. See the little book by Hirschberger for >> example. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Today most christians are materialist, and, as I said, materialism is >>> incompatible with mechanism (in a testable way). >>> But before 529, many educated christians were still more platonism than >>> Aristotelian, which are dogmatic on (primitive) matter. >>> >>> For a neoplatonist, christianism and atheism is very much alike. >>> >> >> *Then the neoplatonists are totally misinformed and unworthy of trust. AG* >> >> >> Not at all. It is obvious that strong-atheists (non agnostic atheism) >> always defend the same conception of God than the christians (even if it is >> just to deny it), and have the same belief in the second God of Aristotle >> (parity matter). >> >> And the strong-atheists helps a lot the christians in bashing the >> scientific theology of the greeks. Stron-atheism is really basically the >> same as christianity: it is materialism. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Same conception of god >>> >> >> *No way! Christians believe in a personal god who came to Earth to redeem >> their sins, a form of theism, and atheists don't believe in any god, * >> >> >> But then conclude that there is no god at all, and that the notion of God >> available is only the christian one. >> >> When we say that God cannot be omniscient (for pure logical reason), the >> atheists replies by saying that we cannot change the definition. They would >> have said that Earth does not exist when it was discovered that it is >> round! Of course, in science we change the definition *all the time*. >> >> >> >> >> *but for you their beliefs are the same? How ridiculous this is! AG* >> >> >> Same belief in Matter (which is the God incompatible with Mechanism). >> Same belief that God = the Christian God only (total oversight of a >> millenium of scientific theology!). >> >> They don’t have the same belief in God, but they share the same >> definition (curiously enough). Then, they do share the same belief in the >> creation. >> >> In the Aristotelian view, Mechanism is super-atheists: no Creator, no >> Creation. >> >> In the Plationcian view, Mechanism is super-religious: only God exist >> (arithmetical truth), the rest emerges from it from internal indexical >> (given by the logic of self-reference). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> (even if the atheist uses it only to deny it), and same dogmatic attitude >>> for the existence of some matter not reducible to immaterial notions (like >>> in mathematics). >>> >>> 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 [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]. 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.
