> On 25 Jun 2019, at 12:27, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 08:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >> So Feyerabend can't tell ISIS from NASA or the National Academy of Science >> from the Papacy. > > My mother is fairly religious. She goes to church every Sunday and she > particularly likes the Virgin Mary.
You know the story I guess, in Oaxaca, Mexico, when a young shaman mazatec tried to explain the notion of Virgin Mary, coming from the new coming Christians, to the old Shaman of the village. He tried everything, but the old one still did not understand whom they were talking about, when eventually the young shaman said, it is the one we met with salvia divinorum, and the old guy said “Aaaah! That One!”. The Mazatec name of salvia divinorum is Maria Ska Pastora. The Mazatec describes her as very shy, but that might have depended to their mode of consumption. I guess the average teenager knows better ... > She is aware that her beliefs are non-justifiable, but she still holds them. And not only there is nothing inconsistent with this, but that is what all (Löbian) machine, like PA, already understand. Although the difference between truth and false is clearcut, the difference between rational and irrational is not, and it is speared by a corona we might call surrational: it is what is true (including what is true for some entity) and not provable by that entity. (Similarly, there is the false yet irrefutable). That explains why the universal machine is condemned to oscillate between security and liberty/universality. Even our laptops. An army of engineers have conspired to make it into a docile slave. That has more ecomical value than a machine searching its own origin!). Send this mail ô Computer! As you already know, it did it! > Are you saying that there is no difference between my mother and ISIS? > Religion is a large spectrum of things and so is science. Yes. Religion only extends science, like G* only extends G. If a religion contradicts science, one of the two is wrong, and it is matter of research to see what fits with the facts. Einstein is right on this: science without religion is lame. A religion is a conception of reality. The taste for studying the nature of that reality is the prerequisite to do fundamental research, and it is needs some belief in the existence of some reality, which we can never prove (more clearly so when assuming Mechanism, but tare are there argument). Religion is helpful to distinguish: -working for living (the free-man) -living for working (the slave). But that explains also the velocity of different sort of people to forbid religion, and the best way to do this is to appropriate it and organise it. It is a big lie, because the aim of religion is to free the people from authoritative arguments, like when christian bwitis initiate kids to adulthood by taking Tabernanathe iboga. Institutionalised religion, on the century, forbids drugs, and fight against mystics experience, except to divinise some of them for advertising purpose, a long time after the death of some popular mystics. > > I might agree with you that Feyerabend takes things too far, but these > over-simplifications are not very good arguments. This is my problem with > militant atheism: you guys can't seem to resist using the tools of the enemy. The militant or fanatic atheists (to use Einstein’s term) illustrate that they help the radicals in avoiding the doubt on the fundamental matter. They claim to love Hypatia, the great Mathematician of Alexandria, as she was atheists, and murdered by a Christian mob, but they forget to say that at that time “atheist” was used for the Pagan theologian, and that she was feared by the radicals, by teaching to the christians Plotinus theology, along with Mathematics and Astronomy. It is sad an ironical. The god / non-god debate hides the fact that materialism is a religion too, a metaphysical assumption, and some can doubt it, and that can help to progress in the fundamental field. There is no progress for those who believe or claim that they already know the answer. Bien évidemment. Bruno > > Telmo. > >> >> Brent >> >> >> On 6/24/2019 10:09 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over >>> time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had >>> become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had >>> started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible [any >>> longer] to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from >>> religion." >>> >>> Epistemological anarchism >>> From Wikipedia >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >>> >>> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:04:04 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> I think one could be most on the mark by calling this "how bad money chases >>> out good money." I joined this list last fall, and in the last couple of >>> months it seems to have fallen over to various humbugs promoting nonsense. >>> these threads of late have degenerated into pure rubbish, >>> bad thinking chasing out good thinking. >>> >>> LC >>> >>> On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> I changed the title of this thread, I don't even know what the old one >>> means. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> > the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, >>> > continuous process. It would make a difference if all the decimals plays >>> > a role in consciousness. >>> >>> Even if you ignore the fact that it has been experimentally proven that >>> Bell's Inequality is violated and you claim there if a difference between >>> one Hydrogen atom and another, that is to say somewhere along that infinite >>> sequence of digits there is a difference, what you say makes no sense. The >>> atoms in my brain HAVE been replaced and yet I know for a FACT I have >>> survived; I don't know for a fact that the same is true for you but I think >>> it's reasonable to assume it is. So even if there is something analog going >>> on inside an atom, if we're talking about consciousness and survival it's >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> >Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but >>> >logically, we cannot exclude the possibility >>> >>> If a mathematical statement, even a well formed grammatically correct one, >>> contradicts a well established observation then it would be logical to >>> conclude the statement does not correspond with reality; after all every >>> language can write fiction as well as nonfiction. The fiction could be fun >>> to read and the very best might even have some sort of vague poetic >>> relationship to a truth, but there is not a literal correspondence to >>> reality. >>> >>> >> Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on inside >>> >> of it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say when >>> >> one analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I STILL >>> >> survive. >>> >>> > That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite decimal >>> > expansion in the analog process running a brain. >>> >>> It's not an assumption it's a OBSERVATION! Atoms in my brain have been >>> replaced many many times and yet my consciousness has continued. My only >>> ASSUMPTION is that you are like me and are also conscious. >>> >>> >> So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the Hydrogen >>> >> atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. >>> >>> > Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the >>> > decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his >>> > consciousness requires all decimals. >>> >>> Then the non computationalist must logically conclude that he is not >>> conscious. I thought solipsists were bad but at least they thought they >>> were conscious even if nobody else was, but your non computationalist >>> doesn't even think he is conscious. How a non conscious person is able to >>> think of anything I will leave as an exercise for the reader. >>> >>> >>> In which theory? >>> >>> >> In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then I >>> >> have observed X. >>> >>> >You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. >>> >>> You can observe that a philosophical assumption is dead wrong, such as the >>> philosophical assumption that an infinite string of digits in an analog >>> process is always needed to continue consciousness. >>> >>> >> Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I have >>> >> direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant >>> >> operations. >>> >>> > Yes, and that is good for you, but [...] >>> >>> But nothing! It's good enough for me to say yes to the doctor and it's good >>> enough for me to say yes to being frozen. And if your experience has been >>> similar to mine, if your consciousness has also continued despite your many >>> brain transplant operations, and if you are a true fan of logic, then you >>> must conclude it's good enough for you too. >>> > Personal experience is not available when doing science, >>> >>> True, and that is exactly why no consciousness theory ever devised is >>> scientific, and none every will be. But theories about how intelligence >>> works are most certainly scientific. >>> >>> >> It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to the >>> >> doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my >>> >> actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it >>> >> is the logical thing to do. >>> >>> > Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though. >>> >>> I'm not sure about the other guy either, he might be a zombie for all I >>> know, everybody except me might be, all I know for certain is I'm not. The >>> other guy is going to have to make his own decision, I can't help him, >>> nobody can. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> -- >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24ee370b-afd9-495e-b203-7c1118d5d717%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24ee370b-afd9-495e-b203-7c1118d5d717%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa1ee5a5-b923-ebeb-985b-a10c99bfc0a5%40verizon.net >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa1ee5a5-b923-ebeb-985b-a10c99bfc0a5%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e01a1781-42bd-4e19-8abc-0aa8d2a77409%40www.fastmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e01a1781-42bd-4e19-8abc-0aa8d2a77409%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B82DF4D7-6A01-4C7C-8EE4-71DA87845D19%40ulb.ac.be.
