> On 26 Jun 2019, at 20:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/26/2019 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:27, Philip Thrift <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you tell a progressive Christian (who may be religious in the sense >>> that they have a belief in God) and is also a progressive Democrat and a >>> member of ISIS (who is also religious in the sense that they have a belief >>> in God). Do all theists (progressive Christian and ISIS member) look the >>> same in the eyes of the "scientific atheist"? >>> >>> So scientists have turned science into a religion, but scientists (mostly) >>> aren't as bad as ISIS members. >> >> >> Scientific atheism has to be agnostic (atheism). An agnostic atheist will be >> able to distinguish between a the good guys (the agnostic, the one who does >> not claim truth, who are open to dialog, compromise, and which search the >> sharable truth and build from that) and the non agnostic, be them atheists >> christians, whatever, who are the con artist, claiming to be clever, to know >> better, and usually using bombs or insults. >> >> And by agnostic I mean agnostic relatively to *any* notion of gods, be it >> an impersonal Tao, or Matter, or a Person of this or other kinds. >> >> The scientist is the guy able to doubt, to say “I don’t know” or “I am nots >> sure”. >> >> Science does not exist as a thing per se, and it asserts nothing in any >> definitive way, except perhaps on elementary arithmetic but that is not my >> point here. What does exist is a scientific *attitude*, which is a mixing of >> curiosity, honesty and modesty. A scientist only provides >> theories, and diverse means of verifiability. Now, the human science are >> humans, and some scientist will not act as scientist, due to perish or >> publish human and social rules, and things like that. >> >> Pppper’s refutability criteria is rather good, even if refuted strictly >> speaking by Case and Ngo-Manguelle S.(*). Some refutable theories can be >> interesting and fertile in discovering other testable theories. >> >> Then wth mechanism, it seems that the scientific attitude is the same as the >> religious attitude, > > "Religion allows people by the billions to believe things only lunatics could > believe on their own." > --- Sam Harris
True. But why? Because the filed of theology has been abandoned by the agnostic to those who claim to know the truth; which are thus the charlatan. > > "To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind > accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy > can he be in after-years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a > superstition quite as quickly as for a living truh - often more so, since a > superstition is so intangible you cannot get at it to refute it, but truth is > a point of view, and so is changeable." > --- Hypatia 370 - 415 CE Excellent. And notice that Hypatia was a teacher of Plotinus Neoplatonic Theology in Alexandra. She taught also Astronomy and Mathematics where she contributed. She was a Platonist “believer", which just meant she was aware of the fundamental question, and believed in ideas and mathematics to tackle them. The superstitions she alluded to were the fairy tales of the growing radicals among the “political” christians, it was not christianism per se that she fight against, but literalism in theology, or any alleged illumination of some others. Like Averroes later for the muslims: the ennemi was literalism and the exploitation of fear, wishful thinking, all the demagogies so easy to manage when the people are not educated enough (on purpose sometime). > > “No one in their right mind would let a first-century dentist fill their > children’s teeth. Why, then, do we allow first-century theologians to fill > our children’s minds?” > --- Michael Dowd Which one? If it is Moderatus of Gades (first century) that is excellent food for the mind, perhaps a bit too much advanced for little kids though. Some atheists are themselves sort of literalist by deciding that all of theology is dishonest, but that means they have no idea what it is all about. It means they take the theology of Aristotle for granted, and usually it will mean that they cannot doubt about the existence of the physical PRIMARY universe. And that means they cannot have the scientific attitude in that domain. > > Religion has the exact same job assignment as science, to make sense of the > world, Only religion can do that. When science claims to do that: it is scientism. It is pseudo-science. > that's why science and religion can never co exist peacefully. Why. The theology of the machine provides a counter-exempla for this: the religion of the Machine M extends the science of the Machine M. The machine M can see (prove) this to be the case for all correct machine, but she is aware she cannot use this with certainty because she is aware she cannot know she is correct, nor even define what it means. Religion extends science and never contradict it. Religion is the only goal, and science is the only mean, beyond the personal experience which cannot be invoked in any way in this domain, except by “report of experience”. > Science changes its stories based on better evidence, religion writes its > stories on stone tablets. > --- Bob Zannelli But then why atheist are so nervous when we change the definition and theories of god, like we have done all the time with earth. The agnostic atheist have no problem with this, but like some muslims, they are unable to see the radicals among them, which indeed keep telling that theology is non sense, and when I was young they say so on many words, like consciousness, mind, etc. Strong Atheism does not make sense, because it requires a definition of God, and for most theologies, God is meta-defined by the big One which has no name, no description, a bit like the collection of all sets, or the Number of the Numbers (Plotinus), etc. That is also why the existence of the universal machine is so extraordinary, because it looks like a sort of god, which has *many* names. The problem, in ANY field is not the ideas, it is the dogma. I share the feelings off all those quotes, Brent. But they are dead wrong on the target, and they keep the power for the charlatans. We have the same problem with capitalism. By criticising the whole system, they become de facto accomplice of those who pervert the system. It is like judging the blood cells to be responsible for the cancer, given that they feed the cancerous cells. Nice quote, but wrong target. Bruno > > > Brent > >> related to the fact that the more you know, the more you know how much >> ignorant you are. Tasting the truth enlarge the doubt spectrum. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> (*) CASE J. & NGO-MANGUELLE S., 1979, Refinements of inductive inference by >> Popperian machines. Tech. Rep., Dept. of Computer Science, State Univ. of >> New-York, Buffalo. >> >> >> >> >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> So Feyerabend can't tell ISIS from NASA or the National Academy of Science >>> from the Papacy. >>> >>> 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/2b8c0ed5-be48-451c-b847-7ca0bd073144%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b8c0ed5-be48-451c-b847-7ca0bd073144%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/FA80C843-5EC7-4D85-B703-D2F6D3990D4F%40ulb.ac.be >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FA80C843-5EC7-4D85-B703-D2F6D3990D4F%40ulb.ac.be?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/b670f00a-bdf0-5e3e-753b-c3c732788259%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b670f00a-bdf0-5e3e-753b-c3c732788259%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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1F5EC7F6-8101-4132-829A-B5F6CB2D9572%40ulb.ac.be.
