This is a fantastic diologue.let our holy jeasus answer some questions. My personal philosophy is every sciencetific views are having loop holes as we all are ego centered and selfish.The world and all living beings are not creations of anybody but are results of cause and effect law when the cause disapear effect too goes off.---- I am K.M.G.W Abeyratne from Sri Lanka
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I would certainly sign up for the brain-machine interface and a bit > of splicing with a prawn to see in 16 colours (preferably with an > alien who sees the dark). One possibility is that we don't know how > to use our brains much - capacity is massive potentially. I rather > like the idea that biological intelligence is short-lived and other > civilisations have passed through it. Stuff like Skydrive (which > sadly are attempts to rent software to us at high prices) could be > conceived as a thought-cloud in which individuality as we think of it > becomes as redundant as the PC once netware works. We may see a > network in which all skills are embodied and means of production > available to all. In some parts of science we are thinking the > machines are up to a lot we don't understand already. > More in my own field - we are finding brain changes associated with > social isolation. In mice these changes leave the mice uninterested > in new mice (the opposite of normal). The brain is much more plastic > than most imagine and humanity is changing. On the familiarity thing > James, E = mc2 is actually as slightly larger equation including p > (momentum) and looks like the right-angled triangle introduced to us > in Pythagoras' theorem. I take Deutsch as warning us against Bacon's > Idol of the Theatre. > > On 20 Nov, 04:56, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > Whew Neil, I lack the time to grasp it well, though my instincts tell me > > to re-skim Pierce and modal logics to find out why it sounds so > > familiar. In my limited view S4 really bites us in the cognitive bias > > (meh, posterior) and Deutsche lays that out well on counterfactuals IMO. > > Hope I get more time soon to compare his robot with the 3,2,1 > > configuration in Trikonic geometry (while fresh in memory). > > > > Again, it points me toward a much less dramatic revolution for our > > equation (depending on which emotions one prefers), transhumanism one > > way or another (good and or bad), a very exciting time in the > > anthropocene is it not? :p > > > > Hope all is well everyone! > > Best Regards > > > > On 11/16/2012 11:14 AM, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439 > > > Should produce David Deutsch's paper free. > > > > > This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking > > > boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to > > > put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be > > > restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to > > > posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts > > > to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion). > > > > > He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's > > > claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner. > > > > > The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with > > > ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a > > > believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has > > > always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for > > > not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly > > > scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't > > > work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its > > > decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at > > > CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved. > > > > > Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of > > > them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we > > > might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such. > > > The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he > > > wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma. > > > > > I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible > > > story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber > > > has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that > > > through history and rebellion against debt.. > > > > > Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives) > > > and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a > > > turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another > > > turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down). > > -- > > > > --
