From Atheism to Islam
Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com wrote: > >> There is no "maybe" about it, when it comes to the meaning of words >> the majority is ALWAYS right, > > > > If you are right, then physicists are wrong on many word, as a i saw in > a BBC broadcasting where people were interviewed on many elementary notion > in physics, and have shown to have a pregalilean physics. What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs? Physical ideas are objectively true or false, but the definition of words is subjective. Words mean whatever the most people say they mean, and the entire point of words is communication, so if you have your own private meaning of a word known by nobody but you then it is utterly useless. > Then you confuse the greek-indian notion of God, Confuse my ass! This has NOTHING to do with God, this has to do with the meaning of words and nothing more . Words have no intrinsic meaning, the only meaning word have is the meaning people decide to give them. and those meanings always change with time. In Shakespeare's day if you were "egregious" then you were distinguished, if you were "nice" then you were silly and if you were "silly" then you were blessed. It would be silly (and I don't mean blessed) to say we're right and Shakespeare was wrong, we were both right in our day because people have changed they mind about what words mean and the majority is ALWAYS right. > Yet, christians, like muslims and jews have kept alive their platonic > roots/tradition, and in that sense, > > can be said less wrong than some materialist theory. Why some atheists > are so inclined to forget all about a millenium of rational theology is > weird, This has NOTHING to do with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Plato, rationalists, materialists, theology or atheists; this has to do with vocabulary and the fact that words mean what the majority of people say they mean. And what the majority of people say a word means always changes; as of 2017 the English word "G-O-D" means a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the universe. T hat point is not even worth of debate, today that's just what people mean by that word, except of course for people who for whatever the reason are afraid to use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, so for them the English word "G-O-D" means a fuzzy grey blob that is non-intelligent and non-conscious and not a person, and that's just silly. And I don't mean blessed. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: From Atheism to Islam
On 26 Feb 2017, at 03:18, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The difference is that the billions of theists on the round thing we walk on still use "God" to be the Abrahamic superbeing. > Really? Interesting. Maybe they are right or close to right. There is no "maybe" about it, when it comes to the meaning of words the majority is ALWAYS right, a word know only to you would be utterly useless. If most people decide that the word "circle" means a 3 sided polygon of 180 degrees then geometers are just going to have to change their vocabulary. Language always changes, that's why its hard to understand Shakespeare's plays, and even harder to understand Beowulf. John K Clark I can cut your comment, nor write it except here. If you are right, then physicists are wrong on many word, as a i saw in a BBC broadcasting where people were interviewed on many elementary notion in physics, and have shown to have a pregalilean physics. Then you confuse the greek-indian notion of God, the concept, and the "precise", but fairy-tale like particular *theory*, which might be verified, when the terms are used in large sense, and is usually considered as refuted when taken in literal fairy tale sense. Yet, christians, like muslims and jews have kept alive their platonic roots/tradition, and in that sense, can be said less wrong than some materialist theory. It is not easy, a soufi meeting has been recently victim of an EI bombing (70 victims). Why some atheists are so inclined to forget all about a millenium of rational theology is weird, given that this rational theology has been the first victim of the institutionalisation of the religion, and they have been banished from our academies by the use of violence and terror due to the stealing of the religious by the politics. You seems, with all respect, to look, quoting Einstein on the atheists, like the slave(s) who are still feeling the weight of your (their) chain which you (they) have thrown off after hard struggle. Bruno On 23 Feb 2017, at 21:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/23/2017 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Feb 2017, at 01:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 2/21/2017 11:03 AM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: do you think we are that sure how to identify intelligence and consciousness? Intelligence (inter-lego) I identify from the linguistic origin (Latin) as READING BETWEEN THE (properly) EXPRESSED FEATURES - to detect additional sense (maybe hidden so far). Are you going to Bruno on me and adopt some meaning that a thousand years out of date. I can't let you say this Brent. I use always the most common terms used by everybody, except the dogmatic minority. I have hundreds of book on theology, written mostly by christians and muslims, on neoplatonism, and they all use the term "theology" and "god" in the greek sense. They don't even mention that they use the greek sense as it is compeletely natural in a non-dogmatic context. The restricted sense is the popular, non scientific sense used by believers in special tradition. It is rather incredible, but constant, that the strong-atheists insist so much on the dogmatic (and pseudo-religious) definitions. In science, all theories rename all the terms. We change the theories, not the terms, which would lead to confusion and would hide the progress. You could as well say that Earth does not exist, because it has meant for many centuries: a flat thing on which we walk. The difference is that the billions of theists on the round thing we walk on still use "God" to be the Abrahamic superbeing. Really? Interesting. Maybe they are right or close to right. Obviously, as scientist, we have to do the math, in our favorite theory to see if that matches, and of course, I have already point to some discrepancies with the "God" of the universal machine, much close to proclus theology (sic) or Plotinus, Moderatus of Gades. Nevertheless, note that each main branches of the Abrahamic belief has kept some sub-branches which basically match that theology (of the universal classical machine). In theology, only the con men could pretend that science has decided between Plato/Parmenides/Pythagoras and Aristotle. Mocking theology or philosophy of mind makes people confusing physics and metaphysics/ theology. Better not lost the spirit of rigor in all domain. The assumption of a primary physical universe is cool, but might need to be tested with the (immaterialist) "theology" of the universal number (G, G* and the other "hypostases"). Bruno Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-
Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam
Hi Telmo!
On 25 Feb 2017, at 16:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno!
Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We
know
nothing about consciousness.
Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is:
consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge
requires some
conscious person)?
I agree, but I feel it begs the question: knowledge is an awareness of
something, it implies consciousness by definition.
it does not beg the question no more than the first order definition
of the natural numbers beg the question, in the sense that you agree
(or not) with the modal axioms for knowledgeable:
[]p -> p
[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
adding
[]p -> [][]p (for those having rich introspective knowledge)
Then, we can ask ourself what, in machine terms, or in machine+reality
terms, would obey that theory. In this case, as you know, the
Theaetetus idea works on Gödel's beweisbar predicate: the true
opinion, or beweisbar and true [1]p = []p & p (makes [1] obeying the
S4 logic above).
By Tarski, we cannot define "true" in the language of the machine, but
we can model the knowledge by defining it on each (sigma_1
arithmetical) p by beweisbar('p') & p. That provides a different
logic, thanks to incompleteness, and indeed the arithmetically
complete one (à-la Solovay) is axiomatized by an extension of S4: S4+
Grz (the formula []([](p->[]p) -> p) -> p from Grzegorczyk, a polish
logician). (+ p -> []p to model the sigma_1 leaves of the universal
dovetailer).
What is really nice here, is that the machine cannot name its first
person self, and its metalogic reminds both Brouwer creative subject,
but also the "inner god" of many eastern and western mystics. The soul
of a machine is NOT a machine, nor anything third person describable,
and It knows it.
Now, I could argue that consciousness per se is better modeled by
[1]<1>p, but that is for the details (after all we do have distinct
word for consciousness and knowledge, and a priori, consciousness
might be delusional, where apparently, with the Theaetetic definition,
it cannot be).
What is the situation with an artificial neural network?
Well, it will be harder for us to see its coded self, but it is Turing
universal, and so can have one built by nature emulating Kleene's
second recursion theorem through the neural net. The DNA strands did
something like this already before (arguably).
Does it know
something, or is it akin to a stone being kicked down a hill?
The neural net knows nothing, but if the neural net embodies the right
"codes" it might support a inner soul ([]p & p), like apparently our
brains (which supports many souls which integrated well into the 1-I
(hopefully, when sober).
I think that the left brain might be specialized in the 3p
"analytical" believer []p (& <>t), and the right brain might be
specialize with the intuitive, non definable "[]p & p (& <>t)".
Or is
the stone being kicked down a hill akin to our brains and requiring
consciousness already?
All relatively instanciated consciousness requires the universal
consciousness of the non Löbian machine, I think, and get reflexive
when Löbian, and inherit the Löbian theology, including its physics,
making it testable (and its quantum logic seems to fit until now).
Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which
is that
(knowable x) implies x
(knowable (x implies y)) implies ((knowable x) implies (knowable y))
(knowable x) implies (knowable (knowable x))
With the inference rules:
If I prove x I can deduce (knowable x)
+ modus ponens
I'm ok with this.
OK.
If you are OK with this, it is not difficult to explain why
evolution, or
anything actually, cannot NOT bring consciousness, and a first person
knower, in the picture.
Here I don't follow. Aren't you making the hidden assumption:
(knowable x) => (known x) ?
Only (knowable x) => (know x) on some leaves of the universal
dovetailer.
Keep in mind that I live and work in Plato heaven, or Cantor paradise.
I don't mind to wait any finite number of seconds. And the gal here is
to figure out what is real, and what is "persistent illusion(s)", like
Einstein qualified time.
Notice that I do tend to think what you say, that "anything actually,
cannot NOT bring consciousness" -- but I see this as part of my
"personal religion". I'm just not convinced that the above proves it.
It does not prove it, but follows from the mechanist assumption. Of
course the theology of the (Löbian) machine does not need the
mechanist assumption, except when we do the sigma_1 restriction, and
get G1 and G1* and its intensional variants.
That is a consequence of incompleteness which make the machine
aware of the
difference between []p and []p & p. The machine can know that []p
obeys to
the modal logic G and that ([]p & p), the definition of "knowable" by
