Hi Bruno Marchal
Computers can only deal with what can be put into words, ie what can be
discussed and shared.
Consciousness or awareness is a wordless experience.
There is a huge gulf between what we experience and what we say we experience.
The former is wordless, personal, private and subjective, the latter is is in
language--shareable,
public (experience converted into words and thus communicated) and objective
version.
Thus there are the natural, unbreakable dualisms:
subjectiveobjective
experience spoken experience
wordless in words
private public
personal shared
faithbelief
etc.
Poets and novelists are good at converting experiences (what one can imagine)
into words.
Most of us are not that good. Computers can only think in words so cannot
experience anything.
They thus can thus not be conscious.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/12/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 11:42:35
Subject: Re: God has no name
On 10 Aug 2012, at 18:45, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Yeah but you can't define what a set is either, so...
The difference, but is there really one?, is that we the notion of set we can
agree on axioms and rules, so that we can discuss independently on the
metaphysical baggage, as you pointed out once. This can be done both formally,
in which case what we really do is an interview of a machine that we trust, or
informally, betting on the human willingness to reason.
For example, with sets, we can agree on the fact that they are identified by
their elements: the extensionality axiom:
For all x, y, z, if (x belongs to y - x belongs to z) then y = z.
We might prefer to work in an intensional set theory, where a set is defined by
their means of construct, and which is more relevant for the study of machines
and processes. But then we do lambda calculus or elementary topoi, or we work
in a variety of combinatory algebra.
But it will not be a disagreement, as we know there can be different notion of
set, and so different tools.
Likewise with consciousness. We might not been able to define it, but we can
agree on principle on it, notably that, assuming comp, it is invariant for a
set of computable transformations, like the lower level substitutions, and
reason from that. We can agree that if X is conscious, then X cannot justify
that through words.
Likewise with God. An informal definition could be that God is Reality, not
necessarily as we observe or experience it but as it is. We can only hope or
bet for such a thing. It might be a physical universe, or it might be a
mathematical universe, or an arithmetical universe, but with comp it is a
theological universe in the sense that comp separates clearly the
communicable and the non communicable part of that reality, if it exists. Life
and creativity develop on that frontier, as it develops also in between
equilibrium and non equilibrium, between computable and non computable, between
controllable and non controllable, etc.
And we can agree on axioms on GOD, that is REALITY or TRUTH. For example
that it is unique, that we can search on it, that it is not definable, so that
such words are really only meta pointer to it, etc.
The advantage of the definition of GOD by REALITY, or GOD = TRUTH, is that no
honest believers, in any confessions, should have a problem with it, and for
the atheists or the materialist GOD becomes a material physical universe a bit
like 0, 1, and 2 became number when 'number' meant first 'numerous'.
Mathematicians always does that trick, to extend the definition of a concept so
that we simplify the key general statements.
Is GOD a person? That might be an open problem for some, and an open problem
for others. Truth might be subtile: in NeoPlatonism GOD (the ONE) is not a
person, nor a creator, but from it emanates two other GODS (in the ancient
greek sense, Plotinus call them hypostases) the third one being a person (the
universal soul).
For all matter, we need only to agree on semi-axiomatic definition, the rest is
(a bit boring imo) vocabulary discussions. It hides the real conceptual
differences in the attempt to apprehend what is, or could be.
Bruno
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 07 Aug 2012, at 11:53, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVBEN,
HALLOWED BE THY NAME.
Luther said that to meditate of the sacredness of God
according to this phrase is the oldest prayer.
In old testament times, God's name was considered too sacred to speak
by the Jews. The King James Bible uses YHWH, the Jews never say God as far as
I
know, they sometimes write it as G*d.
We have relaxed these constrictions in the protestant tradition,
use Jehovah and all sorts of other sacfed names.
It is the problem with the notions of God, Whole, Truth, consciousness, etc. we
