On 12 Sep 2012, at 11:57, Roger Clough wrote:
Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book "Moses
and Monotheism".
What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can
give a reason for something
doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true,
it would be suprising if
it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in
myth and folk tales.
I call this the "nothing but" fallacy. It is the bread and butter of
atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the
other atheist
critics made a good living based on this fallacy.
Simlilarly critics of the near death experience sometimes
explain away the near death experience as due to some
chemical that the brain exudes as death nears. To repeat,
if the near death esperience is real I would be surprised
if there WEREN'T a physical correlate.
No problem with any of this, unless you see here an argument against
comp, in which case I miss it.
Actually the main mistake of computationalist materialists is that
they reduce machines to just their body, and are doing the "nothing
but" fallacy.
But computationalism leads to the impossibility of weak materialism,
(the doctrine that primary matter exists, or that physicalism is
true), and "reduces" the mind-body problem to the search of an
explanation of the physical collective "hallucination" (first person
plural) from arithmetic/computer science (math).
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-11, 11:13:48
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers
On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness
and universes come from
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English
language I stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said "I
don't know".
Good. So we can do research.
> Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for
granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics,
Science can't explain everything but it beats something like
religion which can't explain anything.
Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or
machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
