On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 27 Oct 2013, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > there is great value in a way to access experience which pretends that it >> is not pretending. This is quanta and arithmetic truth. >> > > I would say that is different. It is just simple sharable belief, like x + > 0 = x, etc. We just put some principles on the table so that we can use it > without "philosophy" to proceed. > Of course the intuition we have that x + 0 = x (for all number x) is > related to our sense and qualia, but that does not make them depending on > qualia, we don't have to rely on qualia and complex psychology to proceed > from x + 0 = x. > Be careful, as arithmetic truth is far (an euphemism) bigger that the > computable, and if comp is true, it manages the quanta and the qualia > (admitting some standard definition in philosophy/theology). > > > > > It has a job to do, so that the rest of the concrete universe of >> experience can continue dreaming in peace. In a sense, that makes is >> 'conscious' as far as being the voice of vigilance and the motor of >> realism. It is locally closer to "God" as far as allowing us access to >> control over our bodies and the outside world (except where that control >> conflicts with the deeper streams of large dreams with a lot of momentum, >> aka destiny, luck). >> >> I put the scare quotes around 'conscious' though, because the character >> of that consciousness would be so perpendicular to experience that any >> person or animal would have that it is closer to anti-consciousness than >> something we would recognize. It would be like taking our experience of >> 'today' and our experience of 'forever' and switching them, so that we >> would come to the world of experienced moments from the loong way around. >> > > This *looks* like a description of the salvia experience, but term like > "anti-consciousness" is a bit pejorative for that, although it has > anti-life aspect, pointing on the fact that theology is not much "pro-life". > I beg to differ. In my studies it is mute on this question, given such a particularized notion of "life", which itself even changes as we accumulate histories etc. So I doubt this notion or that it can be clearly represented as unmoving ideal content of universal mind or something more primary. It's too complex for that and takes multiplicity too literally to equal separation/differentiation absolutely. > Once you have the cognitive ability to imagine you might be a machine, you > have the cognitive abilities to understand that somehow, you don't really > need the machine. Comp makes transhumanism possible, but i the deep, it > suggests it might also be vain, like just prolonging the Samsara, and > procrastinating the Nirvana. > > That would make children's joy "vain". I don't buy that, nor the notion that Samsara is separate from Nirvana as in some Buddhism, because such statement is too inconsistent with negative theology principle. Chiefly, because there are multitudes of ways to negate universality/self-reference intelligence by entering trance, sexual practice, music, play, collaboration and playing with others, voyages, adventures, building and fixing things, improvisation, re-discovery/revelation of appearances that mirror the ideals more precisely, that all negate the isolated self-reference dream; or at least reduce it to a less exaggerated and distorted size, if one is willing to lose enough control/security and do high enough dosage. The studies of these activities should be brought back into serious repertoire of science, as without their rigorous practice and our betterment in them, intelligence will tend towards self-destruction. The politics or AI that we write, will be depressed, the science we search will lead us further astray etc. I know this kind of statement of "trapped in Samsara", "outside divine mind immortal nirvana" is found in a lot of scripture and in the self-reference constraints of universal machine, but to me it is priests taking too seriously their interpretation, or their own smoke/emanations in Plotinus terms. Not funny enough to be true, like some grumpy catholic hymn of "you don't deserve divine stuff"... ;-) Like they think they can tell the future or equate all joy with vanity of self-referential motion. Too quick for me; bad + sad for children and so called "adults". Smoke is not fire. PGC > > > It is the Mona Lisa from behind the paint, bleeding through in reverse >> from within the spectacularly-invisible depths of the canvas and frame. I >> might be able to work with that more if I had help on learning the math. I >> still do not think that the view from inside the canvas will ever >> experience the Mona Lisa, but who knows, maybe she tastes better on the >> inside than she looks on the outside? >> > > :) > > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> > > > > -- > 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> > . > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > . > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > . > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
