On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a
universal person is natural in this context.
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the
human race that we are a universal person.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, Kim. But here we are close to a problem.
Why would I do that? If there is only one person, it is enough to
convince that person, or to see that such a person is born conceiving
that thing.
We are close to the theological trap. That is something which I have
better understood thanks to the salvia experience: illumination has a
life spoiling effect: like reading the end of the novel or thriller.
But then, of course that is the base of the whole Platonism: guessing
the reality behind the appearances. It is a contemplative things,
quite opposite to the self-extending habit of the singular first
person who believes being different, and who will tend to exploits all
the illusion.
Best of British, old son! The math alone maybe will convince another
mathematician, but without your guiding values, they will fail to
see the big picture we are sketching here, and instead will prefer
to slap you down for it!
Yes, they don't listen to the guy who listen already to the machine.
Things will take time, the humans does not recognize themselves in the
other human, so for PA and cuttlefishes, that will take some time.
The concept of the Universal Person needs to be hurled at humanity
from the rooftops and from the pulpit and the schoolroom. Beethoven
and Schiller tried in the 19th century. Jesus may have had something
or other to say about it but nobody much appears to have understood.
But I thought it was more or less obvious, that the arithmetical
hypostases provides a general theory of the person, which is,
relatively to "truth" a discursive reasoner (G and G*), a soul
(S4Grz), an observer (Z*, Z1* with the arithmetical emulation of
computationalism), etc.
A general theory of person defined implicitly a universal person,
which is a sort of universal baby, which lives in us and all
arithmetical incarnation of our recursively enumerable extensions.
People must understand by themselves.
The choice is between some amount of work in the math, or 4 minutes of
salvia. Although you can see on youtube that surviving a near crash
plane landing can help too, and more generally all so called
"mystical" experiences.
Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will
be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to
distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the
two are one."
If comp is finally the better view of theology then it needs to be
understood and acted upon.
What if it is ethically better, and then refute (too much white
rabbits, some mysterious primary matter does exist, Aristotle comes
back!
I am just an humble scientist, Kim. Yes, it seems to me that the
evidences are going to send us back to Plato, but we still don't know,
and probably will never know for sure. But it fits about everything
together in a simple theory, and it might helps to develop ethic
working for some millenaries.
For once we are looking at the ways in which persons are the same
rather than minutely examine the ways in which persons differ.
In theology, I only study what is common in all known theologies. But
people fear to lose their identity, they are unaware that the math
shows that the rabbit hole run very deep, and you can't loose your
identiy. By the Galois correspondence between syntax and semantics,
the more closer to the universal baby you are, the more possible
identities you can develop.
The Universal Person sees no point in war, murder, prohibition and
the like because it no longer merely applies to others;
Well, you mean the universal person which reminds itself to be the
universal person.
We know what do the universal person which forgets that, and believe
she is mister X, living in new-Y, in country Z, on the planet P, in
the solar system S in the galaxy M-W.
it applies to the self. You don't disallow others from doing what
you allow yourself - this is not libertarianism; this is self-
referentially correct behaviour of a consistent machine that knows
that it cannot prove with arrogant certainty its own consistency.
You even become compassionate toward the arrogant. (They usually don't
like that when they discover it).
Also, if the conception of that idea was more widespread; it might
limit the attempt of some people to annoy or kill other people,
given that they would be more likely able to suspect being, maybe,
those other people when put in a different general situation.
This then, is our only hope to enter into the experience of another
in the hope of understanding their otherness.
We can progress in that direction.
Paradoxically, you now ERASE the concept of "otherness" in your
outlook.
Which is close to solipism. But it is not solipsism: it is the exact
contrary: you recognize yourself in a vaster collection of entities.
This is more than simple empathy. This is the fundamental assumption
that you ARE in fact more than one single individual yourself but
that you only have your personal perspective.
Yes, a body is a way for God to look at Itself, and even to say
"hello" to itself, more or less explicitly. God plays hide-and-seek
with Itself, and sometimes, he/she finds itself.
Different people are now seen as the self from a different
perspective. This kind of happens already in the tribal/family view
of persons but tribes and families despite being able to empathise
and psychologically bond with their own - never seem to get over
their inability to empathise with different tribes and families.
Yes. It is normal also, the predator might become depressed in case it
develops too much empathy for its prey, you can't avoid some struggle
in life, although you can take harm reduction path, which are
transfinite in length, or take shortcut, like death and other illusions.
It helps from going from:
Hitler is the bad. We won against Hitler the bad. The good has won,
cheers and tra-la-la ...
To "I have made a big cruel mistake, I succeeded in stopping it,
how can I prevent to do it again", ...
This implies that humans may one day "learn the lessons of history"
but they never do. The reason is they study too much history. If you
read 1,000 books about the causes of WWI then you have not become an
expert at how to prevent war but rather an expert at how to cause war.
There is no school subject called "Human Universality". Why do
humans never study the ways in which all the tribes and clans and
families are the same as each other? What really is the difference
between a Jew and a Palestinian? A Chinese and a Japanese? A German
and an Austrian? A Christian and a Muslim. All of these designators
are fake, fake, fake. They all say "I want to be taken seriously on
tribal family grounds, not on grounds of human universality."
Without saying, I see you came back to the universal human person, but
we started from the machine, or non-machine, universal person, which
is already in most mammals and some invertebrates (I would bet), but
also in PA and ZF, despite their very miserable bodies and their lack
of senses and memories.
We are not human beings having from time to time glimpse of the
divine, we are divine beings having from time to time amnesia, due to
the finiteness of our conditions in the neighborhood of zero.
I might say too much, here, like betraying my own G*-G difference, but
it is just for being short and avoid jargon.
The question is: will obscurantism last for one more century, or one
more millennium. Machine's theology, a branch of pure mathematics,
will offer an etalon theology to compare the different current
theories, and that will be helpful.
But we are not even at the beginning of that history. We need more
spiritual and intellectual maturity, which are in bad shape after
having separated, too much, the intellect ([]p) and the soul ([]p & p)
for so long.
Atheists are correct on many things in their critics on religion, but
they throw the baby with the bath water.
Confessional religions are correct on many things, but they put too
much clothes on the baby making it suffocates.
We might eventually learn the (infinite) lessons of history, with or
without the human body. There is something very patient there.
Bruno
K
But that is not normative, only it might encourage the "spiritual
experiences" (be it with music, or whatever) which can help people
to recognize themselves on a vaster spectrum.
Bruno
--
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/d/optout.
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+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/d/optout.
