On 27 Jun 2008, at 20:52, Tom Caylor wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 06 Jun 2008, at 23:35, Tom Caylor wrote: >> ... >>> One consistent configuration is that we are all immortal and that >>> part >>> of this immortal being is something that is outside of what we can >>> observe scientifically, including other persons' deaths. >> >> I am with you. But we can address scientifically the question "does >> self-introspecting machine refer correctly to something they can >> recognize as being something they cannot observe in a third person >> communicable (scientific, objective) way and yet still *know* that >> they can make the experience of it (for example through prays, >> reflexion, meditation, 1-self-introspection, starvation, accidents, >> drugs, or some other (hopefully) genuine 3-self-manipulations, ...)? >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > If the basis of everything is a Person, then this can make my above > statement make sense. Yes. As I said. Although perhaps from different motivation or reason. But as you know the platonist (who believes in A V ~A) universal (who believes in all true Sigma_1 sentences) Lobian (who knows that) machine has three "unique" Gods available for her. - The ONE, Plato's notion of Truth, which has to be searched for, and which can hardly be said to be a "person", at least a priori. For each machine such a "truth" is unnameable or non definable by the machine. - The INTELLIGIBLE, which splits into two (its terrestrial part, described respectively by G and its "divine" part described by G* , at the level of propositional logic). The terrestrial part is a sort of cold, objective, scientific, person. The divine part, is not so easily amenable to personhood. The universal machine and Plotinus agree that this is a difficult question! Aristotle is very ambiguous here, imo. - The SOUL, or universal self or universal mind. It is the knower, the unnameable self, (the one described by the logic S4Grz). This one is the closer to the notion of "God as a person". Perhaps even the *unique* person (yet an open problem here). But it is closer to the eastern notion of God, than to the western notion. it is the one you can recognize within. The one about which Alan Watts talked about in most of its book, including "Beyond Theology", "The Book", "Joyous Cosmology", for examples. He is the subject of first person immortality. They are dream technics which can help you to "remember", by, curiously enough perhaps, forgetting everything else. And there are plants which can accelerate the process (like Alan watts explained in "Joyous cosmology"). This leads to a Botanical form of entheogenic computationalism, where you say "yes to the doctor-plant!" Entheogen: means "reveals the God within". Actually, those who find Plotinus' way of talking a bit laborious or those who dislike his vocabulary, can read as well the trip reports of entheogenic experiences. This is especially clear with the trips made under Salvia Divinorum. See for example: http://www.sagewisdom.org/experiences.html Personally I have used mainly cafeine, (and sometimes other stuff) for helping to generate realistic-enough dream's state, when it does not prevent sleep altogether (!). See my chapter on Dreams in "Conscience et Mécanisme": "Le cerveau, le rêve et la réalité" if you want more on dreams as a mean to get "altered state of consciousness" for the purpose of illustrating the UD proof. Cafeine does not help for getting the amnesia, alas, but the amnesia can be prepared by some yoga or meditation exercises. A minimal understanding of the notion of dream is of course an important prerequisite to get the sixth step of the UDA. I don't recommand you to try Salvia Divinorum though, but if you do, verify it is legal in your country. It is illegal in Australia, Belgium, South Korea and in some US states. In case you do, follow the user's manual: The User's Guide in PDF format. I could come back on this one day. Of course the UDA pill is enough to get the things "scientifically", that is in the modest (based on sharable theory) and communicable (polite) manner. But some experience with consciousness could help a lot, I guess. Or (re)read directly Plato and Plotinus, or perhaps any "mystic". > Can we really have a scientific understanding > of a person? It depends what you mean by "scientific understanding". We never understand our theories, that is why we invent them. Scientific understanding is always reduction of set of beliefs into other set of beliefs. We understand only "trivially" the initial chosen beliefs. > This would by definition be one person having a > scientific understanding of their relationship to another person. I think you are confusing two levels. We can build a theory (and indeed all comp theories are necessary like that) where we can, after choosing some axiomatic for the notion of person, explain why we cannot understand scientifically (by third person verifiable facts) the notion of person (first person). Mechanism cannot put the "mystery" under the rug, it can only help us to contemplate it by eliminating the pseudo-mysterious marmelade, like Matter, Universe and other fairy tales. > > Actually, I think that this is a downfall of many relationships among > persons. It is what eliminative materialism leads to. At least this is in contradiction with Mechanism. (BTW I say Mechanism instead of Computationalism, just to recall we should not attach ourselves to words. By Mechanism, in our list context, I mean Digital Mechanism, or comp, like Judson Webb, or like in: Conscience et Mécanisme). "Mechanism" is also shorter, and I'm tired saying "comp" all the times. > The scientific understanding requires repeatability. I don't think so. Evolution and history are not repeatable, yet can be approached with the scientific (modest) attitude. Remember that science, in which I include theology, is mainly essentially "just" that: modesty and doubts. It *has* to be such if Mechanism is correct. That is what my work is all about. > The > goal of modern science (which is what we mean by science) is control, That is engineering, or more general form of constructive science. Real science, I mean knowledge driven inquiry, is more on the side of "let it go". If you try to control what is fundamental, you make it running away. With platonist third person science, the more you know, the bigger your own ignorance appears to be. Alan watts, again, describes very well all this in "The wisdom of insecurity". That is why I called sometimes the second incompleteness modal formula: "Dt -> ~BDt", the "Lao-Tseu, Watts, Valadier formula. It is a deep law of contrariety about fundamental things, like consistency, reality, control, security, etc. Valadier is a french Jesuit, who wrote impressive theologial book on that idea with respect to moral. > > which requires repeatability. Love (the mysterious force of good > relationship between persons) does not "work" within a scientific > framework. Hmmm... Perhaps in the current materialist and reductionist conception of "science". I invite you to read Plotinus' treatise 50 on Love. There is also an interesting thesis by Agnès Pigier (published by VRIN, Paris 2002): "Plotin, une métaphysique de l'amour, l'amour comme structure du monde intelligible". For Plotinus: Love (amour) comes from the meeting between "logos" and "indeterminacy". Please, remember that mechanism and materialism are metaphysically, epistemologically, or even "common-sensical" incompatible (cf UDA). OK? This seems not yet well known. Ask question on UDA if residual doubts persist on this. I know how this can be counter-intuitive in the naturalistic aristotelian framework, but yet the UD Argument does not leave much choice here. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
