Bruno,
What you haven't really addressed in this post is the PR implications if you use the
word "theology" prominently in your writing. You will alienate many scientists and
academic philosophers even though this may be due to prejudice or misunderstanding,
and you will alienate what extra audience may be attracted by that word when they
realise that you are talking about machine consciousness and... maths and stuff. I
know that the temptation for an intellectual (if you don't mind the term) is to let the
ideas stand unadorned and be judged purely on their merit, but sometimes even in
academia the better marketed ideas can push other, perhaps more worthy ones aside.
Stathis Papaioannou
----------------------------------------
> From: marchal.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: The word" theology" again (was Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:46:43 +0100
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> Our present discussion with Tom and others is particularly important
> for me. I am concentrating myself on the last decisions before writing
> "the english version of my thesis", probably in the form of one paper +
> one book (the difference is that the book should be an, as
> self-contained as possible, version of the paper. It is difficult
> because the intended audience is fuzzy: physicists have the right
> motivations (figure out what is reality), logicians and computer
> scientists have the right tools (diagonalizations), neoplatonist
> theologians have the right attitude, basic theory and questions, etc.
>
> I still don't know if you have understand the full UDA reasoning, or at
> least the seven first steps, nor do I know if this would help
> concerning the "vocabulary" problem. I do think you have not yet
> understand the AUDA, as your recurrent remark on Gettier
> illustrates----we should perhaps harness this point in a deeper way at
> some point.
> A contingent problem is that physicists, who are the best placed to
> understand my work, has been cooled down by the fact that someone as
> brilliant in math as Penrose has been able to be so wrong on Godel's
> theorem, and for many people the term "Godel" means "risky"!
>
> Now, since I have defended my thesis, I have done two "major"
> discoveries (as people following the list can guess):
> 1) The interview of the lobian machine directly offers a purely
> arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus's theory (of mind&matter).
> 2) The comp standard model of particles can be derived from some
> permutations group related to universal diophantine polynomial. This
> has forced me to dig far deeper in number theory, and leads, here too
> alas, toward very complex mathematical questions.
>
> In my mind, the "1)" really helps, as far as we are open to
> neoplatonism. If not, it obviously favorizes rejection. The "2)" does
> not help at all and I don't know really what to do with that.
>
>
> Le 05-déc.-06, à 20:05, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>
> > I understand that you use "God" to refer to whatever is fundamental.
>
>
> That is the idea, but actually I never use the term "God", except for
> going quick in some answer to post which use the term. The "God" I
> refer to is closer to Plotinus' ONE or to the Chinese TAO, the main
> axiom is that it is the biggest unconceivable reality with the property
> that you cannot give a name to it, or if you do, you get a
> multiplication of approximations which can hide the very idea (but
> which can be rich and creative though when distinguished from It).
> The arithmetical interpretation of the ONE for the "theology" of a
> lobian machine PA is arithmetical truth. By Tarski theorem it is
> unameable by PA, for example.
>
>
>
>
> > And that may well be consistent with the way Plato used it.
>
>
> Hard question of course, but a case can be made that it would have been
> accepted by the most pythagoreans among the neoplatonist.
>
>
>
>
> > But even among Plato's contemporary's it was probably heard as
> > referring to the Olympians. And now, a couple of millenia later,
> > "theos", "theism", and "theology" have come to refer to a single
> > personal God.
>
>
> The neoplatonist have introduced it, but Plotinus ascribes it to the
> Parmenides of Plato. The Timaeus and other text by Plato and even
> Aristotle are going in that direction. Note that the neoplatonist are
> rationalist, and their use of words is very near the modern axiomatic
> like the one used in math. In some late neoplatonist works "Gods" can
> be translated by the concept of concept, property, or even set. But
> Plotinus endows monotheism/monism, as I think comp, by its unameable
> platonism, does too.
>
>
>
> > Since the time of Plato other terms have been introduced to
> > distinguish other "fundamentals", deism, pantheism, naturalism.
>
>
> Deism, pantheism, naturalism are all "theological" position. This is
> perhaps why I need the term "theology", in an admittedly larger sense
> than the current sense. The UD reasoning shows that the belief in
> naturalism is a theological position. It need faith in something called
> "Nature", etc. I really consider scientific theology as the scientific
> approach to what science cannot prove, but still infer correctly. Of
> course I would less dare to say this without knowing about the [] and
> []* distinction in the arithmetical hypostases (G*/G, Z1*/Z1, X1*/X1,
> etc.)
>
>
>
> >
> >> It is an entirely contingent and sad fact that theology has been more
> >> or
> >> less stolen by the temporal authoritative power of the Roman, and that
> >> still today many people forget that theology has been and can still
> >> be a
> >> science, ie something than can be driven by the modesty attitude.
> >
> > Would a study of the character of leprechauns be science if were
> > driven by a modesty attitude?
>
>
> Yes. Even to conclude perhaps that there is no evidence known for
> affirming that there are leprechauns today. A good example is the work
> of Suzanne Balckmore on parapsychology (In search of the light) where
> she demolishes one century of parapsychological evidence in London. In
> London, her colleagues were as serious as Blackmore by letting her
> defend her thesis, and by refining their approach. The scientific
> attitude has nothing to do with the chosen subject. A magician can be
> more scientific than a astrophysician. We must never judge a work from
> its domain.
>
>
>
> > The problem I have with your use of "theology" is that anyone hears
> > it, without having heard your explanation, will almost certainly
> > misunderstand it.
>
>
> OK, but the same problem occur with the enunciation of the results.
> With or without the use of the term "theology" I put in doubt about
> 1500 years of "naive materialism" (no more so than QM though). It
> clarifies to admit this explicitly. My diplomatic versions of my thesis
> of the year 1970, and 1980 did not help, apparently.
>
>
>
> > You are of course free to use whatever word to mean whatever you want
> > - but that does not constrain me from using it in it's currently
> > accepted sense.
>
> At least in this list we have to be sure we agree on the meaning of the
> terms, at least with respect to a thread!
> (Of course here we are "meta-discussing" the use of a word).
>
>
>
> > And in that sense I stand by my above statement. Can you cite a
> > current theologian who does not hold that God (whatever His nature)
> > provides the basis of all meaning?
>
> Exactly like "Nature" for a naturalist provides the basis of all
> meaning for him/her. Exactly like "Prime Matter" provides all meaning
> for a materialist. Exactly like "personal God" provides all meaning for
> Tom.
> You just give a good (in the type very large) definition of God. It is
> what provides the basis of all meaning. OK.
> Then the ONE of plotinus, and arithmetical truth for PA, does provides
> the meaning indeed, for Plotinus, and for PA respectively.
>
>
> > I am an atheist - I don't believe the "theos" of Chrisitianity (or
> > Islam, or Judaism) exists. Failing to believe in an entity whose
> > defining characteristics are inconsistent with common observation is
> > hardly dogmatic.
>
>
> Of course. And if by God you mean a white male sitting on a cloud, then
> I am as atheist as you. Nor do I believe that the bread is literaly the
> Christ chair. I don't believe either in Santa Klaus.
> Now, in Europa, I have never met a catholic really believing that God
> was literally bread or even literally male, etc. It is just traditional
> legends used to make up a community. Most catholic are, during the
> week, even more atheist than self-called atheist. The sunday they
> follow family traditions.
> But what makes me nervous with both catholic and atheist is when they
> assert that the existence of Nature (what is that? I am not talking
> about nature, but Nature) is a scientific fact. This is scientism, fake
> science, fake theology, fake certainty.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Now all tradition have had good theologians at all time, even if
> >> sometimes some are obliged to talk in coded way just for not finishing
> >> on the fire.
> >> To refuse the use of the original word "theology" is just a way to
> >> defend (purposefully or not) 1500 years of institutionalized
> >> charlatanry.
> >
> > No, it is a way to communicate clearly in current standard English.
> > To use it in a sense that has not been common for 1500yrs is talking
> > in a coded way...
>
>
> Expert always talk in some coded way. Many current books, if only all
> those on Plotinus or neoplatonism, or on eastern religions use the term
> theology in the larger sense, and as I told you, even catholic does
> that. My favorite books on Proclus (another famous neoplatonist after
> plotinus) are book by catholics (Jean Trouillard, ...). I like very
> much the jesuit Paul Valadier. It is a fact that as bad the catholic
> have been in the past, they have been able to convey (well mainly
> thanks to the jewish and arabic neoplatonists who remind them the
> point) the neoplatonic theories (a bit transformed). And the math
> associated with it!
>
>
> > but I don't know to what purpose since the Enlightenment has
> > eliminated the burning of heretics, at least in Belgium.
>
>
> (no comment)
> Enlightenment was 1/2 Enlightenment. The *practice* of eliminative
> materialism eliminates persons (cf Europa).
>
>
>
> > I have no doubt you are correct about Plato's use of the word. But
> > words mean what people think they mean.
>
>
> In mundane conversation only. In scientific discussion words should
> have no importance at all, except at the start by pointing on something
> sufficiently precise to be wrong so that the beginners can begin to
> correct its interpretations and develop his/her doubting abilities, and
> multiply the theories and their possible interpretations.
>
> I have already asked for another word for "theology" in the list, but
> none of the propositions made did make sense as those who did propose
> them generally have agree. Brent if you have an idea ? I am aware that
> on a subject as hot as the fundamental questions we should be careful
> with the wording, but imo it is even more important to be careful on
> clarity. I'm not sure, and I'm a bit stuck on that point for the
> moment.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Dec 07 2006 - 04:59:12 PST