Atheist? Be nice!

[TheGoodLocust]

Originally Posted by salvialover24

The problem is that natural language confuse modal negations like "I don't believe in" and "I believe in the negation of "

Maybe so, but that seems more like a problem to do with the language itself (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).

Christians are of the type (BELIEF in existence of GOD). Atheists---radical atheist if you want---, are of the type (BELIEF in NEGATION of existence of GOD). Agnostics are those who, for any reason, lack belief in both the existence of GOD and in its non existence. They could be either indifferent or, on the contrary, so much interested that they glean evidences on both sides so that they develop their doubts.

I tend to be a very binary sort of person and think that any attempt at fuzzy logic is merely a demonstration of imprecise questioning. To simplify, if I need to, I could be atheist, theist or agnostic depending on the specific question asked, but choose the atheist label (despite my belief that self-identification necessarily leads to self-limitation) because that is the most effective way to correctly communicate my beliefs to most people.

Can I "simplify" by being even more verbose and pedantic?

I'm sorry.

As a (ideal) scientist, a scientist knows nothing. Really. Theories, be them soft or hard wired, are just initial beliefs emerging from observation, introspection, dialog, reflexion, etc.

True, but a scientists always works upon the best available information and theories - nobody can or should be a complete blank slate.

Radical atheists and any fanatics are boring because they talk like if they knew

Everyone talks like that to some extent. You can't go around life assuming everything may or may not be "real" - you just have to go by what your senses tell you.

[salvialover24]

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

Maybe so, but that seems more like a problem to do with the language itself (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).



I tend to be a very binary sort of person and think that any attempt at fuzzy logic is merely a demonstration of imprecise questioning. To simplify, if I need to, I could be atheist, theist or agnostic depending on the specific question asked, but choose the atheist label (despite my belief that self-identification necessarily leads to self-limitation) because that is the most effective way to correctly communicate my beliefs to most people.

Modal logic is classical (binary). It is not fuzzy logic. But then you illustrate that the notion of atheism or your notion of atheism is fuzzy or context (question) dependent.

I can understand that. After all I tend to disbelieve in most Aristotelian gods, like the first motor, or matter. In that sense I am super-atheist.

Yet, I believe in feelings, conscience, person, people, game, number and in a lot of constructive and non constructive mathematical being.
I tend to believe in electrons, apples and salviae, divinorum or else, but I don't think it is made of primitively material things. That is just a sort of approximation, which has some local purpose but could be truly illusory.

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

Can I "simplify" by being even more verbose and pedantic?

I'm sorry.



True, but a scientists always works upon the best available information and theories - nobody can or should be a complete blank slate.

But a scientist is free to imagine any way to figure out the "reality" in which he is interested. The problem is when he claims having find solutions to problems, when most of them are just not yet formulated. Today many scientists still believe there is a sort of clear frontier between exact science ("serious") and human philosophy ("crap"), omitting the existence of hypothesis, i.e. theories on both sides.
And alas, technical philosophy is often wrongly used to evacuate the problems than to formulate them. In those field it is still taboo to acknowledge our ignorance.

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

Everyone talks like that to some extent.

A lot, but not all. Any one seriously interested in the mind/body problem, or in the consciousness/reality problem can eventually understand it is not an easy matter. So it is preferable to not talk like if we knew, but to talk like if we have this or that belief, or assumptions.

We don't know if God (or a physical universe) exists, so let us choose or not a theory with or without a God (or a physical universe, whatever), making it clear it is a belief, a theory, something we doubt but find useful for solving the problem in which we are interested.

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

You can't go around life assuming everything may or may not be "real" - you just have to go by what your senses tell you.

Absolutely. But this I do in dreams, and in salvialand too. I trust my senses, and I learn to refine the theories (to unify what I sense) which I have inheritated from my parents, grandparents, grandgrandparents ..., amoeba, ... universal numbers. (I think).

The problem with atheists, is that they are accomplices of the Christians (and others) in evacuating the scientific attitude in the field of theology. Atheists want the Christians and religions to be dogmatic and irrational.

And, also, by doing so, the atheists gives a wrong perception of science which is all benefits for the authoritary-minded pseudo-religious opportunists.

The ideal scientific attitude is just sort of super-modesty, and then prudence and clarity in the making of assumption. It is a game where we can all win once we all try (at least) to put all the carts on the table.

[salvialover24]

Originally Posted by kedabra

When scientists use methodological naturalism, assuming that there are no causes which are supernatural, when working with the scientific method, does that not count as an ontological commitment?

If they do commit themselves ontologically, it is no more just "methodological" then. Nor scientific. It is not important if you study the ring of Saturn, but those distinction matter in cognitive science/mind theories, and actually does matter also in the problem of measurement in physics, the intepretation of quantum mechanics, and other fundamental problems.

Originally Posted by kedabra

I'd consider myself very firmly agnostic, but I'm puzzled by this. why do we need this assumption?

The problem of the supernatural is that it is based on a form of supernatural view of the natural, if not with a notion of primitive matter ...
What does mean "natural"? Is not the distinction natural/artificial artificial? And thus natural, for species which develop (big) egos.

I think I do not believe in any primitive notion of cause, be it natural or supernatural. I do believe in prime numbers and many other things, though, like people and forum for example. I think the primitive cause could be just the arithmetical relations. It define already internal views which escape the whole of mathematics if not of the conceivable things. It is hard to describe this easily without being technical or crazy-looking. They are many things (in math) which can look little from outside and are incredibly big from inside, a bit like in the Wonderland.
Perhaps swim will give me some hints

[barbzilla]

The truth is nobody "Knows" anything. What you really display in knowing is the ability to trust in either the person teaching you, or yourself (depending on who is responsible for the knowledge). Think of it this way, when you were in elementary school you "knew" that Christopher Columbus discovered America, in middle school you learn that Amerigo Vespuchi discovered America, and then in high school you learn that Lief Ericson discovered America. Of course then you may think to yourself what about the native americans, were they "created" "evolved" here, or did they travel over from asia?

[kedabra]

Originally Posted by salvialover24

If they do commit themselves ontologically, it is no more just "methodological" then. Nor scientific. It is not important if you study the ring of Saturn, but those distinction matter in cognitive science/mind theories, and actually does matter also in the problem of measurement in physics, the intepretation of quantum mechanics, and other fundamental problems.



The problem of the supernatural is that it is based on a form of supernatural view of the natural, if not with a notion of primitive matter ...
What does mean "natural"? Is not the distinction natural/artificial artificial? And thus natural, for species which develop (big) egos.

I think I do not believe in any primitive notion of cause, be it natural or supernatural. I do believe in prime numbers and many other things, though, like people and forum for example. I think the primitive cause could be just the arithmetical relations. It define already internal views which escape the whole of mathematics if not of the conceivable things. It is hard to describe this easily without being technical or crazy-looking. They are many things (in math) which can look little from outside and are incredibly big from inside, a bit like in the Wonderland.
Perhaps swim will give me some hints

So, how do we proceed? How is it possible to use scientific method to investigate theology? Do we need to change the method?

I've tried reading some of your posts on Everything, I think I understand where youre coming from, and then I try to explain to someone, and its difficult....

You think number and their arithmetical relations are fundamental, like a sort of basic Platonic reality (or was it Plotinus's One?), and that the computations of these numbers lead to self aware rafts or layers of computation, which necessarily invent theologies, which in turn , and lastly , lead to Physics (dimensions, time, planets, gravity, causality, houses, horses)? Also that there are infinite levels in this computation, and that levels can host other levels and never know what level they are at? like the Matrix, but infinitely, up and down........forgive me if ive got it all wrong. You need to write a popular science book. Or would it be popular theology?

[salvialover24]

Originally Posted by barbzilla

The truth is nobody "Knows" anything. What you really display in knowing is the ability to trust in either the person teaching you, or yourself (depending on who is responsible for the knowledge). Think of it this way, when you were in elementary school you "knew" that Christopher Columbus discovered America, in middle school you learn that Amerigo Vespuchi discovered America, and then in high school you learn that Lief Ericson discovered America. Of course then you may think to yourself what about the native americans, were they "created" "evolved" here, or did they travel over from asia?

I would say that we can know things. Namely our first person subjective experiences. When we have headache, we know we have headache. We may be false in the interpretation of the headache, but that is something else.

I guess you mean that nobody can be certain (knows for sure) anything third person describable. There is no objectifiable knowledge. Only beliefs. I agree with this. The old Indian-greek 'argument of the dream' does establish that, imo.

[barbzilla]

Even what you "know" as a headache is still passed down through third party knowledge, but I do agree. First person experience is your own personal memory and interpretation of events that have passed (though is is still subjective).

[salvialover24]

Originally Posted by kedabra

So, how do we proceed? How is it possible to use scientific method to investigate theology? Do we need to change the method?

Not at all. The scientific method, when applied is quite good, except for one difficulty, which consists in finding good "metadefinition" for "things" (object or person) which admit no definition. But if we assume the mechanist hypothesis, we are free to use the "metamathematical" tools, or even just our intuition of numbers and machine.

Originally Posted by kedabra

I've tried reading some of your posts on Everything, I think I understand where youre coming from, and then I try to explain to someone, and its difficult....

Yes. Don't hesitate to ask any question on the everything-list, or here. An entheogen forum is a natural place to talk theology, it seems to me. (Which explains some uneasiness with some atheists, obviously).

Originally Posted by kedabra

You think number and their arithmetical relations are fundamental, like a sort of basic Platonic reality (or was it Plotinus's One?), and that the computations of these numbers lead to self aware rafts or layers of computation, which necessarily invent theologies, which in turn , and lastly , lead to Physics (dimensions, time, planets, gravity, causality, houses, horses)? Also that there are infinite levels in this computation, and that levels can host other levels and never know what level they are at? like the Matrix, but infinitely, up and down........forgive me if ive got it all wrong. You need to write a popular science book. Or would it be popular theology?

Today most people believe that they can survive with an artificial heart, an artificial skin, kidney, liver, etc.
Roughly speaking what I propose is not a new theory, but the old mechanist doctrine, like the one reintroduced by Descartes.
What if you can survive with an artificial brain, and thus body.
Precisely, what if the brain is Turing emulable (which is very plausible).
I show that such a theory makes materialism false, or devoid of any explanation power on consciousness including the consciousness of the physical laws. The weak materialist idea that some form of primitive matter exist, and that consciousness can be associated to it, is incompatible with Digital Mechanism.
If we are digital machine, then we are immaterial machine (relative number), and we live in a mathematical space, and what we call "the physical universe" is just an aspect, or a modality of purely number-theoretical truth.
Then, thanks to computer science and mathematical logic, I provide an interpretation of Plotinus' theology (which contain a physics) in term of relations between numbers. The 'physics' part of that arithmetical Plotinian theology can then be compared to the physics inferred from observation (mainly quantum physics), so we can test experimentally this view of Plotinus physics. So that theology is scientific, at least in the Popperian sens of being refutable. It contradicts already Aristotle-Descartes-Newton physics, but then quantum physics also! And it does not (yet) contradict quantum physics, on the contrary it predicts some of its weird aspect, like bifurcating and fusing-per-amnesia 'dreams/worlds/states'.

It is not a new theory, but it is a 'theorem' in an old theory made precise thanks to the Church-Turing thesis in mathematical logic.

The problem is that such a theory (mechanism) is usually explicitly or implicitly used by materialist to 'explain away' evacuate the mind-body problem (the consciousness/reality problem).
I show that this does not work. if we take seriously the idea that we can survive with a digital brain (even apparently material), then physics cannot be the fundamental science. Somehow matter, time, space and all observables, have to emerge from the computations, which are themselves defined as number theoretical relations.
The theory of everything, including consciousness, is elementary arithmetic.
All the rest can be derived, or justified, by the possible discourses of the 'universal numbers' when they take a look at themselves.

I have no clue if such a theology is actually true, but I have few doubt it has to be true if we can survive with a digital brain.

But that is normal, in science we never know for sure if a theory is true or not.

That theology relies on the mathematical discovery of the 'Turing Universal Machine', which is really, assuming Church thesis, a universal number. It is not God, but it is, I could argue, already a sort of baby God. (in Plotinus it correspond to 'man'). Its (re)appearance (computers, and connected computers) is, in my opinion, an event comparable to the big bang, the apparition of cells, the apparition of brain (connected cells), the apparition of man, the apparition of thought, the apparition of languages. It is the kind of 'God' which has an infinity of names (Babbage Machine, Post Production System, Lambda Calculus, FORTRAN, ALGOL, LISP, Prolog, c++, three-body-system, Game of Life, Topological quantum functor, etc.).

Universal machines have a tendency to speed up themselves. The following not so bad 2012 video illustrates some consequent spiralling effects (and speculate a bit naively on possible fixed points). But I would say that, in such a sense, the 2012 event, or the one restricted to computer science or number theory (if you want) belongs perhaps to the recent past, and is just the Nth (re)apparition of a relative universal self-speeding being/process.

Fibonacci numbers play some role, but many other mathematical constant too. And this Mandelbrot Set very deep zoom video illustrates also, I think, that spiraling effect, but I can't yet related it to universality.

Sorry for being long.

[XerxesGodKing]

A lot of deep answers in this thread. My philosophy on this matter (as an agnostic) is that I do not claim to know anything about what we are or how we got here. There is no empirical evidence.

I find it sometimes interesting to speculate over the mysteries of the universe & why we are here and all that jazz when I am in a contemplative / introspective mood, but that's it.

IMHO it is ignorant to claim to know who created us/everything, as it is also ignorant to claim that there is 100% chance that there is nothing out there.

Just my 2 cents

[jupe]

Salvia Lover24

The theory of everything, including consciousness, is elementary arithmetic.

maybe yes, maybe no

Atomic spin states corresponding to "zero" or "one"..?? Big honkin computer eh?

Whats the Everthing link? Accessed through your writings? thx