On Aug 26, 8:14 pm, Don Stockbauer
hotmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 26, 8:14 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Aug 26, 2:09 am, Errol
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> I read an interesting short story about the tower of Babylon by writer
>>> Ted Chiang, in which humanity tries to break through the vault
>>> separating earth from heaven. They build a tower miles high. After
>>> they break through several hundred feet of stone, one of the
>>> protagonists manages to scuttle upwards through the collapsing
>>> tunnels, avoid the water pouring downward and crawls up to heaven.
>>> After recuperating from his injuries, our hero discovers he is back on
>>> earth and has simply crawled out of a hole in the ground near the base
>>> of the tower.
>
>>> Is this not a metaphor for the scientific effort of today where almost
>>> every aspect of the universe and consciousness seems to have a
>>> dualistic aspect, whereby everything seems to have either a
>>> commonplace or a mystical interpretation? Consciousness collapsing the
>>> probability wave and allowing matter to manifest itself or matter
>>> simply allowing consciousness to develop, universe versus multiverse,
>>> quantum computing or not, holographic universe projected onto our
>>> consciousness from higher dimensions, or plain vanilla universe with
>>> no extra dimensions, the enigma of AI (could it ever really reach the
>>> same level of consciousness as mankind?)
>
>>> The point is if a creator wanted to create an almost unfathomable
>>> universe which would defy the best efforts of humanity to break its
>>> secrets, then this particular universe seems to be a very good design.
>>> Will the new, European, large particle collider simply find new
>>> additional layers of structure which will require even larger amounts
>>> of energy to explore? If consciousness is part of the structure of the
>>> universe, could it even be theoretically possible for AIs to develop
>>> it?
>
>>> I suppose it all depends on the individual’s interpretation and degree
>>> of materialism.
>
>> New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems will
>> never be explained or at the least cannot be explained by the human
>> mind at its current evolutionary stage.
>
>> New Mysterianism is often characterized as a presupposition that some
>> problems cannot be solved. Critics of this view argue that it is
>> arrogant to assume that a problem cannot be solved just because we
>> haven't solved it yet. On the other hand, New Mysterians would say
>> that it's just as absurd to assume that every problem can be solved.
>> Crucially, New Mysterians would argue that they did not start with any
>> supposition as to the solvability of the question, and instead reached
>> their conclusion through logical reasoning.
>
>
>> Its to complex so lets just forget about it and bank on the
>> forgetfulness? Sounds like the recipe for a new middle ages, good
>> thing thats gettin elected out of office.
>
> Sound be called the "New Surrendering".
People dogmatically assert that they know things. One person asserts
that she knows something, another denies this. It occurs to a
philosophical eavesdropper to wonder what knowledge is and whether
anyone really knows. Are we not often wrong when we claim to know
something? At one time people claimed that they knew the earth was
flat. But now? At one time, not so long ago, people claimed they knew
that the idea of a person walking on the moon was a mere fiction. But
now? At the present time, people claim to know that no one can travel
backward in time. But later? Who knows?
...A dogma, as we are using the term, is an assumption one makes
uncritically, with no attempt at reflective justification, and which
one feels is perfectly evident, something which, stands in no need of
serious examination. The unquestioned assumption that we gain
knowledge of the existence and characteristics of ordinary objects by
means of perception is a dogma.
...Our objection to the dogmatic contention that people know certain
of their beliefs to be true is the roadblock to inquiry indigenous to
such claims. If a person says he knows that something is true, then he
intends his listener to take what he says as true on his authority. It
is not a matter to be questioned.
Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
