[ExI] How many current members of ExI?
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 01:32:18 UTC 2020
if we trust in our own superhuman potential then we should trust that we
have a compassionate creator. from a web page
I see no connection there, so it is a non sequitor. bill w
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:51 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone, for all the great comments, they all mean a lot to me.
> Just a few comments:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:17 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> There is a difference with believers because they think irrationality is
>> a positive rather than a negative, and call it “faith”.
> I think it is positive, if it really is positive.
> For example, typical Mormons think they have faith that there is a devil.
> I love to point out believing there is a devil, is neither faith nor hope.
> It it the opposite. It is faithlessly giving up and accepting as true, the
> more terrible of two alternatives as being true or necessary.
> While at the same time Mormon Transhumanist (non atheists) have their "New
> God Argument <https://new-god-argument.com/>". I understand the
> compelling mathematical arguments being made, there, so it is
> devastating to my atheistic faith and hope, that it isn't necessary for
> Gods to hide. Because of those arguments, I feel I must accept that there
> is far more chance that there is a God, hiding from us, than there isn't.
> But I can also, rationally, point out that it isn't absolutely certain.
> There is still some small chance we might be the first, or something. So,
> this is where my faith and hope reside, even though I must rationally
> accept that it is unlikely, at least until my faith is 100% falsified (i.e.
> god really appears to us all or something)
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:03 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> Strong beliefs (including atheism) come before rational thought and
>> are much more powerful than rational thought. So there's no way to
>> talk atheists or believers out of their convictions, and discussions
>> are much more likely to end in name calling than in mutual
> This is only true for beliefs that aren't falsifiable (Strawberry is
> better than Chocolate) or beliefs that haven't YET been falsified. (
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18> vs
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-are-Material-Qualities/7> vs
> Dualism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48>, there is a
> god, and so on).
> As long as experimentalists remain qualia blind (only using one word for
> all things 'red') there will remain a huge gap in our understanding of
> qualitative consciousness, qualia, or the "spiritual". Any belief that
> hasn't yet been fully falsified, can still be justifiably hoped for,
> resulting in all the many remaining "crap in the gap" theories of
> consciousness. This is similar to the God of the Gaps idea in the field of
> That is why Canonizes is all about falsifiability. The only good camps,
> are those that are falsifiable. Once each camp admits how their camp can
> be falsified, then it is up to the experimentalists to force us all into
> THE "scientific consensus" camp. We've already seen one camp abandoned by
> it's supporter, because of falsifying data coming from the large Hadron
> I talk about 'qualia blindness' below. Check out this new set of 13
> questions to find out if you understand qualia blindness
> <https://qualia.insite21.com/survey/1584554976> and let me know if that
> Falsifiability is the power of the "Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6>" super camp
> which has a near unanimous consensus. Even Dennett's "Predictive
> Bayesian Coding Theory
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21>" supports it.
> It shows how all the many subcamps mentioned above, making different
> falsifiable predictions about the the nature of qualia, can be falsified.
> Once experimentalists start focusing on finding out, which of all our
> abstract descriptions of stuff in the brain, is a description of redness,
> (by using more than one word for all things red) they will be able to
> discover what it is that is intrinsically red, falsifying all but THE ONE
> theory that can't be falsified. Once experimentalists demonstrate to us
> what it is (in nature or out) that has an intrinsic redness quality, that
> will finally falsify all the crap in the gap theories, and we will finally
> be able to see a definitive "scientific consensus" in this field with no
> more supported crap theories.
> Yes, if experimentalists can prove how redness is more than only an
> intrinsic property of something like glutamate as it reacts in a synapse,
> by demonstrating that redness can be substrate independent, I will have to
> join Stathis' (more hopeful?) functionalist
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8> camp. But,
> then, Stathis, what if no matter what people try, redness is never
> possible, without glutamate...? I just hope that they don't work through
> all know physics, proving that none of it has an intrinsic redness
> quality. Because that would mean redness is some type of new physics
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20> or some type of dualism
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Higher-dimension-Theories/35>, some of
> which is still hiding from us, or worse even possibly not approachable
> via science <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2>.
> We just need to start distinguishing between reality, and knowledge of
> reality, so we can start looking for intrinsic colors of physics
> <https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/>, before we can finally find
> out what it is in this world that really has all the intrinsic colors we
> can't deny exist.
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat