<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:21px">if we trust in our own superhuman potential then we should trust that we have a compassionate creator. from a web page</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:21px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:21px"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">I see no connection there, so it is a non sequitor. bill w</font></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:51 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Thanks, everyone, for all the great comments, they all mean a lot to me. Just a few comments:</div><div><br></div><div>On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:17 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto">There is a difference with believers because they think irrationality is a positive rather than a negative, and call it “faith”.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it is positive, if it really is positive.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>While at the same time Mormon Transhumanist (non atheists)
have their "<a href="https://new-god-argument.com/" target="_blank">New God Argument</a>". 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)</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 11:03 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Strong beliefs (including atheism) come before rational thought and<br>
are much more powerful than rational thought. So there's no way to<br>
talk atheists or believers out of their convictions, and discussions<br>
are much more likely to end in name calling than in mutual<br>
understanding.</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>This is only true for beliefs that aren't falsifiable (Strawberry is better than Chocolate) or beliefs that haven't YET been falsified. (<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function/18" target="_blank">Functionalism</a> vs <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Qualia-are-Material-Qualities/7" target="_blank">Materialism</a> vs
<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48" target="_blank">Dualism</a>, there is a god, and so on).</div><div>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 evolution.</div><div><br></div><div>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 Collider.</div><div><br></div><div><div>I talk about 'qualia blindness' below. Check out this new set of <a href="https://qualia.insite21.com/survey/1584554976" target="_blank">13 questions to find out if you understand qualia blindness</a> and let me know if that helps.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Falsifiability is the power of the "<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Representational-Qualia/6" target="_blank">Representational Qualia Theory</a>" super camp which has a near unanimous consensus. Even Dennett's "<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory/21" target="_blank">Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory</a>" supports it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?) <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Functional-Prprty-Dualism/8" target="_blank">functionalist</a> 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 <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20" target="_blank">new physics</a> or some type of <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Higher-dimension-Theories/35" target="_blank">dualism</a>, some of which is still hiding from us, or worse even possibly not <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2" target="_blank">approachable via science</a>. ;(</div><div><br></div><div>We just need to start distinguishing between reality, and knowledge of reality, so we can start looking for <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/" target="_blank">intrinsic colors of physics</a>, before we can finally find out what it is in this world that really has all the intrinsic colors we can't deny exist.</div><div><br></div><div>Brent</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>