Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group

From: Roy Jose Lorr (mosestorah_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/09/04

  • Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: acting right" 
    Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:38:38 GMT

    Lester Zick wrote:

    > On 6 Aug 2004 17:49:31 -0700, rscanlon@nycap.rr.com (ray scanlon) in
    > comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
    >
    > >Lester Zick wrote:
    > >
    > >> And that's the thrust of my question. How does one go about making a
    > >> machine with a soul?
    > >
    > >You don't. You don't talk about it. You don't even think about it. The
    > >late Stephen Jay Gould wrote a delightful little book on this subject,
    > >"Rocks of Ages". He talks about the magisterium of religion and the
    > >magisterium of science. He promulgates the dictum of NOMA,
    > >Non-overlapping magisteria.
    >
    > Talking about things lies at the root of science.
    >
    > >The soul belongs to religion; the machine belongs to science.
    >
    > The heavens also belonged to religion once.
    >
    > >Gould's personal struggle between the creationists on one hand, and
    > >the evolutionists on the other lead to his book, really an extended
    > >essay. He thought it a most profound mistake to mix the two
    > >magisteria. Talk about the soul, or talk about the machine, but never
    > >both. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
    > >
    > >Please note that soul includes spirit, essence, psyche, mind,
    > >consciousness, awareness, intelligence, intellect, mentality, self,
    > >indivduality, persona, personality, executive function, conscious
    > >mental field, self-awareness, sentience. Anyone who complains that
    > >these words are not synonyms for soul doesn't understand the problem,
    > >doesn't even understand that there is a problem.
    >
    > I consider them aspects of the soul with different emphasis.
    >
    > >An artificial neural net can be contrived by man to think and to
    > >decide. The presence of absence of a soul (mind, etc., etc., etc.)
    > >shall be willed by God, not man.
    >
    > Well, that's nice. Most of what passes for science was once willed by
    > god.
    >
    > >Most of what passes for dialogue on c.a.p. is hung up on violations of
    > >NOMA.
    >
    > Science is a violation of NOMA. People who prefer not to violate NOMA
    > should not discuss science.

    Right. Science extends/imposes itself over questions of moral meaning and
    value. 

    --
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
  • Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: acting right"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
      ... >> Science is a violation of NOMA. ... People who prefer not to violate NOMA ... >of a soul in their device; ...
      (sci.cognitive)
    • Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
      ... > Science is a violation of NOMA. ... People who prefer not to violate NOMA ... Gould posited the magisterium of religion and the magisterium of ... You can easily pursue science without talking of God or the soul. ...
      (sci.cognitive)
    • Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
      ... He promulgates the dictum of NOMA, ... >Non-overlapping magisteria. ... Talking about things lies at the root of science. ... Talk about the soul, or talk about the machine, but never ...
      (sci.cognitive)
    • Re: ANN: ai-philosophy group
      ... He promulgates the dictum of NOMA, ... > Non-overlapping magisteria. ... > The soul belongs to religion; ... > indivduality, persona, personality, executive function, conscious ...
      (sci.cognitive)
    • Re: Any answers to these questions? Religious Literalism???
      ... Therefore, even the soul is limited, is it not?" ... should dismiss evidence, and perhaps just as seriously that the only ... LITERAL interpretation contradicts science, ... the issue of the harmony of science and religion, ...
      (soc.religion.bahai)
    • Quantcast