Posted: Mar 21, 2017 1:44 pm
archibald wrote:John Platko wrote:It would have been more detailed if Deutsch used set theory to explain it. Which could be done, but not very appropriate in the situation he was asked the question. But it's not like he was coughing up a deepity. I will tuck it into the same IP pouch in my head were I keep, for example, the constructor rule of thumb: "measure twice, cut once" that another master taught me.
And Deutsch's explanation of the quality of explanations explains why he sailed beyond the current paradigm of physics in search of a paradigm that would be better able at explaining what is inexplicable in the current paradigm. It also explained a lot of what I do to understand ideas like: soul, demon, God, ... Search out better modes of explanation for what people are trying to explain.
I think we are going in circles here. Until Deutsch comes up with something, I'm fine with calling his theory 'potentially interesting'. Beyond that, It's wait and see. For all we know CT could be this year's new fashion and next year's fish and chip wrapping paper. The fact that he is trying to come up with something new and that you are trying to come up with something new (about something else) has to be judged on how successful either of you are. In all honesty, so far, I don't think either of you has really come up with much that is new or better than any existing paradigm.
Are you sure you understand the power of Deutsch's theory to bring a new perspective to all sorts of things?
And exactly what do you mean by "judged on how successful either of you are." I'd like to see how that metric applies to other explanations.
John Platko wrote:
But why were the atomists winners? It's not like they were right, atoms are not solid, atoms are not indivisible. What was captured in their explanation that was right enough for them to be winners?
My answer is that their description captured the archetype, the most important attribute, of the atom.
Deutsch's explanation of explanations is useful independent of CT. And CT may not be a useful model to encapsulate all known physics, as Deutsch desires, but that doesn't make it useless. It has already teased out bits of understanding about the behavior of reproducing chunks of information, Knowledge, memes, whatever you want to call them.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, the analogy with atom only works with other things if those other things go on to be validated and vindicated the way atom was (and the way that other speculative assertions by ancients weren't). This is not yet the case for either what you are saying about souls or what Deutsch is saying about CT.
I thought we already agreed that there is some aspect of a person that can live after they die. You think it's fragile, I think it's more durable than you. Perhaps it best to check back with your ideas on that after you had more than a couple of days to think about the IP that lives on after a person dies.
The point being, I think you already have validated the concept of soul being similar to the concept of atom - some immaterial (in the sense that information is immaterial) aspect of a person (IP) that lives on after a person dies. All we seem to disagree about is the "regarded as immortal" part, which to me is like arguing if atoms are indivisible in the sense the ancients meant it. To argue that miss the main point under discussion. Which is, there is something immaterial about a person that lives on after them. That something continues to effect reality. It can enrich others lives or it can be detrimental to their lives. And that makes it worth worrying about.
John Platko wrote:I would suggest more detailed talk, giving examples of observed IP, and descriptions of what mechanisms could account for their behavior.
Sure, and in a way we have been doing that when we have been considering human IP, which at this time I am seeing as very fragile and transitory. This is the example I'm happy to continue discussing in more detail, since it seems in many ways to be rather central to the quite anthropocentric nature of a lot of what has been put forward about souls.
Yes, you say you think IP is fragile, but you don't give any explanation why. What do you base your opinion on? In my family, there are regular observations of IP from people long dead. And that IP seems to be thriving in the youngest generation. I wish some of that IP was as fragile as you suggest.
John Platko wrote:The word immortal is not attached at the hip to the word soul. Not everyone who uses the word soul thinks of it as being immortal. I think of it, in the same way the atom was thought of as being indivisible. The atom is hard to divide but it's not indivisible. I'm happy to use a different word, one that captures the idea that the life span of IP is not limited by biological factors, only the need for a physical substrate and success in it's ability to survive. Any ideas? "enduring"?
I think it's already fairly well accepted that things like ideas can be perpetuated through generations. This is not a new idea. I'm not yet sure what this discussion is adding to it.
I'm not claiming that the idea that there is some immaterial part of a person that lives on after death is a new idea.
. (It's an old and obvious idea which should not require 25 pages for me to explain - but we're dragging along a lot of baggage.)Rather, I'm showing that there is a better explanation of what that something is than the one you might get in a religious setting. But because the religious setting explanation may not be as revealing as IP, or meme, or some future neurological explanation might be, that doesn't mean that it's useless, anymore than the explanation that the atomists put forth was useless.
The evidence for this is seen by how some of the techniques developed by the religious have lasted and found their way into modern psychology in renamed forms as self-talk and mindful meditation to help ease the luggage burdens some might have with more traditional words.