Re: Can science prove God doesn't exist?
Godel's theorem tells us about formal axiomatic systems, not about consciousness. We need only assume that consciousness is not a formal system (which is another conclusion you could reach). So there is no the conclusion, unless you hold pre-existing biases.
In essence Penrose is using roughly the same reasoning to 'prove' AI cannot be conscious that Aristotle used to 'prove' heavier objects fall faster than light ones. Except Penrose is actually a scientist so i would be very surprised if it is offered as a 'proof', but rather as a conjecture: one which gets often gets misconstrued by people desperate for science to support their pre-existing beliefs (similar to Lovelock's Gaia theory).
That's not to say that Penrose is wrong: but on this topic there is not nearly enough evidence to even come to tentative conclusions. Nothing is proven, we are no where need a scientific consensus. Why do you claim it as the conclusion?
I also get a little suspicious when Godel's theorem gets bandied around in religious contexts because few people actually understand it: i've studied enough maths to know i don't understand it. If you really do understand, i wouldn't mind a simple introduction (but using maths). Or we could take this discussion to a science forum - some people there are well versed in formal logic and maths and I would trust their insights.
I guess technically anything not Abrahamic is labelled Pagan, but i would not have thought Hinduism and Buddhism would come under the term in a modern context. I think there is a thread about the word Pagan so i guess that would be the place to discuss this.
But since we're talking Indian; i haven't looked into your claim yet (time constraints), but frankly it seems extremely unlikely that the whole of Indian philosophy is homogeneous. Rather it seems you have cherry picked a few references that support your claim, and come to a grandiose conclusions - no less than The whole Indian philosophy.
Indeed, being a Buddhist, i know the Buddha spoke of the 10 indeterminate questions which the Buddha refused to answer as they were not important to his teachings. Two of these questions specifically referred to whether the souls (or life, or essence) is the same as the body. Hence we have one data point that disproves that the 'whole of Indian philosophy will collapse if brain and mind are two different substances'. Unless you consider Buddhism not to be an Indian philosophy?
Either way, i will need much better supporting arguments if you are to convince me to spend time investigating these claims.
Originally posted by saura
View Post
In essence Penrose is using roughly the same reasoning to 'prove' AI cannot be conscious that Aristotle used to 'prove' heavier objects fall faster than light ones. Except Penrose is actually a scientist so i would be very surprised if it is offered as a 'proof', but rather as a conjecture: one which gets often gets misconstrued by people desperate for science to support their pre-existing beliefs (similar to Lovelock's Gaia theory).
That's not to say that Penrose is wrong: but on this topic there is not nearly enough evidence to even come to tentative conclusions. Nothing is proven, we are no where need a scientific consensus. Why do you claim it as the conclusion?
I also get a little suspicious when Godel's theorem gets bandied around in religious contexts because few people actually understand it: i've studied enough maths to know i don't understand it. If you really do understand, i wouldn't mind a simple introduction (but using maths). Or we could take this discussion to a science forum - some people there are well versed in formal logic and maths and I would trust their insights.
Originally posted by saura
View Post
But since we're talking Indian; i haven't looked into your claim yet (time constraints), but frankly it seems extremely unlikely that the whole of Indian philosophy is homogeneous. Rather it seems you have cherry picked a few references that support your claim, and come to a grandiose conclusions - no less than The whole Indian philosophy.
Indeed, being a Buddhist, i know the Buddha spoke of the 10 indeterminate questions which the Buddha refused to answer as they were not important to his teachings. Two of these questions specifically referred to whether the souls (or life, or essence) is the same as the body. Hence we have one data point that disproves that the 'whole of Indian philosophy will collapse if brain and mind are two different substances'. Unless you consider Buddhism not to be an Indian philosophy?
Either way, i will need much better supporting arguments if you are to convince me to spend time investigating these claims.
Comment