Re: Apple II and God (was Re: Notice to Scott Gamon)

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Amitai Schlair writes ...
> 
> ....
> It seems that you don't want to confront the fundamental question of
> God's existence. Is this because you are not as qualified as the TV
> evangelists to explain, or is it because there is no good answer, or is
> it something else entirely?
>
> ....
> Fine. Lose the text in that paragraph after "Can you?", and my question
> loses its scoffing tone. Can you now reply in more depth to what I
> wrote?


     Okay. Still, this is, after all, csa2.

     How would you go about producing a self-aware computer?



>>

   Accuracy is not always desirable. For example, BASIC's INT()
 function destroys unwanted accuracy. Similarly, in conversations, it is
 sometimes best to avoid crystal clarity in expressing an opinion.

<<
 
> Inane and related humor: is it your opinion that some opinions should
> not be expressed?

     Yes

> If so, is your opinion one of those?

     Not the one expressed above

> (I'm sorry -- I can't get enough of these kinds of paradoxes. :)

     What paradox?


> 
> If making a point clearly is hurtful, it is not the clarity but rather
> the assertion itself that is hurtful -- and, assuming the assertion is
> true, merits the telling anyway (unless it is already painfully clear,
> in which case it is still not the clarity but the fact that hurts).
>

     It is one thing to have a truth; it is another to volunteer to 
communicate it. If you are buying perfume and the saleswoman has awful 
looking hair, do you tell her that her hair looks awful?

 
> If truth hurts in personal relations, business, or diplomacy, then
> whatever ties have been forged are artificial and tenuous.
> 
> The nature of reality dictates that truth has a tendency to become
> known, by virtue of its being real and true and by virtue of the human
> thirst for truth. Avoiding clarity only forestalls the propagation of
> facts. Why not be truthful to begin with, if the truth will make itself
> known anyway?
>
> Keeping that in mind, it might be considered better business sense to
> follow a "painfully honest" sort of policy! Case in point: Intel. Intel
> intentionally underpublicized the division bug in the first-generation
> Pentiums. ....


     Suppose that, when you are speaking with someone and have an opinion to 
express, you say: "I am going to express an opinion in a tactful, non-hostile 
manner. This will require a skillful mix of clarity and ambiguity." You then 
express your opinion.

     You have been entirely honest. The person has both the crystal clear and 
ambiguous parts of your opinion. Since you were tactful and skillful, the 
person is not offended. Possibly, as a result, a fun get together will not 
break up in a flurry of angry insults.

     Happily, it is already understood and expected that any expression of 
opinion will, very likely, contain ambiguities. To violate this convention 
is, in fact, to communicate inaccurately and to invite misunderstanding.

     Are there times when maximum clarity and completeness in an expression 
of opinion are desirable whether or not someone may be offended? Sure. Your 
Intel story is an example. The trick is to tailor ones communications to the 
situation.
   

 
> ....
> Considering that this is a computer-related (at least in the charter! :)
> newsgroup, I think there are probably at least a few folks who would
> consider the verifiability of a binary 1 of the utmost importance.

     That a fact is of importance does not make it an important question. The 
nature of technology is that it is sufficiently self-verifying. If a logic 
circuit works, hardly anyone except a semi-conductor theorist cares how.


> Perhaps even in the same way that deep philosophical questions are
> important... after all, whether one decides to name something for what
> it is, in the end, is a philosophical decision. So I think "computer
> science" (to glom a bunch of disparate ideas together) is, as far as
> importance is concerned, equal to other (and more conventional)
> philosophical questions.
>

    "Computer science" is neither an issue nor a question. 


>>

     How can you absolutely prove _anything_? Even Science does not claim
to reveal truths. It makes observations and develops explanations called
"theories". We cannot, even, absolutely, establish "cause" and "effect"
for observed events.

<<

> 
> In many (even most) cases, this last statement is true.

     Can you give one contrary example?


> .... But the fact
> that science is working to uncover those causes is proof of its
> intellectual nobility (just as Heinlein exhorts us to forever increase
> precision),


     When scientists speak of a "cause" they are, generally, aware that they 
are using slang. Since one can not be absolutely certain of identifying and 
controlling all factors impacting any observed event, completely specifying 
any cause with absolute confidence is not possible.

     A scientist seriously working to uncover causes using the scientific 
method may or may not be noble. He or she is, certainly, deluded.



> as opposed to religion, which glazes over such questions
> with a pat, "correct," and completely illogical answer.
>

     For a religious leader (such as the Pope, Arch Bishop of Canterbury, 
head of an Islamic sect, etc.) to make absolute pronouncements is reasonable 
since the leader is supposed to be speaking with the authority of devinely 
revealed knowledge. Whether or not a statement is illogical depends upon the 
statement.
 

> ....
> So call me the "God is not true" person. Can you direct me along a path
> which will lead to an understanding of the Supreme Being?
>

     A good start is to treat others the way you would wish to be treated.



Rubywand