If I say God, they say, ah! theology. If I say awareness, they say, ah! mysticism. If I say being, they say ah! philosophy. How do you deliver the captive from prison, who does not see the bars?

Kurt Godel proved a half a century ago that reasoning can never fully describe the truth. He used the laws of reason to show that there is always at least one true statement that cannot be proven in any logical system. For the most part, we have ignored him and gone on. But some of us have decided that the unprovable truths are worth investigating also.

from Now and Zen by Brad Jensen

OK, so here's the deal. We started out in Christianity Today because we were talking philosophy (mathematics and logic). Then, we moved the thread to Christian Theology because we got into systematic and natural theology. Now, it is time to move to Spirituality for, if Godel's Theorem has no practical application but is only pure speculative reason, then ... I will have missed that this moment is the altar of my consciousness, and my attention is the only acceptable sacrifice to offer.

namaste,
jb

If you look at the "exchange" between this view:

Artificial Intelligence and Angelology by Howard P. Kainz, Jr.

and this view:

Artificial Intelligence and Thomistic Angelology: a Rejoinder by Jude Chua Soo Meng , who, by the way, has a cartoon at Jim Arraj's site: The Ultimate Reducibility of Essence and Matter to Existence ---

then you will pick up, albeit in an entirely different context, some of the distinction we are trying to make between the algorithmic, syntactical, computation, linear, sequential aspect of sensation and perception versus the nonalgoritmic, semantical, noncomputational, nonlinear, spontaneous instananeity aspect of intuivity.

Jude Chua Soo Meng writes:

quote:

Now, the nature of the human soul is lower than the angelic nature, if we consider the natural manner in which each knows. For the natural and proper manner of knowing for an angelic nature is to know truth without investigation or movement of reason . But it is proper to human nature to reach the knowledge of truth by investigating and moving from one thing to another." [8]
While of course, from what is said in the first part, we would expect St. Thomas to say that we also participate in some kind of intuitivity , although imperfectly, and so he does, saying: "Hence the human soul, according to that which is highest in it, attains to that which is proper to angelic nature, so that it knows some things at once and without investigation , although it is lower than angels in this, that it can know the truth in these things only by receiving something from sense ." [9] These are, of course, the first principles of the speculative and practical intellect.

Now, knowing you guys, you'll also be interested in Howard P. Kainz, Jr's perspective, addressing:

Microprocessors and Angelic Self-possession

ROM and Innate Ideas

RAM and the Negative Active Potency of Separate Substances

Hard Drives and Intellectual Memory

The Operating System and the Reception of Information

"Downward Compatibility" and Proportional Universality

Multitasking

Modems and the Ability to Transfer Information

Networks and the Transmission of Ideas, via Hierarchies

Speed-caches and the Effect of Immateriality

I highly recommend: Artificial Intelligence and Thomistic Angelology: a Rejoinder --- see link above.

pax,
jb

In The Degrees of Knowledge, Jacques Maritain provides a panorama of human intellectual activity, first distinguishing philosophy of nature and experimental science , making clear the distinctiveness of metaphysics , writing with authority of the mystical life as different from all of the above, and, in the very course of making these distinctions, showing how they are hierarchically related and united.

from the review of The Collected Works of Jacques Maritain

So, I wonder if, as we look at consciousness, we might have a correspondence between 1) the easy problem re: sensation, perception, awareness, computational, algorithmic, linear, discursive, syntactical; 2) the hard problem re: subjective awareness and experience, noncomputational, nonalgorithmic, nonlinear, nondiscursive, semantical, intuitive; and 3) the real hard problem re: relationality with God AND

Maritain's Degrees of Knowledge where

1) the philosophy of nature and experimental science correspond to the easy problem;
2) metaphysics corresponds to the hard problem and our imperfect faculty of intuition (including knowledge through connaturality); and 3) the mystical corresponds to the real hard problem and the ongoing perfection of our intuitive faculties?

Further, we have the three types of contemplation: 1) philosophical contemplation; 2) mysticism of the self or natural mysticism; and 3) mystical contemplation, infused by the Holy Spirit.

This would account for 1) algorithmic consciousness; 2) nonalgorithmic consciousness; and 3) mystical awareness and, as I mentioned previously, our first two forms of consciousness, one demonstrable by science, one inferred, would be analogous to that indwelling supernatural consciousness that raises our other faculties to perfection.

Here is a book review from Amazon:

Reviewer: Cornelis van Putten (see more about me) from Tilburg, The Netherlands
The work of a great mind

Out of the many books Jacques Maritain wrote, his Degrees of Knowledge can be considered as his Magnum Opus in the field of speculative philosophy. First published in 1932, it is his major work on the theory of knowledge, inspired by the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas and the mystical works of St John of the Cross.

The whole purpose of the book is to make a synthesis between science, philosophy and theology. It has always been said that the vocation as a philosopher meant two things for Jacques Maritain: "the dignity of the human person and the restoration of the intellect". The first part of this project can be found in his works on social and political philosophy, like Integral Humanism and Man and State, etc. The other part led his philosophical activity gradually from his Bergsonian background to the critical realism of Thomas Aquinas.

The critical realism is to be found in the Degrees of knowledge which is Maritain's testimony of the second part of his philosopical vocation: the restoration of the intellect. Knowledge for Maritain contains two realms: natural and supernatural. The whole enterprise Maritain undertakes is to find an epistemology that embraces the full range of human knowledgde, from the simple knowledge of sense perception, to the supernatural knowledge, knowledge of the Divine essence.

The book is separated in two parts, a part about the degrees of natural knowledge and a part about the degrees of supranatural knowledge.

My intention is to represent the basic ideas of the book, I do not find myself able to criticize the book. Understanding what Maritain is trying to show, takes a lot of time, and I am still in the phase of understanding. This book deserves a honest and clear evauation, more than a simple good or bad label. The book contains more than 500 pages of text, in which a lot of very difficult material is presented. Let's be clear about it: The Degrees of Knowlegde is a very difficult book, and I think you need a decent philosophical training to understand it.

Degrees of rational knowledge

Let's look at the first part: the domain of natural knowledge. Natural knowledge is the domain of unaided reason , in which the intellect has as its formal object: being. Being is known by way of abstraction. Maritain dinstinguishes three degrees of abstraction. In the first degree of this process, the mind knows an object, which it disengages from the singular and contingent moment of sense perception, but is still in reference to the sensible. This first degree of abstraction belongs to physics and philosophy of nature . The second degree is the mathematical abstraction , in which the mind knows an object whose intelligibility no longer implies an intrinsic reference to the sensible imaginable , but to the . Finally, in the highest degree of intellectual vision, the metaphysical degree, the intelligibility is free from any intrinsic reference to the senses or imagination. This is the field of trans-sensible reality. The mind starts with knowledge from the sensible, and penetrates deeper and deeper in the mystery of reality by way of ascending towards objects of thought which both can be conceived and exist without matter, which is the domain of metaphysics. The three degrees are on a hierarchical line, in which the first participates in the third.

The kinds of knowledge which belong to the natural order are also called, the dianoetic knowledge: in which things are known in themselves; perinoetic knowledge, in which there is knowledge of essences by way of signs, or some measurable properties. And there is finally ananoetic knowledge, or knowledge by analogy. This is the domain of metaphysics in which the intellect ascends from sensible being to the knowledge of the first being, which is God. It is at the same time called: natural theology connaturality .

Also there is knowledge which belongs to the natural order, which is called knowledge by . This kind of knowledge is not by means of a concept, but knowledge by inclination . It can be found in moral knowledge, the work of the artist, and the knowledge we have of other persons. We are co-natured with our object.

Knowledge starts with sense perception, the intellect receives through the sense perception a concept, an intelligible similtude, on which the intellect makes a judgement. The concept is called a formal sign: that by which we know, a means by which we know the very nature of a thing. The thing exists and the formal object is grapsed by the intellect. The object has intentional being, the thing has natural being. The concept is a formal sign by which the intellect becomes the other as other. By way of the judgement, the intellect asserts the existence of the thing as an extramental being.

The judgement is an important aspect in the theory of knowledge. By way of the judgement we assert that our knowledge is not only about a phenomena, a mental thing, but by the judgement we confirm the existence of the extra-mental being, the correspondence of intellect and reality. Things can be known in themselves, the truth of knowledge consists in the conformity of the mind with the thing. Truth is possible but difficult for man to attain. It is therefore called critical realism.

So we can conclude that: Truth is the conformity of the mind with being. Knowledge is immersed in existence, given to us first by sense, sense attains the object as existing. Sense delivers existence to the intellect, it gives the intellect an intelligible treasure which sense does not know to be intelligible, and which the intellect knows as being.

The degrees of supra-rational knowledge

The second part of the book deals with supra-rational knowledge. It's about the knowledge of God. For Maritain, faith and reason are not conflicting. There is a great harmony between nature and grace. Again Maritain distinguishes in order to unite. There are three wisdoms . The first one belongs to the natural order, it is based on reason, the domain of metaphysics. It's the ananoetic knowledge, also called natural theology . Above the natural theology, stands the science of revealed mysteries , which is called theology. It is reason illuminated by faith. It's certitude is superior to metaphysics, because it has a divine origin. Then above all, there is the mystical wisdom or infused wisdom which consists in knowing the essentialy supernatural object of faith and theology, Deity as such, the experience of God, in which we can know Him in His essence. Faith alone is not sufficient, it needs the gifts of the Holy Spirits and the theological virtues of faith and hope, infused moral virtues.

Some remarks

Like I said earlier, you need a decent philosophical training to understand the material presented. The book presupposes knowledge about the battle for the universal in the middle ages, the philosophy of Descartes, the tradition of idealism and logical positivism.

So, in conclusion, the reason the degrees of knowledge are necessary --- see Godel's Theorem.

Gotta run. Be gone a few days.

It is Spring Migration in Louisiana, birds crossing the Gulf of Mexico by the millions. When there is a cold front passage, with inclement weather and strong head winds out of the north, like NOW, they sometimes FALLOUT of the sky and inundate our coastal cheniers (oak groves). Phil and I have watched this spectacle together many times over 30 years and, though it is nowhere near as brilliant (numbers are down), it is no less fascinating, requiring all three degrees of knowledge to fully appreciate.

Godspeed.
Cheerio.
Thomistically,
jb

p.s. My third child was just confirmed. He took the name: Thomas Aquinas. Good boy

If I say God, they say, ah! theology. If I say awareness, they say, ah! mysticism. If I say being, they say ah! philosophy. How do you deliver the captive from prison, who does not see the bars?

And right after that one was one that makes me one with whatever One one thinks is the One.

I find to be the most absolute in their thinking those who express no belief in the absolute.

Enjoy the birding, JB. Yes, I do recall migrating birds just exhausted from their flight over the Gulf of Mexico: 37 Baltimore Orioles in a little shrub one day, and I could almost pet them they were so whupped.

-----

Thanks for the high-powered reflection on Godel's Theorem. I was unaware of this work and am please to see a mathematician prove that mathematicians don't have the final word on truth. The tie-ins to Maritain are intriguing, but my poor brain is out of gas tonight and so I'll comment on that part later.

This is a reprint of JB's 2001 post.

An Artificial Intelligence Thought Experiment
Could free will supervene on artificial intelligence?

Is there a Kurzweilian scenario wherein we could design spiritual machines?

Could these spiritual machines do philosophy, theology, science and mysticism?

Could we program, in them, all that we as humans collectively know about science in the realm of space-time-matter-energy? Could we design them in such a way as to yield the sum total of human knowledge in a manner by which they could yield answers to all questions pertaining to where-when-what-how? Could we rig them up robotically to accomplish all manner of physical tasks?

Could we design them in such a way as to yield the sum total of human philosophical and theological knowledge in a manner by which they could yield answers to all questions, both speculative and experienced-based, pertaining to why and who?

Could they be designed to deal with the ontological questions of thatness, thusness, suchness in the realm of mysticism? And when confronted with any problem of infinite regress, such as when queried about the fact of existence in the form of a questioning as to why there is something rather than nothing, could we program a time-out algorithm that would prevent an infinite loop error and reallocate system resources to other programs?

Could they be programmed to search out all manner of pragmatic decisions using an imaginative-type faculty built in conjunction with an open-ended processor which actively chooses between possible ethical options? options which would be embedded in a plenitude of legal abstractions and moral concepts patterned after those programs which model chess games or storm paths? Could this open-ended processor also yield, then, aesthetic determinations with a similar algorithm as that used in choosing the ethical options?

Once suitably programmed with the noetic, ethic and aesthetic algorithms, could they be further programmed to run subroutines which might establish special affinities for various scenarios ranked as higher versus lessor values, those to be preferred versus those to be avoided, along a continuum which saves program outcomes in storage memory as experience and calls them up into random access memory for processing as affective/disaffective program components?

Would we have at this point a digital spiritual machine capable of interconnectivity with peripheral analog apparata and robotics?

Would, at this point in design, the machine be prepared to make the Kierkegaard leap in a decision to trust its designer? Could the machine self-transcend and make an open-ended decision for or against trust in uncertain reality?

Notwithstanding the fact that we have no a priori information available to program the machine in order to have it ground itself or self-validate its various program codes, subroutines, algorithms and stored memory, could it nevertheless open-endedly derive a binary, either-or hypotheses regarding its program reliability? For instance, after a series of iterations, grounded in the experiences of producing predictions, explanations and insights which yield intelligibility and fertile algorithms for producing new code and modifying old code, could it then choose, algorithmically and pragmatically, for or against its own reliability in an attempt to self-validate?

What hypotheses could be produced in this binary environment? Would they be limited to radical trust or radical mistrust in program reliability? Or some program algorithm which emulates a dipolar trust-mistrust continuum?

Could there be an assortment of similarly pre-programmed machines let loose in an interconnective environment competing for both unequally distributed resources and access to peripheral apparata and robotics? How might their interactions with this environment influence their self-reliability determinations along a dipolar trust-mistrust continuum?

Which machines would, in choosing an algorithm of fundamental trust or mistrust of its own program codes, subroutines, algorithms and stored memories, decide for which hypothesis? that program which will guide its ongoing processing activities in making noetic, ethical and aesthetic choices?

Is the choice not unavoidable? inescapable? Is the self-in/validation of self-reliability not an integral program component?

In this digital-analog environment, in order for the computer to continue processing it must operate within parameters and with constraints? Is the machine limited to program coded in logic and dependent on rational decision-making algorithms? Is the program constrained by written code, code written in logical and analogical language and built on emergent complexity from an otherwise simple binary substrate?

In regard to the question of fundamental trust and internal program validation, given these parameters and constraints, requiring both rational coding and logical processing, would these machines sort themselves out into an assemblage of essential pragmatists, essential nihilists, theists and nontheists?

Some pragmatist machines (theists) rejecting a priori and a posteriori program validation, but producing a logical and rational hypothetical framework of fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

The nihilist machines locking-up, with frozen screens, general protect faults, invalid media but with not even the hint of an error message?

Some theist machines (fideists) accepting both a priori and a posteriori program validation in a pre-supposed logical and rational framework of fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

Some nontheists (rationalists) rejecting a priori program validation in a pre-supposed framework of arbitrary and paradoxical fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

Some pragmatist machines (nontheists) rejecting a priori and a posteriori program validation and operating within an illogical and irrational hypothetical framework of fundamental trust?

Are these spiritual machines theoretically possible? Could they function as true messengers in conveying design structures for their virtual existence that emulate actual existence? Would they "know" they were machines?

Given design-parameters and essential constraints on functionality, could free will supervene on their artificial intelligence?

While it is theoretically conceivable, without considering all of the nuanced discussion of the body-mind problem, that there could be machines of the variety of pragmatic theists, theists and even nihilists (trust me, I own one!), design parameters and system constraints for binary-coded logical processors would preclude functionality of machines running on irrational, illogical machine code.

Human beings, as spiritual machines, as independent agents of free will, cannot be emulated, even in theory, because our potential for irrationality and illogic is not translatable into machine-readable, processable code.

Free will cannot in theory supervene on artificial intelligence no matter what position one takes on the mind-body problem.

That ought to provide a mind-body problem bias!

Analysis of Algorithms a la Godel

Some pragmatist machines (theists) rejecting a priori and a posteriori program validation, but producing a logical and rational hypothetical framework of fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

This follows Godel's Theorem insofar as its rejection of program validation accepts incompleteness and accomplishes consistency.

The nihilist machines locking-up, with frozen screens, general protect faults, invalid media but with not even the hint of an error message?

This does not follow Godel's Theorem because it rejects both completeness and consistency and is unprovable, therefore, even with a JOTS [jump outside the system].

Some theist machines (fideists) accepting both a priori and a posteriori program validation in a pre-supposed logical and rational framework of fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

This does not follow Godel's Theorem because it attempts both completeness and consistency.

Some nontheists (rationalists) rejecting a priori program validation in a pre-supposed framework of arbitrary and paradoxical fundamental trust to guide its ongoing processing activities?

This does not follow Godel's Theorem insofar as its silence on program validation does not substantively conform to a rejection of program validation but, rather, implicitly assumes a program validation, thus attempting both completeness and consistency.

Some pragmatist machines (nontheists) rejecting a priori and a posteriori program validation and operating within an illogical and irrational hypothetical framework of fundamental trust?

This doesn't follow Godel's Theorem because it makes no attempt at completeness or consistency.

The elements of the above worldviews were derived from Hans Kung's idea that the God Hypotheses comprise a justification for one's fundamental trust in uncertain reality. Implicit in the concept of uncertain reality is Godel's incompleteness principle. Implicit in a God Hypothesis is a JOTS, a jump outside the system, to prove the axioms upon which our algorithms for reality are based, iow, outside of space-time-matter-energy. [Apologies to Kung, this linkage is my contraption].

I also apologize to Maritain for dragging his highly nuanced concepts into my rather facile application of Godel's Theorem.

I wrote that AI essay, above, at SPlace before I had ever heard of Kurt Godel. It just occurred to me to go back and see how I did. Actually, my formal system of argumentation precisely reflected the math !

Now, I need to revist The Christ OS bulletin board to clear up any inconsistencies that might exist between Godel's Theorem and our computer analogue for how Jesus changed things, ontologically, once and for all time through the Incarnation. Since Phil and I pretty much rigorously apply a Thomistic Metaphysic, I predioct no problems because it is entirely consonant/congruent with Godel's Theorem. Such are the advantages of having a coherent system; you get some things right in spite of yourself

Prett cool stuff, Phil, but if it feels like you are reading the phonebook, you'd better stop and do some breath exercises.

So this won't get misread, basically that AI musing affirms only agnosticism within a system (such a system that attempts to model ultimate reality, itself), that is with regard to any direct evidence and conclusive proofs. And it affirms any hypothesis that has JOTS and that recognizes its reliance on indirect evidence in drawing practical proofs (inferences).

So, one can consistently be either a materialist or an immaterialist as long as one concedes there is no logically coerceive proof, no complete and consistent explanation, no direct evidence, within the system for one's position (hypothesis).

It is in the gathering of indirect evidence, then, and the search for compelling inferences or what we call practical proof (proof for all practical purposes) that worldviews get defended and advanced. So, practically speaking, one can be a scientist without being scientistic, a theist without being fideistic ... but how many are?

Then, when it comes down to an analysis of consciousness, the only way materialism survives as a viable hypothesis for consciousness is for it to deny subjective experience, that nonalgorithmic and more than computational experience that the philosophers talk about and that you experience as you consider the very notion that you are aware that you are reading this posting and breaking your brain in the process. A computer reading this posting might properly conclude that I am not talking its language and it might quit processing this algorithm because of such a code failure but it wouldn't think to itself at the same time: "Cripes, I'd wish this fellow would talk plain English!" and it wouldn't feel the frustration that you are feeling.

On the other hand, materialism could affirm the existence of our nonalgorithmic consciousness and claim that a new fundamental law of the universe needs to be added to space, time, mass and charge and that, even within quantum mechanics, this new fundamental must be inherently and essentially nonalgorithmic. This is an unnuanced version of what Penrose is suggesting. I don't have a problem with this. Really it is very much akin to people suggesting that we name this fifth fundamental -- consciousness.

So, we'd have space,time, matter, energy, consciousness. Or, in Penrose's case, space, time, mass, charge and nonalgorithmic materiality. Big deal. In either case, we'd have still accomplished only one more JOTS but would yet be in need of still another JOTS and a new unprovable axiom to explain this fifth fundamental law. This process would go on into infinity and no number of superstrings could, in principle, JOTS to see such a God as Thomistic Metaphysics describes. At least, not according to Kurt Godel.

pax,
jb

It seems like everyone agrees that 1) one can draw compelling inferences from indirect evidence, that "practical proof" is indispensable. It seems like good science and good theology both 2) rely on critical realism, 3) accept some type of incompleteness principle such as arises from the implications of the work of Godel and Heisenberg, 4) recognize the assymetry in verification and falsification processes and 5) affirm a robust Lakatosian approach to critique their respective competing hypotheses.

All such hypotheses are verifiable/falsifiable, in principle, eventually, even if eventually means eschatologically. Therefore, it does seem rather arbitrary, methodologically, to toss out an hypothesis, its indirect evidence and practical proofs/inferences, just because its verifiability/falsifiability is not available Sunday but will only become available Tuesday, which is to say not available temporally but only eschatologically, especially once considering that any given hypothesis has met the other five criteria listed above in all their rigor.

The hypotheses of teapots orbiting Pluto or of Santa and the Easter Bunny are not, using the methodology I set out above, of the same order as the hypotheses set out in Aquinas' Summa. Still, I think it is useful to draw distinctions between those matters that are systematically unverifiable, in principle, temporally and those that are not, as long as we don't arbitrarily toss out the existential import or practical applications of various practical proofs and inferences based solely on such a distinction. For example, the ontological inferences that can be drawn from the implications of Godel's Theorem vis a vis Artificial Intelligence thought experiments should have their place in the constellation of other "proofs", both physical and metaphysical.

In other words, I appreciate people's confusion. Nuancing nonoverlapping magisteria [NOMA] issues is incredibly difficult without a coherent philosophy of nature. For example, I don't fault ID proponents methodologically, therefore. Systematically, though, they fail to appreciate, it seems, that we can't transcend the constraints implied by Godel's Theorem by merely JOTS/jumping outside the system. Each such jump introduces new unprovable axioms that can't be proven within the system, progressing infinitely toward the ontologically Wholly Other, Wholly Transcendent. There will never, in principle, be enough strings to tie superstring theory around Creation, materialistically or otherwise. Perhaps, then, the only thing missing from both ID proponents and materialistic scientists, is a little modesty, a more tentative approach.

pax,
jb

This is saying that any symbolic system based on deriving truth from axioms is incomplete. It is difficult to draw a distinction between the symbolic representations of the universe in our minds and the universe itself, between any supposedly complete system and reality. Any model of reality that we can contrive is contained within reality and will therefore necessarily always be smaller than reality or, conversely, reality would have to be larger than itself.

That reminds me of something I read about DNA: how could something contain both the instructions for making something and the instructions for making the instructions. Well, I'm pretty sure DNA does this somehow (I forget how). I brought this up because my mind is dull right now but I thought there might be a kernel of something in this that relates to what you're saying, JB.

I thought the following listserv exchange was revealing of how the pursuit of truth through philosophy can be a very personal struggle and triumph, too. The exchange also touched upon a type of liberation that can come about from achieving a more coherent worldview, even by moving past, for instance, Bertrand Russell toward Kurt Godel, embracing an Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysic with all of the practical proof this life can give. The post is interesting, too, inasmuch as it approaches the topic of consciousness we have been discussing, somewhat validating my musing re: Maritan's Degrees of Knowledge vis a vis, albeit indirectly, the implications of Godel's Theorem for human consciousness. It is a nice blend of personal sharing and theoretical speculation, even if some of it is too technical.

To: phil-logic@bucknell.edu
Subject: Re: Aristotelian logic/set theory
From: Den1P@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:56:33 -0400

In a message dated 96-04-08 22:11:29 EDT, a13231@mindlink.bc.ca (Drake
O'Brien) write:

>Hello,
>I'm new to this list so I'll include some personal background along with my
>message:
>
>I've been doing a private study of formal logic in several year long spurts of intense concentration, with a few years off between each. When I began the study I had no definite focus. I was driven solely by unwillingness to
>accept the mental chaos I found myself in after undergraduate courses which consisted of
>mechanical drills in "horseshoe pushing" supplemented by texts whose >discussion of the logic of plain language focussed almost exclusively on >so-called 'paradox'. However, extensive reading and persistence narrowed
>and sharpened my focus considerably.
>
>In time focus of my study became a constructive one: to demonstrate elementary set theory consistently within an Aristotelian framework, or
>'from an Aristotelian ground'. Later, having met with a small success in >this introductory task, so there was definitely solid ground beneath my
>feet, I did work on demonstrating elementary (what I now call 'general and >particular') set-theoretical predicate calculi from an Aristotelian ground.

>With the help and direction of a professor and student (now a professor in his own right) at the Seminary of Christ the King here in Mission, B.C., I >again succeeded to a certain extent.
>
>Of course, this work opened doors to yet more work, to yet more questioning,>quite a bit of which is out of my depth. Nevertheless, I succeeded >in escaping the state of mental chaos that had so upset me, when my understanding of logic was determined solely by a program developed after Bertrand Russell & his successors. I now have an understanding, from a
>classical Aristotelian perspective, of what the '1st order predicate >calculus' of K. Godel's Completeness proof is, and how, eg., the 'existential quantifier' of that calculus can be consistently interpreted according to Aristotelian technical terms. It took me about 20 years of sporadic but highly focussed study to get to this point.
>
>Unfortunately, although my work in set-theoretical symbolic logic is >consistent with the classical Aristotelian logic taught at the Seminary of Christ the King, study in symbolic logic is tangent to the syllabus & the real interest in logic of the people who teach and study there. Also, I have no contacts with academics in other institutions.
>
>I could just leave this matter go, since I've achieved (more or less) my personal goal regarding the study - a certain peace of mind. But I think the _subject_ of my work is important in itself. I don't want all my work to go to waste just because it isn't, at this moment in time, fashionable.
>
>So I'm looking for contacts, or possible directions, or informations, which
>might go toward furthering my work.
>
>Thank you,
>Drake O'Brien

I am new to this list but have similar interests, and would be interested
in seeing your work. If you have not already done so, I would recommend
reading Veatch, _Intentional Logic_ (Yale, 1950).

In response to the suggestion for a self-introduction, I present the
following:

I am self-employed as a software developer and entrepeneur. I have a doctorate in theoretical physics (Notre Dame, 1970) and a long standing interest in philosophy. I am generally familiar with traditional philosophy
and with Cognitive Science, and have published papers in _Meta-Philosophy_ and _The Modern Schoolman_. My programatic interest is to frame a
contemporary synthesis along Aristotelian/Thomistic lines. I have worked
through the problem of creatively free choice ("free will") vs. various forms of determinism and reductionism (physical, causal, and motivational) as a exercise in system building.

This drew my attention to what I consider a weakness in foundations in contemporary philosophy, particularly in epistemology and logic where older insights have been lost in the rush forward. In particular, there seems to
be a severely attenuated understanding of the nature and roles of (1)intentionality and intentional existence, and (2) abstraction, as well as a confusion of the later with numerical induction. In drawing these conclusions I have been influenced by Aristotle and Aquinas, and also by Veatch and Maritain.

My methodological approach is outlined in "Paradigms for an Open Philosophy." _Metaphilosophy_ (1993), which outlines a Projection Paradigm as an alternative to formalization and reductionism. In applying this paradigm, knowing, articulating and communicating are each viewed as involving a projective loss of dimentionality in content.

In the theory of mind, I support a natualistic two-subsystem model of mind in which one subsystem is a neuro-physiological data processing system, and the second is an immaterial (but nonetheless natural) system responsible tor subjective awareness and its direction. The first subsystem is the object of cognitive science, while the second is the subject of phenomenological and introspecitve research. Following the Thomistic-Aristotelian approach, I do not see these subsystems as separate, and hence, this position is not dualistic. Rather, I affirm the Aristotelian insight that the _psyche_ is simply the form of the body , in the sense of its principle of operation. In modern parlance, this means its law of motion.

My stance is that chaos theoretic, and other, considerations prevent a reduction of the _psyche_ to more elimentery laws. Since it is a natural law, (1) the problem of body-soul or mind-body interaction does not arise, and (2) the model is entirely naturalistic while allowing a non-dualistic immaterial subsystem, as in classical Thomism. [JB's note: this immaterial subsystem would comport with nonalgorithmic consciousness predicted by Godel as distinguished from computational consciousness, as confirmed by Penrose and explained either through a nonalgorithmic fundamental of quantum physics (Penrose) or through accepting consciousness as a fundamental of nature alongside space, time, mass and charge.

My views on matter differ are neither Cartesian nor Thomist, but, I argue in my _Modern Schoolman_ article, "A New Reading of Aristotle's _Hyle_" (1991), strictly Aristotelian. The basic idea is that 'hyle' names the propensity to orderly development in time (a blossoming dynamic) as the essential feature of matter. This notion is basic to the concept of a Law of
Nature. The loss of insight in neo-Platonic interpretations of hylomorphism is the principle reason Scholasticism was unable to respond appropriately to the scientific revolution. With its resurrection, Aristotelian Scholasticism becomes a viable alternative to both Analytic and Post-Modern philosophies.

Dennis Polis

----------------------------------------

I thought that was one of the neater listserv exchanges I've come across.

pax,
jb

In the theory of mind, I support a natualistic two-subsystem model of mind in which one subsystem is a neuro-physiological data processing system, and the second is an immaterial (but nonetheless natural) system responsible tor subjective awareness and its direction. The first subsystem is the object of cognitive science, while the second is the subject of phenomenological and introspecitve research. Following the Thomistic-Aristotelian approach, I do not see these subsystems as separate, and hence, this position is not dualistic. Rather, I affirm the Aristotelian insight that the _psyche_ is simply the form of the body , in the sense of its principle of operation. In modern parlance, this means its law of motion.

I almost had a "koan" moment upon reading that, JB. I saw some quite learned and humble searchers of the truth trying � for decades by some accounts � to come to grips with consciousness in terms of science, or not in terms of science, with the application of as much brute-force reasoning as they could muster. And I saw much of myself in those people as I grapple with some of my own questions that never really do succumb to logic and reason alone. To understand consciousness what more is there to do then to just experience it with as much awareness as possible?

This is NOT meant as a repudiation of science or reasoned thought. Heck, I continue to be fascinated by science and do a fair amount of reading about the latest stuff. But it is something the occurred to me as another offshoot or unintended consequence of your ideas, JB. Perhaps you're even smarter then I assume and these consequences aren't so unintended.

re: unintended consequences

Thomas Aquinas held that the only politic way to refute another's position (in my case, the strict materialists) is to state to them, as clearly as possible, their own position to their satisfaction. It helps, even more, if you understand their ideas and the implications of their ideas better than they do themselves.

So, I have pointed out to the materialists, as best I can and as politely as I can, that they are using too much of the water of intuition to flush the toilets of their metaphysics and that a compelling ecomorality would require them to reduce the size of the nonalgorithmic tanks on their inferential commodes. The unintended consequence is that, after the reduction of the tank size, the commodes don't really flush very well the first time and, inevitably, require a second, follow-up flush. They thus end up using more intuitive water than ever.

I actually learned this metaphysical trickery from the liberal tree huggers who are responsible, albeit through unintended consequences, for wasting more precious water than ever before with their recodification of building codes throughout the land.

But that is my account of the strict materialists. Now, to move more directly to: To understand consciousness what more is there to do then to just experience it with as much awareness as possible?

The Zen-like , check that ... the Zen implicit in all of this has its own evocative power apart from anything I could ever intend. Of course, through our friendship and dialogue, I knew of the appeal that Godelian implications would have for your own hermeneutic, in general, even if I did not plan every evocative koan-like experience, in particular.

I did, however, have a bizarre curiosity about Godelian thought and so I will now admit that I did several Google searches using a variety of syntaxes: +Godel +Zen; +Godel +Catholic; +Godel +Thomism; +Godel +Buddhist; +Godel +Maritain; and on and on and on. I forget the results but my lingering impression was that the Eastern traditions had twice as many hits

No more sylvestian secrets revealed today though

That reminds me of something I read about DNA: how could something contain both the instructions for making something and the instructions for making the instructions. Well, I'm pretty sure DNA does this somehow (I forget how). I brought this up because my mind is dull right now but I thought there might be a kernel of something in this that relates to what you're saying, JB.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head.

quote:

We also know, from information theory, how codes work. Encoded messages are independent of the physical medium used to store and transmit them. If we knew how to translate the message in a DNA molecule, we could write it out using ink or crayon or electronic impulses from a keyboard. We could even take a stick and write it in the sand-all without affecting its meaning. In other words, the sequence of "letters" in DNA is chemically arbitrary: There is nothing intrinsic in the chemicals themselves that explains why particular sequences carry a particular message. In the words of chemist-turned-philosopher Michael Polanyi, the sequence of nucleotides is "extraneous to" the physical and chemical properties within the molecule-which is to say, the sequence is not determined by inherent physical-chemical forces. In fact, it is precisely this "physical indeterminacy" (Polanyi's phrase) that gives nucleotides the flexibility to function as letters in a message-to be arranged and rearranged in a host of unpredictable patterns, like the letters on a page. But physical indeterminacy also implies that physical forces did not originate the pattern-any more than the text on this page originated from the physical properties of the paper and ink.

DNA: The Message in the Message by Nancy R. Pearcey in Copyright (c) 1996 First Things 64 (June/July 1996): 13-14

Nancy Pearcey was precisely addressing the very same issues that brought the above observation to mind as you, Brad.

She wrote:

quote:

The example Barr considered was human consciousness, focusing on Roger Penrose's argument that the mind cannot be explained by currently known laws of physics. As a convinced materialist, Penrose holds out the hope that new and unimaginable physical laws are nonetheless out there, just waiting to be discovered. As Barr comments, materialism clearly functions for Penrose as a faith of the gaps: When science reveals phenomena that surpass the explanatory power of known natural laws, materialism takes refuge in the hope of turning up "undiscovered and unprecedented" laws, different in kind from any currently known.

So, yes, same thing at work. Who, now, is smarter than he admits

Way to go, Idaho ... Washington, whatever

I did several Google searches using a variety of syntaxes: +Godel +Zen;

I'm still absorbing that great "Now and Zen" link that you provided. Truly outstanding. I recommend it to all.

They thus end up using more intuitive water than ever.

Car and sports analogies are pass� at Shalom Place. Here one must work a little harder to impress the rabble. This rabble is duly impressed.

Now, going from crap to Crick: But physical indeterminacy also implies that physical forces did not originate the pattern-any more than the text on this page originated from the physical properties of the paper and ink.

That's a bold statement.

As Barr comments, materialism clearly functions for Penrose as a faith of the gaps: When science reveals phenomena that surpass the explanatory power of known natural laws, materialism takes refuge in the hope of turning up "undiscovered and unprecedented" laws, different in kind from any currently known.

It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to whole-heartedly climb on board with this idea. My reservations are stated best from "The Message in the Message" link:

Murphy argues that believers are properly "wary of invoking divine action in any way in science, especially in biology, fearing that science will advance, providing the naturalistic explanations that will make God appear once again to have been an unnecessary hypothesis."

Thus I remain somewhat in a neutral gap, similar to what many people recently experienced in Iraq, waiting to see which sides wins before fully committing.

We are so conditioned to expect scientific breakthroughs that exceed our expectations, Barr observed, that we reflexively reject any idea that science has limits. Yet science reveals not only the rich possibilities of nature but also its limitations. To give obvious examples, we know that we will never fulfill the alchemists' dream of chemically transmuting lead into gold. We know that a parent of one species will never give birth to offspring of another species. Science reveals consistent patterns that allow us to make negative statements about what natural forces cannot do. To persist in seeking natural laws in such cases, Barr suggested, is as irrational as any primitive myth of the thunder gods.

And then I read something like this and dare to stick a tentative toe into the waters (I hope you flushed) of the ocean beyond materialism.

Who, now, is smarter than he admits

Well, I've always strived to be a Yogi � the Bear at least. Therefore I feign no immodesty when I say that I am smarter than the average one.

Way to go, Idaho

You should erase and format your hard drive once in a while. Your brain is remembering WAY too much minutia. Come to think of it....

from Now and Zen (link at top of page):

If you would worship God truly, live your life fully aware. Cynicism and pessimism are unrealistic defense mechanisms that arise out of a tendency to mental and emotional laziness. They are a form of self-indulgence I can seldom afford to maintain.

That's really very good!

(OK, I'm still playing catch up on this thread.)

Cynicism and pessimism are unrealistic defense mechanisms

Ahhhh....hogwash. Yes. There are many fine sayings at the end of that link, including:

A koan is like a large boulder hidden beneath the surface of a swift-moving river. It makes the current visible by its resistance. In the same way, the koan makes being visible by its resistance to the passage of the stream of consciousness.

I wonder if JB could rearrange this into a toilet analogy? Now, going from crap to Crick, another powerful quote, at least to me, from the DNA link:

If we consult everyday experience, we readily note that objects with a high information content-books, computer disks, musical scores-are products of intelligence. It is reasonable to conclude, by analogy, that the DNA molecule is likewise the product of an intelligent agent. This is a contemporary version of the design argument, and it does not rest on ignorance-on gaps in knowledge-but on the explosive growth in knowledge thanks to the revolution in molecular biology and the development of information theory.

This basically restates a previous pull-quote from JB. But after reading the article and reading this statement near its end, I found it to be persuasive, or at least to tingle zee leetle ggray cells.

Back to . . .natualistic two-subsystem model of mind . . . which roughly corresponds with old brain/new brain: it seems St. Thomas (using Aristotle) had worked this out by noting that the human spiritual soul incorporated the animal and vegetable souls, which continued to provide intelligence for managing physiology and emotional instincts, but now in the context of the spiritual soul, which became the principle of life governing even these lower forms. Hence, emotion was no longer merely instinctual, but provided information about the spiritual meaning of events; and physiology became subject to the kinds of thoughts and attitudes engendered in the spiritual soul.

-------

This has been one of our more high-powered threads. Time to rest my brain as well. I'll be checking the forum daily this week, but don't expect to be as active. It is a time for more silence, reflection, meditation, and worship.