yes because frankly they were... uhh.. idiots compared to us :D
Conversation
Replying to
Haha, sure. :) But if we're using their terms and their concepts, and have redefined them to exclude what they would have included...
3
We could have the same discussion around Clark's Third Law.
1
1
Replying to
The thing about Clark's Third Law is that it finally gave us a workable definition of magic.
1
Replying to
no it does not. Any more than the turing test gives us a defn of intelligence. Did you ever see this? ribbonfarm.com/2007/07/06/har
1
1
Replying to
Ah yeah, good stuff. I think I agree, though I'm just skimming to refresh my memory.
2
Replying to
religious creation myths aren't the same as aliens inventing genomics. They're about breathing consciousness into matter.
1
2
that's where the categorical diff between theists/atheists lies: how they account for consciousness. "Breath of god" vs "tbd"
1
2
Breath of God isn't defined in the sense you're thinking. These are experiential categories.
2
Replying to
I'm talking generally about that kind of allegory. In hinduism it is the primordial sound (nad brahma) for eg
Replying to
Haven't read, but sounds beautiful. You take it as a primarily ontological claim?
1
Replying to
in general steelman views of religion = best understood as consciousness ontologies. Everything else breaks with skepticism
1
2
Show replies

