We could have the same discussion around Clark's Third Law.
Conversation
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
1
2
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
Replying to
This is probably our core disagreement: To me, “soul” is an experiential claim. The experience is what the ancients really *meant*.
1
1

