Craig's Blog

# re: Faith

i wish i could have met your dad, from your occasional comments he sounds like a neat guy.

a correction: the phrase / concept "self organizing criticality" was coined quite some time ago by somebody else. i first heard of it coming out of the santa fe institute (http://www.santafe.edu), probably sometime in the late 70's / early 80's. it was around the time things like fractals and chaos theory started to come out of the closet into the public eye.

"have faith in" is a bit different concept than "believe", with some important shades of meaning in common, and significant differences as well. the question as posed was "what do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?". stated that way, it's more a matter of epistemology than faith. however, whatever discussion is catalyzed, regardless of personal interpretation, can be interesting.

it's been a couple of years, almost, since i came up with my claim for "inevitable irrational certitude", which is just the way it sounds. the capacity for unreasoned belief, faith, certainty has not only been provided by evolution, but is inevitable in _any_ evolutionary process. all processes are maladaptive without it, and thus cease to exist. it can even be posited in some form in what are conventionally considered to be entirely physical processes, as in the orbits of the planets. but that's another discussion.

but, nota bene: "faith" or "belief" in this sense is nearly trivial. we have faith that the sun will rise, that the floor is solid. things like object permanence, conservation of volume, and other necessary developmental processes.

eventually, like so many other pieces of equipment that have evolved, "exaptation" occurred, and in combination with other capacities, "faith" was complexified (word?), for example, into the religions and much of the philosophies we have today. and, in fact, this is pretty much behind most of our social mores and other codes of behavior.

besides, the question, "what constitutes proof?" is hardly trivial. which is one of the gaps where the intelligent design folks like to spackle in mysticism.

never mid the details. you do have faith in things; you are merely having a problem identifying them.

you _are_, however, continuing to struggle with the god concept. you can't seem to manage to put that one to bed in some way that you are comfortable with. you might want to examine why.

# re: Faith

this is good background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

long live wikipedia !

# re: Faith

ok, one more, sorry i didn't "organize" my thoughts first ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

# re: Faith

I've often wondered about your inevitable irrational certitude (IIC?) idea. It rings true from what I know. Extend this idea into AI research for a moment. I get the feeling that the closer we get to a machine with a form of consciousness and other emergent properties the more we will start seeing IIC and will deem it a flawed design. When really it's unavoidable. Should be some way we can tie thermodynamics into this mix?

I'm not so much troubled or having issues with the god concept it's just that I find it way fascinating. There's so many facets to religion in our culture and brains that it seems to be neverending. It's amazed me since I've been a teenager. Religion is such a huge thing for humans yet I could care less if it all disappeared tommorow. Sometimes I feel like an alien in that sense. Probably right though, I just can't nail down any faith at the moment. I will in time though.

Yeah dad was a good guy. I didn't have the best relationship with him but he did leave an impression on me a lot more than I thought he would. He was a graduate of the school of hard knocks so he'd come up with bits of wisdom from time to time that sort of stuck with me through life. He's been gone almost 20 years now and I still miss him.

# re: Faith

George Michael says you gotta have faith, so it must be true.

# re: Faith

consciousness and ai is more a problem in recognition and definition. arguably, they already exist. also arguably, they have always existed or never existed - in the universe. to accurately have this discussion better terms are needed.

but anyway, that's why i try and read things about communicating with aliens, as this sort of thinking is the best approach to connecting with truly foreign existences (in the context of illusory human experience).

if we _did_ achieve "recognizable" ai/consciousness (ie, to our own limited satisfaction, which is silly), then of course i would have a full suite of human foibles as well (including iic, of course, since this isn't merely human). i also suspect that it would need a physical presence approaching that of humans as well, in all biochemical ways. the "mind" is part of the body, not just something that happens in the brain.

god: _why_ are you fascinated ? you dismissed my original question / statement prematurely. there is some motivation, and i suspect it's something more than intellectual aesthetics.

# re: Faith

George Michael: I was wondering when someone would invoke that fudge packer in this discussion :) Good job Jon!

God: What more can I say? I think if aliens came to Earth the first thing that would grab their attention is religion. I would expect there's plenty of IIC out there in the universe that is manifested in life forms. Quite possibly it's that which interests intelligent beings? What an interesting tv series that would be though. Sort of Star Trekish, visiting worlds and having a plot around the culture's IIC. Some of the Star Trek episodes did delve into that though. Not a totally new idea. Well I wish there's was more to my fascination with religion, could open up a new blog on it but I can't come up with anything. Sorry <sigh>.

Epistemology: Talk about discussing angels on the head of pin. What is the point of studying what constitutes true knowledge anyway? Sort of like discussing what's the real meaning of "pink".

# re: Faith

the point? one current practical matter is the creationsism / evolution debate. in some sense the question of knowledge underlies all other undertakings. and of course, faith, god, etc. your statement was self contradictory, and silly too.

so that's it for god, eh ? so maybe you're not so much fascinated with the subject itself as with the debate surrounding it.

iic is _NOT_ equvialent to religion. geez. i say potato, you say gersputzenfyncks. but yes, mildly contrasting cultures is a theme in many forms of entertainment, and that goes for contrasting worldviews in individuals as well. not the point, or the significance, of iic. first you have to understand the concept of universal existence. not agree with it necessarily; it's just a prerequisite for understanding iic since it sets the context. religion, although made possible by iic, also requires many other developments as well and is something many orders removed from this more atomic concept.

personally, i'd just say you've lost interest in thie discussion, at least for the moment. cool, no problem.