Mymosh, the self-begotten

[Thinker_Doer]

One of the deepest, most enlightening fiction about the world I have ever seen. Not sure where it should be, in my opinion Philosophy is the proper place. If you are interested in reading it, please set aside some time, because it is not lightweight material. If you do, I would be happy to hear your opinion. Here is the link:

http://psychadelicbus.tripod.com/mymosh.txt

I hope you will enjoy is as I did. And I hope we can have an interesting conservation.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

No one is interested in that topic? Too bad…

 

[TechieGuy]

TL;DR

Ten chars

 

[Gorgias]

One of the deepest, most enlightening fiction about the world I have ever seen.

it is not lightweight material.

It’s literally ‘science fiction’ and ‘humor’ by Stanislaw Lem.

At best, it pretends to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, by leaving out some critical points in the discussion.

At worst, it simply lampoons Scripture, without any basis for doing so other than a smug self-confidence in one’s own intelligence.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

It’s literally ‘science fiction’ and ‘humor’ by Stanislaw Lem.

Yes, it is. And also a deep philosophical essay, which might have escaped your attention.

At best, it pretends to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible, by leaving out some critical points in the discussion.

A more detailed critique would have been welcome. A simple condemnation is meaningless.

At worst, it simply lampoons Scripture, without any basis for doing so other than a smug self-confidence in one’s own intelligence.

It has nothing to do with the scripture. If you really wish to see what Lem does when he analyzes the story of creation, read his short story: “Non Serviam”, published in the book: “A perfect Vacuum”. Unfortunately it is not available on-line.

What you see as “smug self-confidence” is a well-deserved confidence in his ability to see ahead and analyze possible outcomes. Lem was one of the deepest thinker of our times. On par, maybe even ahead of Isaac Asimov. His collection of essays in the book “Summa Technologiae” contains his ideas about futurology. (The title is similar to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. And that is not a coincidence.)

But at least you read it. And that is commendable.

 

[Gorgias]

And also a deep philosophical essay, which might have escaped your attention.

It didn’t escape my attention that it wanted to style itself as ‘deep’, but it managed to fail to do so. Rather, it seemed more in the genre of “self-gratifying satire”.

A more detailed critique would have been welcome. A simple condemnation is meaningless.

(I really didn’t find it worthy of a longer critique.)

However, if you ask…

I thought it sounded remarkably like a sophomoric imitation of St Irenaeus, as he pointed out the utter idiocy of Valentinus’ attempt to theologize the creation of the cosmos:

But, in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd ; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness . This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber . Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon . These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus.

Moreover, I found the analogy he chose to be remarkably incomplete – the creation of a logic circuit somehow, inexplicably, turns into a physical being with consciousness?

It was also far-fetched (although, being in the genre of sci-fi humor, it served its purposes well enough). After all, he was merely saying “see! what you call the ‘Hand of God’ could merely be a chain of improbable and easily enough recognized chain of natural events!” If he wanted to make a philosophical claim, then he’d have to do a bit better than that. As it were, his take on it suffices for satire, and nothing more.

What you see as “smug self-confidence” is a well-deserved confidence in his ability to see ahead and analyze possible outcomes.

The entire short story could be summed up in one skeptical question: “what if God didn’t create the world ex nihilo, as you claim, but rather as a ‘Series of Improbable Events’?” That’s it. That’s the whole short story, right there.

(OK… maybe I’m not giving him enough credit: he also attempts to poke holes in Cartesian philosophy; but, I’ve seen attempts no less clumsy from first-year philosophy undergrads.)

Color me ‘unimpressed’.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

That’s the whole short story, right there.

Color me ‘unimpressed’.

I will. And because you did not understand the second, more important aspect of the story. The concept of “series of improbable events” is the least important part. What is getting created (Mymosh) is actually GOD. The being, who then creates the whole Gosmos. So your criticism “colors” me unimpressed. But again, I appreciate your attempt to give more arguments.

Now, if you really want to see Lem’s analysis about God and the creation, in a serious, non-allegorical format, you should read “Non Serviam”.

A Perfect Vacuum - Wikipedia

• Non Serviam : Is an elaborate satire of the idea of artificial intelligence that gets to the heart of the moral dilemma that true success would create. It is written in the dry style of a book review that might appear in a broad scientific journal sometime in the near future. It discusses the book, Non Serviam , by Professor James Dobb, and through this the field of “personetics”, the simulated creation of truly intelligent beings (“personoids”) inside a computer. It starts with a quote that “[personetics is] the cruelest science man ever created.” Lem has the erudite reviewer describe the general theory of personetics, the history and state of the art, and some of the consequences, liberally quoting the work of experts in the field. Later the reviewer quotes from the book a discussion that Dobb recorded in which a personoid philosopher, ADAN. considers what he might owe his (unknown) creator. It is clear that this personoid believes he has free will (and so can say, “non serviam”, i.e. I choose not to serve). It closes by quoting Dobb’s expressed dilemma in having to eventually bring this world to an end. This pseudreview also appeared, in a slightly different form, under the title The Experiment , in 1978 in The New Yorker .[7]

The translation of the faux review of Non Serviam was included into the 1981 collection of essays The Mind’s I .

 

[Wesrock]

What is getting created (Mymosh) is actually GOD. The being, who then creates the whole Gosmos. So your criticism “colors” me unimpressed.

And what do you think is of importance to us here? And what do you find deep about it?

Tbh sounds more like a satire of Idealism as a philosophy, skepticism of the outside world, and how the only thing purportedly truly real is our thoughts, such that we’re ultimately all god.

 

[lelinator]

and how the only thing purportedly truly real is our thoughts, such that we’re ultimately all god.

I of course, don’t discount this possibility with the ease that most people do. But ultimately the question is…how would I know?

 

[Gorgias]

What is getting created (Mymosh) is actually GOD. The being, who then creates the whole Gosmos .

Aah, except that Mymosh is quite different than what we’d label ‘God’ – after all, he’s created from external elements, and is far from perfect, and experiences decay and death. Moreover, his ‘Gozmos’ is internal, and its only existence is as ideas in his mind; it has no external existence, and is not real.

So, please… be impressed with it, if you wish… but it’s not terribly profound.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

You still don’t get it.

Aah, except that Mymosh is quite different than what we’d label ‘God’ – after all, he’s created from external elements, and is far from perfect, and experiences decay and death.

Totally irrelevant. You can apply any attributes onto God, but that makes no difference. You have no evidence that your picture of God correctly describes God. The point is that the Gosmos is simply the creation of Mymosh, just like this world is supposed to be the creation of God.

Moreover, his ‘Gozmos’ is internal , and its only existence is as ideas in his mind; it has no external existence, and is not real.

How do you know that we have an independent existence, that we are not beings in a Matrix, where the Matrix only exists in the mind of God? None of your excuses pertain to the story itself.

By the way, I found the “Non Serviam” on-line: at this address:

http://www.federaljack.com/ebooks/Consciousness%20Books%20Collection/Hofstadter,%20Dennett%20-%20The%20Mind's%20I.pdf

Starting at page 296.

 

[Gorgias]

Totally irrelevant. You can apply any attributes onto God, but that makes no difference. You have no evidence that your picture of God correctly describes God.

Actually, it’s more relevant than you seem to be aware of. Our understanding of God – at least in terms of philosophy (this is a philosophy forum, right? ) springs from valid applications of logic. And so, there are things that we can know about what “God” is, by virtue of logic and reason. Mymosh isn’t “God” or even “a god”; he’s a creation, and a rather pitiful one at that. Perhaps that’s Lem’s point: if we try to make a ‘god’ of a creature, the idol we’ve lifted up is a pale simulacrum of what God really is.

How do you know that we have an independent existence, that we are not beings in a Matrix, where the Matrix only exists in the mind of God?

Been asked and answered many times over in these forums. I’d recommend using the ‘search’ function.

By the way, I found the “Non Serviam” on-line: at this address:

Dennett? That little devil? Now the title “non serviam” makes a lot more sense…

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Our understanding of God – at least in terms of philosophy (this is a philosophy forum, right? ) springs from valid applications of logic. And so, there are things that we can know about what “God” is, by virtue of logic and reason.

Getting more and more irrelevant. But I guess that is the best you can do. From the assumption (and it is only an assumption) that God created the world, there is only one logical conclusion that can be reached: “God was able to do it. Nothing else follows.” Everything else we have to base upon our observation of the world.

Since this IS a philosophy forum, your understanding of God is irrelevant. Whatever you could prove about God, would be relevant.

Been asked and answered many times over in these forums. I’d recommend using the ‘search’ function.

Ah, the usual “solution”: send the other one on a wild goose chase.

Dennett? That little devil? Now the title “non serviam” makes a lot more sense…

It is a copy of the original text, so you don’t have to go to the store or the library. The author is still Lem and the original title is still “Non Serviam”. And the story is about the creation of the world and its inhabitants.

The creator (God) is a computer scientist, the world resides in a huge computer, the inhabitants are simulated beings (are you familiar with object oriented programming?), whose world is under the total control of the experimenter. The “people” can interact with each other, they can think, they can onduct conversation, they have free will and freedom to act (within certain constraints). The creator does not interfere with them, only “listens in” into their thoughts and conversations.

There is God in the story - as I said -, it is the experimenter, who is omnipotent, too. The story is about these beings, some of whom believe in the existence of a creator (and they happen to be correct!) (called the godlies) and others who don’t (these are the ungodlies). They both argue about their side’s view. Some of their conversations are similar to Pascal’s wager.

There are few questions pondered by the experimenter:

1. should he reveal his existence to the world?
2. should he create an afterlife where the godlies will be rewarded for their adoration?
3. should he create another afterlife for the ungodlies, who will be punished for their lack of belief?
4. since the experiment costs a lot of money for the university, what will happen when the experiment will have to terminated, when the end of the world comes?

Since you have this habit to form and declare your opinion before even reading the text, I don’t have a reasonable expectation for having a useful conversation. Moreover you like to make irrelevant misunderstanding.

Oh, well, it would have been fun.

 

[IWantGod]

only thing purportedly truly real is our thoughts, such that we’re ultimately all god.

Yes, how ironic would it be that in our search for God we turn out to be God!! But we both know that this fails as a concept.

 

[IWantGod]

“self-gratifying satire”.

Before i was Christian, i use to think that we are essentially the mind of the universe trying to understand itself. This is to say that through us physical reality has a mind.

Now that there is more than one of us the universe has essentially developed a multiple personality conflict.

Those were the good old days. See where “free-thought” gets you.

 

[lelinator]

But we both know that this fails as a concept.

How so…?

 

[IWantGod]

How so…?

You are asking for the whole world lelinator, and i just an’t got the energy right now. Maybe later.

 

[lelinator]

i just an’t got the energy right now.

Fair enough.

 

[Gorgias]

Getting more and more irrelevant.

When talking about a 100% spiritual being who is not physical, what could be more relevant than logic, reason, and philosophy?

Ah, the usual “solution”: send the other one on a wild goose chase.

No. Rather, “ask the other one to do his own homework.”

The creator (God) is a computer scientist, the world resides in a huge computer, the inhabitants are simulated beings (are you familiar with object oriented programming?), whose world is under the total control of the experimenter.

OK; so, an allegory for some (but not all) facets of reality.

It doesn’t instantiate physical being, though. (And yeah, I know, if we’re talking about ‘philosophy of the mind’, we can posit non-physical “worlds”. The question, though, is whether they’d truly model our reality.)

Can’t say that a “computer scientist” or a “programmer” or “experimenter” can be considered “omnipotent”, except for an amazingly impotent use of the word – that is, it could mean “most powerful in the context of one part of ‘reality’, but not at all ‘more powerful’ in his own reality.” (That doesn’t model God all that well, wouldn’t you say?)

Since you have this habit to form and declare your opinion before even reading the text

Right. 'Cause that’s what I did with your Mishmosh text…

 

[Wesrock]

The creator (God) is a computer scientist, the world resides in a huge computer, the inhabitants are simulated beings (are you familiar with object oriented programming?), whose world is under the total control of the experimenter. The “people” can interact with each other, they can think, they can onduct conversation, they have free will and freedom to act (within certain constraints). The creator does not interfere with them, only “listens in” into their thoughts and conversations.

Such a being would not be God. The only thing properly referred to as God is the first principle of all things. It’s not just a reference to the creator of our universe (if by our universe we refer to just our bubble of space time in some multiverse).