Posted by: Sk | February 16, 2009

7 Computering and theology

Another seems nothing to do with another subject. And though.

We said before that a computer was something like a human without intentionality. Remarked though ‘although’, to sask’s greatest surprise. Not to say that she does at least understands computers as computers and not like me, like wicked psychologies carrying demons and devils with them. It is though not so difficult to prove what we mean, if understood as we mean it.

All thing, everything, whatever is made by a human mind and hand, has the mark of the thought and principle that determined the possibility of construction of such a thing. The thing, the object, seen from that point of view, is nothing but the result or consequence of a certain understanding of reality, of a view on the whole and the parts and the way they are linked one to the other. Computers are no exception to that. What was the main structure in thought, the principle governing the possibility of realization of a structure whose logic would allow the functioning of computers? May we then say, if we determine that, that this logic is subliminaly confronted to our human logic every time we switch on the computer? That even, it finishes by influencing our behaviour, fantasy and thoughts if we are silly enough to pretend that this logic is stronger than ours?

Our human logic, I say, but was the logic that built the computer not a human logic, too? One human logic against our particular and personal and subjective and intimate approach on things?

It is true, if we want it or not, that the human logic that governs the functioning of computers is an atheistic, pragmatic, empirical logic. Why did the atheist want to prove something through these means, is still difficult to see. It is an evidence that the computer will never prove that God does not exist. Seen from another point of view, it may look though differently: you have an almighty church that does make pressure not only on individuals but also on centers of political power, as monarchies, but even democracies or republics, having the means to send to exile, to leave without possessions, to destroy morally, socially, psychologically whoever dares a slight opposition. The opposition though grows, as the church shifts away from original goals and means and concentrates its attention on simply maintaining earthy power. In the XIXth century the curch is finally taken away the monopoly of knowledge. Science is not to depend anymore from theology but from metaphysics, and the church is left only the realm of undefined soul (they’d never make the effort to define it either, would have been too tiring). Strangely though, science does not make the clear difference between God (theology and religion) and the church. The church’s obvious mistakes, do they really mean God is not, morals none, soul unexistant, life just a biological reference? This undetermined point, leads very reasonable people to take the part of the church, although they don’t basically agree with evident misbehaviours. On the other hand, science and deriving computer science, finds itself in the eternal opposition with the confronting side. Computers do thus not prove God is not, but they prove you can be something, you can rule on history and human behaviour, have weight and social recognition, wealth and even knowledge, without God nor church nor religion. In my understanding, this confrontation does reflect itself in the very conception of the computer. Main logicians working on the foundation of computers, as Wittgenstein and Russell (there are others I don’t know very well) do obviously take position against god and religion (Russell: “Why I don’t believe in God.”).

Logically, religion and churches are very reluctant in the beginning to work with those instruments of the devil. What could have a reason in its depth, to say that it is always dangerous to integrate new logics in given ones as you can’t know exactly what they imply, results in an absurd ‘we didn’t invent it’ argument, which though becomes (how much, but really how much some people’s minds can be tortured and deviated!) something like ‘it is of christian ground and thus in basis ours’ that the computer came from, consequently we’re better than muslims, taoists and other (??!!). We’re not going to get into extravagant controversia concerning some people’s hability to make theirs what is nothing but the desperate result of opposition against mad misinterpretation of heaven’s beauty. But the logic is there.

Consequently it will reflect itself in the whole construction. The mistake deriving of f>v=v is nothing but the consequence of this strange combination of factors. It may have horrible consequences: it determines social regulations, annihilates essences, disturbs the possibility of communication. In one, it is as if you said: I’m a judge, thus I’m just. (Reverted in: ‘whatever I do f or v’ > I’m a judge = I’m just). There is no way in this logic to attach a certain number of regulating characteristics to a role or function “you have to respect law, or you have to keep yourself in this disposition, etc.”, it is enough to have the title in order to be just (or whatever). Consequently the  synthesis in essence is slowly lost. “El hábito no hace al monje”, the Spaniard says (The dress doesn’t make the monk), becomes a universal lie in computer’s eyes. The other level affected is the level of communication. It is as if in f>v=v, you could mean whatsoever. whatever meant or context f or v > fact refered to v = v. And this is absurd. As heavily insisted on, it is not the same to show something to someone than to prove his idiocy by smashing a ‘you didn’t know that?’ on an evidence. Computer logic though does make no difference: contexts, meanings, tones, interpretation, being v or f, as the sentence is correct it is true, and the rest doesn’t matter.

This somewhat, yes, you can say, diabolic logic, has horrible consequences on finances and social regulation. It’s enough to have money to be someone, means you don’t make the difference between socially generating riches and whatever nonsense. Will it ever be the same to have two thousand people working in an ordered chain of production, having as result a small marvel, or the same money coming from gambling, prostitution or pornography? Never, and though, the computer doesn’t make the difference. The fact that the computer doesn’t allow this important differentiation, makes that at the end, two horrible consequences appear: you finish by shaking hands in a cocktail of the one who is deliberatily and intentionally distroying your business (heard lately, though I hope it isn’t true, that Norton was paying virus producers in order to keep the sales figures high ?!), and … the ‘ill’ componants of finances, who have certainly neither ethical means nor deeper morals, finish by distroying the basis and foundation of the well functioning of finance: the state, who, with regulations and administration, control and taxes, does allow the swift interaction with the environment and provides the necessary security. It is in that logic, that Norton would pay police officers in order notto make the follow up, while you are still considering whether it is moral to pursue someone legally after he having produced a 2.000.000 USD damage. This is all the result of a computer logic, which, luckily, is embedded in other more stronger logics that do balance up to a certain extent the disastruous consequences of a mistake in differentiation.

At the end, you will finish up finding God easier in computers than in the church. At least it starts from the determination of ‘it is this’ 1+1+1 aso, which is not that bad. How many theologians would answer (I heard it I swear) to the question ‘who they followed’ while entering the church ‘a whisper without voice of nowhere’. Well, that is not serious, while 1+1 is very serious, and God is very serious and is thus much happier with people who at least determine a 1 as a 1 than by those who distroy the meaning of words in contradiction (for a christian ‘word’ itself is God: ‘in arxi in o logos, kai o logos in o theos’, at the begining was word, and word was god). Now the thing is on top of that, the the christian virtue of repent is very well symbolized by ‘the understanding of a mistake or error’, and computers do oblige to such procedures because these devlish machines are always committing errors, are confronted to horrible viruses and monsters, need of interference, objections, comments and feedback in order to continue their peaceful existence, and thus seem to stay, in depth, much nearer to a process of possibility of understanding than certain sciences that stay in churches ranks in the sens of infalibility, just because ‘how would ever anyone dare saying they are wrong’, etc.

It is not thus surprising, Sask, that some may do more or less with computers. Those who believe that at the edge of the f12 function there will always stay a little angel, will certainly master the tricky almost contradictory logic of computers, while those, believing this logic stronger than theirs, will finish up … in the pornography mafia (where the link, I won’t tell …)

In order though to answer to your urgent request, I do have to admit, that unluckily I’m not at the origin of the discovery, but a reporter of french ‘Le Figaro’, who wrote in an article in 2002 that the functions of highly securized sites do get into a less securized site by simply … copying a text of the first. Thus, it was enough to have three or four texts of France’s ‘Legifrance’ in order to have a bunker in your computer (ah! law helps even vanishing …), as they were highly securized. Thus is ‘technorati’ and other I think stats systems or related research machines. To copy ten of them on a site makes of it … Stalingrad with seven defense circles around. And if you are under high attack while sending a message, use the ambivalence tactic. Take another web page (walla is quite good, by the way, where did they get the system from, I ask myself), and pass from one to the other while you are wanting to send or publish something which seems under attack (high problems in the use of function send or publish). Your laser is uncapable of following the ambivalent passing from one system to the other and … whether you want it or not, message is sent! Ah, what God knows and computers don’t understand yet!

4.12.2006

Here, the computer started behaving like a psychopath, which is perhaps his deepest nature. And that were yesterday’s notes and random notes.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: