Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby hyksos on September 14th, 2018, 1:47 am 

Bob Doyle is the Information Philosopher. He has likely read more works of philosophers and scientists than any other modern thinker, and has critically analyzed and written about the ideas of hundreds of them on these I-Phi web pages, as seen in the left navigation.

Bob earned a Ph.D in Astrophysics from Harvard in 1968 and is now an Associate in the Harvard Astronomy Department.


Doyle has written larger-than-book-length expository on his own website. The website is so large, it is nearly like a mini-wikipedia. Topical concentrations fall heavily on interpretations of quantum mechanics, and how those relate to Free Will. But topics are all over the map.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby hyksos on September 14th, 2018, 1:52 am 

Below is a quote from a recent post Doyle made on his blog. A blog that is still actively maintained.
I quote Doyle, not because I agree with his stances, but because he is a good writer.

Most of the world’s religions have some concept of gods or a God, with some notable exceptions such as Buddhism.

Theologians claim to have discerned the essential attributes of a monotheistic God, such as omniscience (perfect foreknowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), and a necessary and eternal existence.

Information philosophy offers a simple test of the “revealed truth” of these attributes, specifically the visions by inspired thinkers that have no empirical evidence. Although these visions are in the realm of “pure ideas,” we can say that if every world religion agreed completely on the attributes of God, it would increase their believability. As it is, the comparative study of religions with the incredible diversity of their claims, renders the idea of God as implausible as Santa Claus.

At the present time, arguments like these will carry little weight with the believers in a religion, most of whom have little exchange of knowledge with those of other faiths. This can be expected to change with the reach of the Internet via smartphones to most of the world’s population by 2020.

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer of the universe, which is now assumed to be running itself following deterministic laws of motion. Open theism den
.
.
.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
DragonFly liked this post


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby wolfhnd on September 14th, 2018, 1:47 pm 

After a short visit to the link I have the same comment I always have. Error is probably a prerequisite for existence.
wolfhnd
 


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby dandelion on September 18th, 2018, 4:33 pm 

Thanks, a great resource on fascinating topics I like, even if the core notions are not be ones I like so much.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 379
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby BadgerJelly on September 19th, 2018, 12:15 am 

And not a single mention of Husserl? Strange.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5574
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby dandelion on September 19th, 2018, 11:39 am 

To my view there are some obvious absences but didn't think of Husserl as one or being that involved with information theory?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 379
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby BadgerJelly on September 19th, 2018, 12:20 pm 

dandelion » September 19th, 2018, 11:39 pm wrote:To my view there are some obvious absences but didn't think of Husserl as one or being that involved with information theory?


He starts off with:

Information Philosophy (I-Phi) is a new philosophical method grounded in science, especially modern physics, biology, psychology, neuroscience, and the science of information.


I misread this a little :/
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5574
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Bob Doyle. The Information Philosopher.

Postby Brent696 on March 4th, 2019, 4:29 pm 

hyksos » September 14th, 2018, 12:52 am

Below is a quote from a recent post Doyle made on his blog. A blog that is still actively maintained.
I quote Doyle, not because I agree with his stances, but because he is a good writer.

Most of the world’s religions have some concept of gods or a God, with some notable exceptions such as Buddhism.

Theologians claim to have discerned the essential attributes of a monotheistic God, such as omniscience (perfect foreknowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), and a necessary and eternal existence.

Information philosophy offers a simple test of the “revealed truth” of these attributes, specifically the visions by inspired thinkers that have no empirical evidence. Although these visions are in the realm of “pure ideas,” we can say that if every world religion agreed completely on the attributes of God, it would increase their believability. As it is, the comparative study of religions with the incredible diversity of their claims, renders the idea of God as implausible as Santa Claus.

At the present time, arguments like these will carry little weight with the believers in a religion, most of whom have little exchange of knowledge with those of other faiths. This can be expected to change with the reach of the Internet via smartphones to most of the world’s population by 2020.

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer of the universe, which is now assumed to be running itself following deterministic laws of motion. Open theism den


This Doyle seems to have very little knowledge of religions, much less a grasp on the attributes of God.

First, omniscience, does not refer to fore knowledge, God, as transcendent Being, is not limited to time, the past and future are simultaneous to Him, as it were, omniscience refers to all knowledge as there is nothing unknown to Him.

Omnipotence, often thought of as power, is a bit inaccurate as it stems from our concept of existence, the power of God lies in His Being. He is the One who IS, all else is transitory, images or reflections as the case might be, but God alone possesses true Being. We conceptually make the mistake of thinking "I exist, atoms exist, you and your neighbor exist, and God exists", as if He existed in the same way we do, on the same level of Being, even though it might be thought He simply continues to exist forever, once again this is imposing the condition of Time upon God as if He is a creature subordinate to it as we are.

Few in the religious world truly have a concept of God as we are all conditioned by our sense experience, much less those who would seek to argue against His existence. The appeal for empirical evidence is only evidence of one's lack of knowledge about God. God is pure Being, He possesses no physical form, how then should one expect physical evidence.

Furthermore Doyle makes the statement, "we can say that if every world religion agreed completely on the attributes of God, it would increase their believability"

God, as transcendent omni Being, could not be known by the mind of mankind as created creatures, unless God were to reveal Himself, as such, such knowledge would come by way of witness testimony, and it would only make sense that such testimony would vary even as it does with modern witnesses to crime. Standing on the same street witnesses can vary greatly in the accounts of an event, how much more so witnesses across cultures working from greatly diverse frames of references.

As for "religions", it is often said Buddhists do not believe in a God, but this is not wholly true, a Buddhist may very well believe in God and many do, it is more accurate to say Buddhist refuses to encapsulate an idea of God because then people would worship the concept rather than the transcendent Being who God is, and so they practice meditation as they seek experience with the divine presence.

Urban dictionary:

nirvana
1. A term used in Hinduism, the native religion of India and third largest religion in the world behind Christianity and Islam. Hinduists believe that a person reincarnates until they achieve an understanding of the relationship between God(known by Bhrama or Atman) and man. The state at which this is achieved is known as nirvana, and person who has achieved this is known as a guru. It is believed that once nirvana is achieved, a person will achieve the afterlife, rather than reincarnating.

The Buddha (Siddhartha) was an Indian prince, born in Hinduism where there is a plethora of demigods, gods who represent the forces of nature, luck, and fate, etc. and many Hindus would worship such demigods for personal gain, or out of fear, and today even most of those who claim to be Buddhists as it has come to evolve into a full religion, with its own religiosity and rituals, have re-instituted the Vedic literature of Hinduism even as they spin prayer wheels, etc...

In Hinduism, once you get past the flowery store front and all the demigods, you reach a true monotheistic core.

Wiki
Para Brahman (Sanskrit:परब्रह्मन्) (IAST: Para Brahman) is the "Highest Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described in Hindu texts as the formless (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) spirit that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond

Then of course you have Judaism and Christianity. My understanding of Islam is that it is a political system disguised as a religion, very little study reveals it has always functioned as a political system, nevertheless it still claims monotheistic beliefs.

That being said, most people are shallow and superficial, they do not search for the deep understandings of their faiths anymore than they do atomic particles or gravitational waves, they are happy simply to have the day to day desires of their senses met. It is easy to say Santa Claus does not exist when one in ignorance focuses merely upon the cultural myth developed by a poem not even a couple of hundred years old, but beneath that, Santa Claus is based upon a real man, a real person who lived and demonstrated such qualities we find projected into our Santa Clause.

Though the mythos is not real, the person was, just as likely with religion, as Doyle makes the analogy, the religious mythos is not so real, but beneath all those shallow conceptualizations lies a real Being.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 269
Joined: 12 Jul 2018



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests