Bruno: " 4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent): As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating other persons as things.
I so agree with you. And then, with Church thesis (less than comp, thus) you can understand the reason why even some (relative) machine and some (relative) numbers should not be confused with any of their third person description. " MP: There is too much packed in this for me to be clear of the scope. For example: by 'machine' do you mean, generically, any hypothetical self-referencing, sufficiently complex device - or virtual emulation of such - smart enough to think it knows who it is? and Which numbers have anything BUT a third person description? I am of course very ignorant about higher mathematics, so the way I use words is that a number is a mathematical object that has/is a [or of a] particular value. I guess that means that a number, for me anyway, is a thing not a process. People use processes to generate, define and compare numbers. These processes are to mathematica what verbs, adverbs, adjectives, complex nouns and all the phrases [noun phr, adjectival phr, etc.] are to natural languages. Because of the precise specifications required for such mathematical processes, which I suppose means their algorithmic qualities, many of them are mathematical objects in their own right, so they do what they do and not anything else. Bruno [quote continued]: " On another tack: it seems to me the extent and scope of suffering in the world is one of the most powerful arguments in favour of the total irrelevance of the concept of G/god/s. However it is not for me to go around telling those who believe in some G/god/s that they are deluded. Do you agree that those who believe in a primitive physical universe could be deluded in the same manner than those who believe in some notion of God. Perhaps even in a worse manner, because many people believe that the existence of a primitive material universe is a "scientific fact". Of course not. At least in many theological text, the word "God" is used in a more axiomatic way than "Matter" is by some scientist (at lunch or during the week-end). Most religious people will never say that the existence of God is a scientific fact, and in that sense are less deluded than many materialist. " MP: I don't see how people who believe in 'some notion of God' can honestly get past the intelligent child's question of 'Well alright, where did G/god/s come from then'. It is a simple question without an answer except something like: 'Shut up you little smart a*se!' or 'BLASPHEMY!! Thou deservest to be burnt at the stake!' For me a very important aspect of this latter issue is that any purported supernatural being cannot have a coherent explanation in terms of natural science and, if taken of itself to be an explanation for any of that which is and/or that which transpires, it disempowers the believers concerned and any of those in their care. Why? Because, as I think I said before, one of the several Earth shaking things that the advent of scientific method has brought to the human race is the objective demonstration that no publicly stated belief or public assertion of the nature of things is immune from sceptical examination which is conducted in an ethical manner. That said, I can now return to the deeper question which is: Is it coherent to assert that there is no universe? In common sense, plain English terms that is pretty much like saying that 'Nothing really exists!' ... which Does not compute! Like dividing or multiplying by zero, you either lock up your system or get no useful extra result. It is therefore necessary to accept that one exists, with the bookmarked proviso that 'exists' needs further research, and accept that for the time being there is no really coherent substitute for taking as /given/ one's own existence in a world of some sort. In fact as I said somewhere else it is one of only two completely free things in life. [The other if you remember is the benefits which come from saying 'Think positive, it is better for you' and acting as if you believe it.] My point in harping on in this way is simply so as to point out that: whilst it IS necessary to assert an assumption of existence beyond oneself, and to be ethical it is necessary to acknowledge the independent existence of the other people one meets, there is no such more-or-less a priori reason for positing the existence of supernatural beings of any sort whatever. The assertion of the existence of G/god/s is gratuitous, and the very concept is characteristically pre-scientific. Furthermore, the very concept of an omniscient being, never mind omnipotent, depends for its credibility upon the acceptance of some kind of naive realism. That is to say, the truth concerning the types of awareness we actually experience and for which credible sceptically proficient observation has been made, always entails a very limited, circumscribed apprehension of self and world. This is consistent with the most reasonable conceptions of consciousness and sentience which entail the absolutely necessary activity of some kind of neural network, however instantiated. In other words, the only real evidence we have that stands up to reasonable scrutiny, supports only the idea that consciousness is either embodied or it doesn't exist! I will go yet further and assert that not only is embodiment essential for the occurrence of consciousness but the process REQUIRES the representation in some form of both the observer and the observed plus representation of the current salient relationships between them. When this occurs then, and only then, is there something [or a somethinggoingon, for the purists] which can be 'like being something', as opposed to simply being it without knowing it. The radical and apple cart damaging entailment of this is that by the very nature of the process - by definition if you like - the subjective experience which occurs cannot possibly be all of simply being the entity in question. The process is one of construction, in fact I think the word 'updating' has an important place here too, and this process involves overheads, in the form of structures and processes which must be and occur just to keep the system running, adapting to its environment and repairing itself. From this it follows that even the biggest brains in the universe, wherever they may be and however old, will share with us the limitations of not being able to see the backs of our own eyeballs or, as George Gurdjieff put it: they too cannot jump over their own knees! :-) Who needs G/god/s like that! Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Bruno Marchal wrote: > To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in > this post, > > Hi Brent, <<snipped>> > 4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent): > > As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating ... etc, > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---