Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"<
">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability.
So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from
this that we are "God!".Bruno<"
I apologize for misunderstanding what you said.
 I tried to find the meaning of the (seemingly mistyped?)  "unanmeability"
in your present post  - the closest was :'untenability'. Is this what you
Now let me return to our 'human mind".
Reasonably: we are part of a world - assumably a small portion only - and
mind (whatever you identify as that) is 'part of us' = included into the
'model' we
may call 'humans'. We have certain exparience-stuff and logical thinking
we use that even in trying to 'understand' ideas beyond it - beyond our
reach of
observation. We do that, but can never be sure of doing it right.
In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as
by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned
with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could
formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human
(It facilitated direct mental contact, manipulation of time, overriding of
induced space barriers, conscious machines and of course no lights-peed
[It was rejected  from publishers both in the US and Europe on identical
too much science and insufficient sex and violence]
Speaking about such is different from understanding, more so from
We would need a bootstrap process to explain our origin (existence) from
within our existence. Maybe this is my mental limitation - I have to live
with it. And - of course - I am also guilty of 'human' thinking as you
Loeb created the idea of his machine. It is equipped with superhuman
capabilities, all identified by a human mind, just as my 3-pole energy was.
The idea of a "pole" is very much from within our (humanly adjusted?)
worldview. If it
is 2, or 3, or 1457: it is still a (humanly divised) "pole".

I am a believer of 'creativity' so I do not find 'arguing' about 'ideas'
I am not 'prejudiced' against numbers: I asked so many time to get
understandable information and did not. I am agnostic, do not 'cut out'
other possibilities unless I see acceptable arguments to do so. (Acceptable
to me).
And: you are so smart that you do not have to resort to some 'racist' hint
seems to me as an ad hominem link.

Here I am again: decided so many times to keep off from arguments where the
word "god" is involved and am bugged down into it, both with you and Danny.

I have to control my 'mouse' better.

John M

On 3/12/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit :
> > Still: human thinking.
> You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being
> human.
> You can answer "human thinking"  to any (human) post. So this does not
> convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature
> prevent us to understand something typically non-human. It will be hard
> for you, human, to point on such a thing (actually the "human thinking
> critics apply to your own posts).
> Now, I am the one in the list which says: look we can already interview
> non-human lobian machine. So, in a sense, I could argue that all the
> lobian explanation with regard to our fundamental questions are lobian
> thinking, and a priori, this is not human. You, among the other, should
> be particularly pleased by this non human intervention in the list,
> unless you add that whatever the lobian machine says, it is us, human
> who interpret it, but then, again, we, humans, could stop arguing about
> anything, and even argue we should not talk with non-human entity given
> that we will deformed, by our human-ness, all what they talk about. But
> then we will certainly enforced our human prejudice.
> My feeling, John, is that you have typically human prejudice against
> number and machine, 100% similar to any form of racist prejudice: oh
> those entity are so different from us that we should not even listen to
> them ...
> And why do you say "human thinking". Why not "mammal's thinking"? Why
> not "carbon type of life thinking"? Why not "typical descendent of
> bacteria prejudices" ...
> > If we accept Bruno's "we are god"
> I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
> that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability. So
> the first person has some "god" attribute. you cannot infer from this
> that we are "God!".
> Bruno
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to