"Is it important what is in my mind when I use the words? I don't have to hold the whole earth or the whole solar system in my head for them to exist."
I think your playing language games... What is this whole earth or whole solar system to which you confidently refer? I assert they don't exist, they never have existed, and they never will exist... They are just your convenient fictions or prejudices... Furthermore, there definitely is not utterly abstract totality to which you blindly refer and abstractly project. There is no static, objective, absolute, truly apprehended or comprehended "whole earth" (which includes you), this is just your misconstrued delusion. > > Jason > > > > > what of? > > what of? > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous <bsor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jason, just because all those people said all that stuff doesn't mean > any of it is true. > > It's not a matter of true or false, but a matter of opinion whether one > considers the whole of reality to be God or not. We can all agree reality > exists, perhaps we disagree on its extent or its true form, but its up to you > what you whether you consider it God. > > > > > It seems to me that you are stringing together all these statements > into some kind of evidence or support for a position... a faith. > > Faith in the existence of reality does not require a very big leap of faith. > > > > > One has to understand the genealogy of such notions. one needs a > psychoanalysis or psycho-analytic reductionism. > > I'm not really sure what Bruno means by "computational theory of mind" > > All that is meant is that the mind is a machine, which can be emulated > without requiring an infinite amount of memory or work. > > > > and its consequences, whether real or imaginary... > > but, it seems to me that you are building a kind of argument by > authority... i.e. all these different people agree on these points > therefore there must be something to them. > > What argument do you presume me to be making? > > > > > I don't think Bruno has really articulated to us his theology... I > don't think he has any real system. > > On Jul 6, 11:07 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> Thanks Jason. A very nice post which reminds me that the comp's >> consequence are not that original. >> >> Bruno >> >> On 06 Jul 2011, at 06:23, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:31 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. >> >> > Truth/Reality? >> >> > nice one! >> >> > What is wrong with equating all of truth and all of reality with >> > God? The existence of the whole of that which exists is >> > indisputable (by definition), so calling it God is a matter of >> > taste, one which many religions seem to agree with: >> >> > The supreme God Brahman is defined as: "the eternal, unchanging, >> > infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine >> > Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything >> > beyond in this Universe." >> >> > "Among Hindu sects, Advaita Vedanta espouses monism. The closest >> > interpretation of the term can be found i > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.