On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote:
I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it
to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly
Honestly, for all intents and purposes I have come to the conclusion
is just totally irrelevant to me whether COMP is true or false, which
renders the discussion about it's consequences moot. I believe in the
consequences that I like either way.
It seems to me all theoretical understanding is just a tool for
I think it is a bit dangerous to believe in things we like, just
because we like them. That is call wishful thinking.
But even comp points on the fact that the creation of reality might at
some level use a form of wishful thinking, or placebo effect, so this
remark has to be applied to itself: I have to stay cold on this: if
the theory leads to wishful thinking, to hide this fact would be
wishful thinking too!
Again, it will be a question of level. With the machine, there is an
unavoidable tension between Bp (the discursive little "man") and Bp &
p, its inner God, the universal first person, which has no name. I do
think that the left hemisphere might be specialized in reason (Bp) and
the right hemisphere might, with the help of the limbic system and the
cerebral stem, implement the intuitive and emotional "truth
connection". All LUMS develop that polarities, and have to live with
that tension, which is by itself a creative force, but which can also
be destructive. There is a point in finding the right balance. If the
heart dismiss reason, or if reason dismiss the heart: suffering is
generated. This Bp/Bp & p tension reappears with the Bp & Dt/Bp & Dt &
p sub-splitting, where the suffering can become sensible and full of
Theoretical understanding and emotional understanding provides a two-
way road. They complement each other very well, but can also be
orthogonal on some point. Comp itself is a locus where the theory
predict an opposition between reason and heart, with the explanation
that they are both right from their point of view, yet the view are
not entirely conciliable. Science will favor Bp, and religion will
favor Bp & p. Truth, the "& p", plays the role of a mystical element.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Just that current humans still look for authoritative arguments, in
all direction. I'm afraid I will have to come back next millennium.
You are right. I am more optimistic, though, I would advise you to
shot next century ;).
When I was young I was sure that computers, the UMs, would become
personal objects, but I thought it would take one of two century, not
1/2 century; so you may be right. I was also pretty sure prohibition
would fall down before 2000. I was wrong.
So you may be right: next century perhaps. But I maight be right too.
On conceptual thing, human are slow. Look how much people around you
still believe that cannabis should be illegal, and that is only about
a century of brainwashing. Aristotle theology is more than 1500 years
of brainwashing, helped by billionth years of evolution. Those things
will take time, even if salvia and plants might accelerate things, a
I think if enough people discover genuine love, there might be a chain
reaction that gets us to heaven on earth quicker than we can
I've come to the belief that's it's really ALL about love (first and
foremost love towards yourself).
I agree with this, but "love" is of the type [ ] *. It is spontaneous,
and get destroyed by coercion. We cannot enforce it. We can only
Love toward oneself is alas very dependent on contingence.
The secret of self-love consists in having a self-loving mother/
father, which needs a self-loving grandmother, which ...
The ultimate fate of the humans might depend on the self-loving
quality of the first amoeba!
This should not be taken without adding some grain of salt, of course.
Even science is about love (towards
knowledge, progress, modesty,... - actually all very important
outside of science).
Yes. Reason is the best servant of the heart, but only when the heart
can respect and listen to reason.
The heart without reason leads to sort of hot madness.
Reason without heart leads to a sort of cold madness.
Happiness and love needs both reason and heart: it is cool madness :)
We just need to see that and then the rest will follow!
Yeah ... that is just easy to say, but hard to implement.
And we can't calculate love.
Indeed, we can't. And never will.
It's the true singularity :).
So let me just say that I love your attempt to free people from
brainwashing :). That 's really one of the most important beliefs to
off. How could you be really happy if you think everything is guided
something that doesn't care about any well-being? Maybe it's love
after all (would you identify arithmetical truth and love?).
I think that they are related, and that this relation is somehow
regulated by the "divine intellect", G*.
To make this precise, I should extend the arithmetical interpretation
of Plotinus, but this needs to solve some nasty question in number
theory (the weakness of this type of approach). Scholars working on
Plotinus are not very clear on that topic.
You give me the envy to reread that rather interesting (french) thesis
by Agnès Pigler : "Plotin, une métaphysique de l'amour, l'amour comme
structure du monde intelligible" (Plotinus, a metaphysics of love,
love as the structure of the intelligible reality".
With man made machine, it will be like that: either we recognize
ourself in those machine, and love them, or we don't. If we don't
their "heart" will not develop, and we will get the cold madness. I
think. But this, of course cannot be normative. Nobody can force
someone to love anything. In fact, and that is a reason you might one
day ... love comp, is that with comp the reason build theories and
warn the heart for NOT using them. Love and intelligence, like God,
has only "negative theological feature". The theories are metatheories
pointing on the pitfall of taking anything there too much literally.
Comp is really the most opposite thing to reductionism, despite its
main precise looks, and is often described as a form of reductionism.
But it is not, and people have to do some work on Gödel's technic to
understand that the reductionist appearance of the numbers is the main
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
For more options, visit this group at