Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2011, at 13:50, benjayk wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 27 Aug 2011, at 23:31, benjayk wrote:
>>>> I won't answer to this post in detail, simply because I find it
>>>> unsatisfying
>>>> to discuss details that are very easy to see for me, yet hardly
>>>> communicable.
>>>> Honestly, for all intents and purposes I have come to the conclusion
>>>> that it
>>>> 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
>>>> emotional
>>>> understanding anyway.
>>> I think it is a bit dangerous to believe in things we like, just
>>> because we like them. That is call wishful thinking.
>> I don't think I do this. If this were true I would just deny the  
>> existence
>> of suffering... Which I don't.
> Of course. I did not say you do that error all the time. I suspect you  
> want to do it on a fundamental matter. I suspect you to be correct on  
> that, but wrong in believing this preclude a simple reasonnable, still  
> a bit mysterious, possible origin.
If I am really honest I can't believe in wishful thinking. I try to, but
really I don't at all. Let's face it, it just works in very limited sense.
Actually, holding beliefs that are in some way "protected" (rather than just
thoughts that pass by) seems to destroy my emotionally.
So I would rather formulate it this way: There is no purely theoretical
understanding. We can't cut off theory from emotion (or more generally,
inuition). It is not possible. At least I don't see it. I can't conceive of
a theory without my own relationship towards it.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Nevertheless I think truth and goodness are
>> very intimately related.
> Plato and Plotinus identify God and the Good. Now, this is related to  
> very subtle point with the comp hyp.
> Like you, and like all Platonist, I certainly wish and bet they have  
> very intimate relations.
Now that I think about it, if reality is good, preconceptions of what it
should be will tend to cloud that. So as long as we are attached to the
belief that reality has to be good, it probably won't reveal its full
This may be the reason that many people lack belief in God. They intuit that
it, ultimately, if there is any Truth, it need not be believed in!

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 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.
>> OK. For me, I found that in case of doubt it seems to be better to  
>> follow
>> the heart.
> In case in doubt? Only reason doubt, the heart does not. But reason  
> can foresee probable consequence.
> Reason is only doubt, and the heart never doubt, except for ... a  
> reason.
> Well, I just reason in he machine's theory. But, let me tell you this:  
> it is my heart which pushes me to listen to the machines.
Your right, the heart cannot doubt, it feels what it feels. What I meant was
rather that when there is orthogonality, and we have the feeling of
"choosing" between reason and heart, we delude ourselves when we claim we
follow only reason, because reason cannot really be followed on it's own, it
is more an instrument. Thus ultimately what we do will be determined by what
we feel either way (even if it's what we feel about our reasoning).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> At least
>> I saw it in me, that when I am dogmatic on not using coercion towards
>> myself, this sometimes leads to greater (but more unconscious)  
>> coercion!
>> If I really think I have to do something, it might be better to coerce
>> myself to do it, rather than suffering the consequences of not  
>> following my
>> own sense of responsibility.
> OK. I was thinking about coercion on others. But social life can  
> explain acceptance of form of coercion, but not argument by authority,  
> or any dogma, in any matter.
It is subtle. Sometimes authorities can be helpful, because people have
nothing else to follow!

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> It become
>> more and likely to me that we are not here contigently, but actually  
>> to
>> learn a "lesson" (not like in school, just have intuitive insight  
>> about
>> yourself) - and apperent contigencies are just part of the lesson  
>> (or truly
>> don't matter for our lesson).
> This does not contradict anything I said.
OK... It sounded to me like you meant that it is accidental whether we are
able to self-love, because it is determined by our ancestors anyway.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Of course there is no clear evidence that any of this is true. We  
>> can just
>> trust in our own intuition. This does not mean believing all  
>> esoteric stuff,
>> just being open to the possibility of something way vaster than this  
>> realm.
> Which realm?
> The inside-arithmetic mindscape is already much vaster than the  
> physical universe, even seen at the level of galaxies filaments.
I am speaking of transcendental, spiritual realms. Most rational people tend
to disbelief into spiritual realms. Somehow they really don't want them to

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Even science is about love (towards
>>>> knowledge, progress, modesty,... - actually all very important
>>>> things even
>>>> 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 :)
>> Hm, I guess you didn't wrote what you intended to here. Anyway, I  
>> still
>> agree. Though I would say there are some situations where it may be  
>> good to
>> relinquish all reason (like when meditating), but I can't imagine any
>> situation where it is good to not use the heart at all.
> Sure.
> But my heart fears those who use their reason to preserve their heart.  
> "Tout va très bien Madame la Marquise".
> That is the bad sort of wishful thinking, the root of the self-lies  
> (which makes Lady sally so nervous, it seems).
Use their reason to preserve their heart? Why not?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 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
>>> illusion.
>> Hm, OK. It still seems to me reducing the ontology to numbers is a  
>> form of
>> reductionism as well.
> It can be seen as an ontological reductionism, but it is not a  
> reductionism of what really counts: matter and consciousness.
> I can relate your feeling only to the intuition that our "generalized"  
> brain might be non turing emulable, or to a reductionist view of what  
> the (admittedly immaterial) machines are really capable of, especially  
> when connected to truth in its necessary and contingent  
> manifestations. It is certainly an ontological reductionism, but it is  
> is close to a maximal anti-reductionism of what are persons, and it  
> gives to persons, mind, and consciousness a leading role in the  
> selection and development of realities (samsara if you will) and their  
> exit doors (nirvana for example).
> If we are machine, the cardinality statements on the ontological  
> reality is simply absolutely undecidable. It does not matter, because  
> Goddess(es), consciousness, Matter, histories and geographies, and  
> many layers of realities develop and can be observed from inside, and  
> it seems to me that it is what "really" counts.
> I understand it might be sees as shockingly new for the Aristotelian  
> believers. But nobody forces you to take the comp red pill. Keep this  
> in mind.
OK, it is very good that you don't try to eliminate consciousness, and that
you are very modest with regards to whether the theory is true. So there is
no point debating technicalities. What matters most is that we don't claim
to own the truth, and eliminate things which are obviously there.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to