Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> goodness. >>>> 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! >>> >>> Not sure I understand. "God" does not "need" we believe in It. >> Right, so it makes sense to not believe in it. > > That does not follow. > And I am not sure it makes sense to not believe in it, except when you > give it a name. > > (But then it means just that you don't believe in &é%$€##. It does > not mean that you don't believe (more or less consciously) in the one > which has no name.) I have to correct myself. Indeed it makes no sense to not believe in it. If God is what is right here and now and obviously so, of couse it makes little sense to not believe in it. It makes "minimal" sense.
Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> They can't believe because the argument is good, they can just >> believe it if it comes solely from authority. > > Not on the fundamental matter. If they do that they will be victim of > bandits, manipulators, prohibionists and they will become slave. > This does not mean that they cannot trust some experts, and some other > people, by some sort of personal judgment and reputation, but not > really in the fundamental matter. They have no choice, because they don't have the strength to rely on themselves. Of course ultimately they will have to go beyond that. Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I am talking in general. In the human affairs, all general statements > admit many exception. Don't take me too much seriously. > Just saying that in the fundamental inquiry, dogma are problematic. > In science (when working well) there is no dogma, nor any ontological > commitment. There are only ontological requirements in hypothetical > theories. Honestly, I begin to question that. We can be dogmatic on goodness, I think. Just because we have the need to believe in it, otherwise science makes no sense. Why do science if the world is screwed anyway? Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> >>> That can happen too, but does not contradict what you were saying. >>> It is important to keep this in mind in real life. I have seen people >>> dying form disease, mainly because their friends made them guilty of >>> it. They think : "If you are sick, you must have done something >>> wrong". But this is a wishful thinking to appease their own fear of >>> the disease. This is a rare thing which I don't follow in some >>> buddhist school: that if something bad happen to you, it is due to an >>> error you have made in some preview life. But this eliminate too much >>> contingencies a priori. They may be right, or they may be wrong. I am >>> just very *agnostic* on this. With comp, we cannot avoid a part of >>> contingency, like the WM duplication already illustrates. >> OK. I am not at all saying that we suffer for doing wrong. Sometimes >> we do, >> but more often than not, we don't, and the worst suffering usually >> occurs >> when you did nothing wrong. I am more saying that we might suffer >> for a >> purpose, and in a way to help us develop, not due to contingencies. > > Even with 'biology', 1-suffering has a 3-purpose: the maintenance of > life and survival. > Just that I take the idea that suffering have some grand purpose, like > in some religion, a bit dangerous, because it "justifies" the > existence of suffering, and it leads to a critic of happiness. This > generates unnecessary guiltiness. But it has some obvious grand purpose. Suffering wants to get better. The only way to most quickly ever increasing bliss (let's just postulate this is the goal) is to maximally desperately want to get better. Guilt is okay. It motivates us to do more effort. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> Somehow they really don't want them to >>>> exist. >>> >>> Which is of course still a form of wishful thinking. To take desire >>> for reality. >> Yes. True spirituality means a lot of responsibility. It means you >> will >> never be able to escape the inner demons... Even if you happen to die >> without suffering much during your life. > > And you say you are optimistic ? Yes. If you merge with the inner demons (as opposed to escaping them), they become a great joy, because they motivate (force) you to want to get better. This seems just problematic as long as we have not enough strength to easily incoporate them. Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> But really it is both, the heart cannot confront all the pain at >> once, so it needs to hide painful truth sometimes, until we can face >> it. > > OK. > The problem relies only when the hiding will just make the pain higher > later, as it is often the case in deny and delusion with respect to > our more probable history. Yeah, no way around the pain, ultimately. It will come to you, whether you want it or not. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Mathematical-closure-of-consciousness-and-computation-tp31771136p32363552.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.