On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> The mind-body comes from the fact that we don't grasp the relation
> between organized matter and the qualia-consciousness lived by the person
> experiencing it.
>

We don't understand the details of that relationship but we do know some of
the general outlines. We know that changing the organization of matter,
such as the matter in the brain, changes the qualia-consciousness of the
person and we know that changes in the qualia-consciousness chages external
matter, as when you get hungry and decide to pick up the matter in a candy
bar.

>>  The sort of matter the Large Hadron Collider investigates. I don't know
>> if you call that apparent matter or primitive matter, I just call it matter.
>>
>
> > It is (obviously) apparent matter.
>

Well then "apparent matter" covers one hell of a lot of ground and seems
very interesting indeed, interesting enough to fully occupy the minds of
thousands of geniuses for centuries. On the other hand "primitive matter"
contains nothing of intellectually interest, at least nobody has found
anything interesting to say about it yet. Apparent matter is quite
literally astronomically rich while primitive matter is shallow and a utter
bore.

> Primitive matter is a theological concept
>

OK. Theology is a field of study without a subject so it's not surprising
that there is nothing of note to say about  "primitive matter".


> The roulette Wheels has no free will, as it is not a computer
> representing itself
>

It's not a computer but even a rock represents itself, the hard part was
developing language and figuring out that the symbols r-o-c-k can also
represent it.

> and its ignorance, as forced by my definition (yours + the important
> nuance that the system has to be partially aware of its ignorance).
>

Very often I find that I am absolutely positively 100% certain that if X
happens then I will do Y, but when X does happen I  find I don't do
anything even close to Y , and I find this  is more the rule than the
exception; to put it another way I am not aware of my ignorance. However I
don't know for a fact that is true for other people, I don't even know for
a fact that other people, or roulette Wheels, are aware of anything. I do
know that a computer does not have the memory of the outcome of a
calculation in its memory banks until it has finished the calculation and I
can't help but feel that is evocative of something.

There is another problem, to define "free will" you have to introduce the
concept of awareness and to define awareness you have to introduce "free
will"; and regardless of what a being may or may not be aware of, that is
to say regardless of what information it does or does not have in its
memory, it does things for a reason or it does not, so you're still either
a cuckoo clock or a roulette wheel.


>  >>  it's the exact same notion that 99.9% of the people on this planet
> who call themselves a "theist" have,
>

>
That is false,
>

Like hell it is!! What sort  of dream world are you living in?

> and even if true, that is not an argument.
>

Like hell it isn't! When somebody says they are a theist you can be 99.9%
certain they believe in a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created
the universe, the remaining .1% are atheists but think the word "theist"
sounds better.  So a atheist, like me, is someone who does not believe what
a theist does, someone who does not believe in a
omniscient conscious being who created the universe. It's how the English
language works.

>> a omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe. It
>> follows logically, and using a convention of the English language that
>> putting a "a" before a word can negate it, a "atheist" is someone who does
>> not believe in that notion.
>>
>
>
 >  It means not-god,
>

That is quite simply wrong. A theist is not God, a theist is someone who
believes in the existance of God and a atheist is someone who does not.

> Nor is the bulldozer a God,
>

It is if God is a force greater than ourselves.

> as it has a priori nothing to do with our existence.
>

OK new definition and thus new result, now my parents are God and so is the
bus driver who drove my father to the dance where he met my mother.

>  by sticking furthermore on the christian God, you confirm quite nicely
> my statement that atheists are christians in disguise.
>

A very good disguise indeed!

  John K Clark

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to