On 09 Aug 2012, at 22:38, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> 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.
Yes. But that is only a part of the problem description.
>> 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.
I agree. But most people, even physicist believe in some primitive
matter. Obviously it is a way to sit down the mind and progress. If
matter is only apparent, and if we are interested in fundamental
question, we have to explain it without postulating it. That is what
we can, and must, formulate mathematically once we assume comp.
> 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
But modern physics, and alas physicalism, is a descendant of Aristotle
primary matter notion. It is was an error in theology (assuming comp),
but it has been a quite fertile error which gave rise to current
science. But if we assume comp, we have to move away from it.
BTW, t looks I am explaing UDA again on the FOR list, you might make
another try, and you can reply on it here if you want. You can also
criticize the explanation given on FOAR.
> The roulette Wheels has no free will, as it is not a computer
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.
I am not sure a rock represent itself, but I am not sure the word
"rock" denotes anything clear.
> and its ignorance, as forced by my definition (yours + the
important nuance that the system has to be partially aware of its
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.
OK. But you still bet on this. I guess. And I hope.
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";
Not at all. I agree that free will implies the presence of some
consciousness, but consciousness and awareness does not demand any
free-will. Think about having pain for example. I can easily conceive
headache without free-will. I can't imagine free-will without
consciousness, without enlarging even more its meaning.
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.
Not with comp: I am definitely a cuckoo clock, but à-la Babbage, i.e.
a Turing universal one.
>> 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?
In a world full of buddhist, christian mystics, sufi, cabbalist,
platonist, salvia smokers, traditionalist christians (who don't give a
shit to truth but believe it is useful for adult to fake there is one).
I have even never met a christian in Europa who is a literalist
theist. Unfortunately they are materialist, and are not interested 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 .
Only the american creationists. For the others it is a legend, but
they don't repeat it for not hurting the susceptibility of the local
priester or the post.
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.
I think that saint Thomas, well appreciated by the Church, makes
already clear that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient. I am
not talking also of the laymen. They are also false on the inertia
principles. In the everyday life people are pre-galilean. In religion
it is the same, theologians, even, confessional one, are in advance of
what most people believe. I have never met a Christian who believe
literally that Jesus is a particular son of God. It is a legend. Even
if for historical reason they will not insist on that. Many still
believes that such legend are better for the children than no
religious education. I disagree of course, but I disagree all the same
with atheist education. I prefer agnosticism and research.
>> 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
> Nor is the bulldozer a God,
It is if God is a force greater than ourselves.
That God has to be a bigger force does not entail that a bigger force
is a God.
> 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
That God as to be the reason we are here does not entail that a reason
you are here is a God.
You confuse a->b with b->a, in the last two paragraphs, like those who
argue that cannabis leads to harder drugs. Common mistake.
And the definition I gave is not new. I have given it a lot of times,
and it corresponds closely to the general, non necessarily christian,
large definition of God.
> by sticking furthermore on the christian God, you confirm quite
nicely my statement that atheists are christians in disguise.
A very good disguise indeed!
You are illustrating that it is not a so good disguise. You share with
the Christian the definition of God, and the materialist conception of
the 'creation'. That's a lot.
The real debate is not between God or not God, but between Plato Gods
or Aristotle Gods. Atheists and more or less fundamentalist christians
try by all means to hide that more serious debate, because they defend
the main same weakly materialist conception of reality.
I don't buy *that* materialist theology. I show that it is
inconsistent with comp, notably.
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