*"... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp..."*
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the *G O D* word in a sense
paraphrasable (by me) into an imaginary description
*'what we cannot even imagine'?*
(- believed mostly in the 'religious-biblical(?)' format of the following
part of your post:
*"...Of course if you define God by "white giant with a beard, and sitting
on a cloud", ..." ) *
Such word-play would have not much merit in reasonable thinking.
It would not counteract the 'faith-based' religious superstition
now so widely spread among many human minds.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 03 Sep 2012, at 13:48, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
> I don't hold to Popper's criterion.
> There's got to be a lot of things that are not falsifiable.
> For example, you drop an apple and gravity pulls it down.
> Falsifiable means "can be falsified". here the gravity can be falsfied:
> "you drop the apple and gravity pulls it up".
> Hi Bruno Marchal
> IMHO and for what it's worth, if you don't at least give a rough
> definition of consciousness,
> you might leave out something some of us consider essential, such as
> a subject:
> Cs = subject + object
> If you don't include the subject, then:
> Cs = object
> which makes it a noun. Persponally I believe that it's a dipole.
> I have no definition of consciousness. With comp I can show why there are
> But this does not prevent us to reason on it, once we can agree on some
> principles about it.
> To get the consequences of comp, about consciousness, you need only to
> agree with this:
> 1) that you are conscious (or that the humans are conscious)
> 2) that our consciousness is invariant for digital functional change made
> at *some* description level of the brain or body or local environment or
> even some physical universe.
> All the rest follows from arithmetic and Church thesis if you agree on 1)
> and 2).
> 3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
> it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
> down doesn't work.
> I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot
> work for many reasons. But richness must be based on facts, and not on
> propaganda. Today we are living a perversion of capitalism, because too
> much investment are money stealing in disguise. The whole oil, and military
> industries, jail systems, and pharmaceutical industries are build on sands.
> It will crumbled down, and the sooner the better. But it will take time as
> the most of the middle class and banks are hostage (not always knowingly)
> of professional liars.
> Hi Richard Ruquist
> There is no god in comp.
> Here I disagree. If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
> 1) what is responsible for our existence
> 2) so big as to be beyond nameability
> Then there is a God in comp.
> Of course if you define God by "white giant with a beard, and sitting on a
> cloud", then you are very plausibly right.
> A little more on this in my reply to Richard.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
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