Bruno wrote: *"... 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. John M 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 > none. > 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. > > Bruno > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.