On 29 Jan 2013, at 22:14, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my
theory according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians
in disguise.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> same definition of the creator
EXACTLY! I have a well defined meaning of the word " God" so when
I say "I don't believe in God" it actually means something, and the
meaning of the word is such that it doesn't reduced the sentence to
triviality. People may and usually do disagree when I say "I don't
believe in God" but at least they know what I'm talking about.
The usual answer here is that i don't believe in the GOD in which you
don't believe in. I agree with you, but I disagree with your
insistence to define God by the Abramanic one, or even by the fairy
tales popularly added to it.
God, in philosophy or science, denotes the ultimate explanation which
we are searching. It is the ultimate "ensemble", or the ultimate
reason for that ensemble. Then comp makes even clearer why such
"reason" is related to many intuition conveyed in many texts inspired
by people having "mystical experience", or going through "altered
state of consciousness".
In contrast you've tortured the meanings of words so much that when
you say "I do believe in God" nobody knows what you mean and in
fact, I'm not trying to be insulting I mean this quite literally,
when you say "I do believe in God" you don't know what you're
talking about.
It means that I believe that a theory of everything makes sense. It is
a way for me to communicate that I am AGNOSTIC on the current paradigm
which presuppose or assume (very often implicitly) the primary
physical universe.
I know exactly what it is that I don't believe in,
Really? It looks like Santa Klaus to me. You know that both of us does
not find such existence plasuible, or even capable of explaining
anything. But comp explains that the assumption of a primary physical
universe does not only NOT explain much more (it just compress
information), but fails on the mind-body issue, so we have to use a
term different from "universe" (which has physicalist connotation),
and I use the term God, as it was used with that large and vague
meaning for a millenium before it becomes a political tool of
manipulation. But if you don't like that term I will use "ONE" with
discussing with you, as you take the vocabulary too much seriously, imo.
but the thing that you do believe in is a bunch of amorphous mush
with virtually no relationship to the traditional meaning of the
word "God" .
I search a TOE. Concentrate on the understanding, not the vocabulary.
But you are far from alone in doing this, for reasons I don't
understand some atheist just want to make the noise "I do believe
in God" with their mouth, and they don't care what if anything it
means.
I think that you have not understand the mind-body problem, from
cognition to after-life, and the problem of the origin of the physical
universe.
Do you believe in a primary physical universe? Are you physicalist?
> same impulse to forbid the scientific method on the deep questions.
Bullshit. I'm a atheist
because a world that was intelligently designed
We both have agreed that this does not make any sense, at least as an
explanation.
would look very different from one that was not, therefore deciding
between the 2 hypothesis is a scientific question that can be
resolved just like any other.
Not really with comp. A machine cannot distinguish the result of some
simple programs, and a random (or not ORACLE. That makes most
conventional religion not interesting, as being irrefutable. And thus
non scientific.
That is why comp is interesting, as it is completely refutable. If
your were willing to study step 4, you would be able to progress
toward the understanding of that fact. You have not replied to my last
refutation of your prediction algorithm.
> I was just asking what do you mean by "grand concept", with the
goal of making sense of what you were saying. You elude the point.
I have noticed that when people get into a tight corner they often
try to change the subject by asking me for a definition of some very
common word that I've used. The trouble is that any definition I
give will be made of words and I can be certain that my debate
opponent will demand a definition of at least one of those words,
and away we go.
You elude my simple question. What do you mean by "grand concept"?
> BTW, I am still waiting your comment on my last rebuttal of your
predicting algorithm in self-duplication.
I wasn't aware that I had a "predicting algorithm in self-
duplication",
In the WM-duplication, with annihilation of the original you do have
agreed on many things, including that both the M-guy and the W-guy
would feel unique in One city, but you have predicted W and M, onstead
of the W or M made obligatory by the fact on which you agreed (above).
So you were shown to believe in a contradiction.
It is only a matter of reading the definitions and doing the home
work. It is mysterious why you remain stuck at step 3. You are the
only one I know doing that (usually it is step 0, or step 8).
and I have no way of knowing if I should praise your rebuttal or
condemn it because I don't know what on earth you're talking about.
> you seem to believe that physics does solve the mind-body problem,
The evidence very strongly indicates that mind is what the brain
does if that's what you mean.
So you do assume the existence of a primitive or primitively material
brain?
Are such brain Turing emulable?
If yes, how do you predict the first person feeling of a person doing
a physical measurement?
You might study some book on the mind-body problem. Serious books
makes clear that we have not yet solve the problem. Note that UDA, and
especially MGA (which I will re-explain on the FOAR list) is by itself
a formulation of the problem, in the mechanist frame.
My feeling is that you might be genuinely not aware of the problem.
You might genuinely been not aware of the "religious" character of
believing in a primary universe, but this does still not explain why
you don't see the contradiction you put yourself in.
Of course the tone of your comment indicates perhaps that you are just
not willing to stay cold on those questions, and I should perhaps not
try. Unluckily for you, as a vocational teacher I love the challenge.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
