(See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue.
Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion. Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not in the God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as 'knowable'. Including proof, evidence, and - yes - appearance, (of course "testability" included) what you use FOR the mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest human logic). What I am agnostic about. * Now about my 'Steckenpferd': *natural numbers*. I asked you so many times to no avail. You hide behind "it is *SSOOO* simple that you cannot explain it by even simpler cuts" or something similar. In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS, FEET, EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he detected that PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars of ONE. And (s)he counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.) The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other animals got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more. Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of) numbering - looking at a HAND counting *fingers*. The group on a palm looks like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their pointed end for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too much, to count, so they took 1 off from the V:* IV, *(repeated later as IX etc.) and when it came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2 lines recangulary together for 50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49 as IL). Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also included the start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) = 7 as the original old Julian calendar counted the dates, e.g. today: July 9: "ante diem septimum (7) Idus Julii" (the 7th day before the Idus of July) because July is a MILMO month when the Idus is not on the 13th as usual, but on the 15th). And NO ZERO, please. So I doubt that the 'natural numbers' created the world. Humans created the natural numbers. Just like they created the not-so-naturals (irrationals, infinites, you name them). John M On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > John, > > > On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote: > > After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at > the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target > it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to > the 'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule. > Such unquestionable tyranny lasted over the past millennia and it takes a > long, hard, dangerous work to get out of it. The USA Constitution (18th c.) > stepped ahead in SOME little political and economical ways, yet only a tiny > little in liberating the people from the religious slavery: a so called > 'separation' of state and church (not clearly identified to this day). > > > The problem is that once we separate religion from state, people still > continue to be "religious" (authoritative) on something else. But it was a > progress. Now we know that we have to separate also health from the state. > > > > Th French revolution similarly targetted the religion, yet today - after > numerous vocal enlightened minds - the country is still divided between > Christian and Islamic fundamentalist trends. > > > Yes (even more clearly when including atheists in the christians). > > > In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?). > > > Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than > most christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the > Aristotle/Plato difference. > > > > Matter is figmentous and the 'origins' are beyond our reach. > > > It is certainly beyond any form of certainty, but simple theories > (conjecture, ides, hypotheses) might exist. In particular the idea that we > are machine can explain the origin of mind and matter appearances, in a > testable way, except for the origin of the natural numbers which have to > remain a complete mystery beyond reach of all machines. > > > > > Physical is a level of human development and there is infinite unknown - > unknowable - we don't even guess. > > > OK. > > > Just musing > > > Thanks for that, > > Bruno > > > > > John M > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 08 Jul 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.salon.com/2013/07/**06/god_is_not_great_** >>>>>>> christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_**liar/<http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an >>>>>> anticlerical than an atheist to me ... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I >>>>> think you just don't like the term. >>>>> >>>> >>>> "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have >>>> realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not >>>> Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. Some atheists >>>> maintains the confusion to hide that they are believers (in "matter" and in >>>> the non existence of God). >>>> >>> >>> I don't know any atheists who are shy about their belief that matter >>> exists and God doesn't. >>> >> >> That is the problem. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not >>> God exists is unknown" >>> >> >> That's the usual mundane sense of the word. >> >> >> >> >> with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is impossible to know". >>> >> >> That's a technical view by some philosophers. >> >> >> >> >> I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation >>> because it only describes someone in contrast to "theist". It just means >>> they fail to believe in a God who is a person and whose approval one should >>> seek. >>> >> >> Pebbles and chimpanzees fails too, but are not atheists in any reasonable >> sense. Most vindicative atheists really believe that god does not exist, >> and then they believe in a primitively material universe, even a Boolean >> one (without being aware of this in particular). >> >> Also, many religions and theologies have other notion of Gods. >> >> >> >> >> As Harris points out we don't invent words like awarmist to describe one >>> who fails to believe there is global warming or anummerist to describe >>> someone who's not sure about the existence of numbers. >>> >> >> Yes. I heard a catholic bishop, taking about a book written by a Belgian >> atheist, saying that the atheists are "our allies", "they keep advertising >> for us and (our) God" Then, at least around here, "Matter" is such a dogma >> that you can get problem when you dare to doubt it, "apparently" --- >> because they don't practice dialog, and ignore the embarrassing questions. >> >> They don't practice science in the matter. For them you are just mad if >> you doubt ... basically the same theology of matter than the christians. >> Greek theology is allowed to be studied by historians, not by >> mathematicians. The atheists I know fight more the agnostic (in the mundane >> sense) than the radicals of any religion. Political correctness makes easy >> to defend 2+2=5, and impossible to defend 2+2=4. >> >> We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non believer, it >> means "I know", and she will impose her religion to you, by all means. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <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 >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<firstname.lastname@example.org> >> . >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >> . >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> . >> >> >> > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.