On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a machine equates God with "ultimate reality",
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not... I don't equate god with anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which means that you defend some inconsistent theory of God.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No I don't....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But you are o.k. with arithmetic truth as a pointer to something that
>> transcends what we can prove or understand?
>>
>
> Yes, that doesn't have to be called god which refers to most people to the
> person that created the world in 3 great religions on earth.
>
>
>>
>> But you're not o.k. with when "God" is used, in a standard
>> non-confessional theological fashion, as that pointer?
>>
>
> No I'm not ok, because it is misleading...
>
>
>>
>> Please explain the consistency then, because I don't see it.
>>
>
> I just did.
>

You just called statement 1 "true" and statement 2 "a lie" so you did no
such thing.

Whether transcendental category is personified or not, by definition it
escapes our current power to prove/understand, so why pretend you can
distinguish some types or members (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic
for example) of a category that should even transcend the notion of
category itself



>
>
>>  Failing to use a theological term when addressing or assuming
>> transcendental is more misleading
>>
>
> It is not, it is using god for meaning a reality that transcend human
> ability that is.
>

Indeed, such would appear blasphemy to the human gods and those that
believe in them. You are just making my point.


>
>> than stating that there is transcendental.
>>
>
> Why use **god** word to mean that ? It is misleading.
>

It is the oldest label to account for things/object/properties we can't
explain.

The "newer" trend is to pretend that those things are not there, and that
anybody who uses them in an argument is a crackpot.


>
>
>> This popular form of atheism is thus more misleading then some mystic who
>> hasn't cured one person; because at least that mystic puts his cards on the
>> table.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> As I said, I cannot define "God" by "Ultimate reality", but I can
>>>> meta-define God as the ultimate reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> God is nothing else than a human invention...
>>>
>>
>> If I took the other side for fun: "Well human is invention of God!" and
>> you quickly see why people would like to escape the discussion and "agree
>> to disagree". That position of "is a human invention" is as fundamentalist
>>
>
> It is not, revelation is BS...all religions on earth with "book" from the
> word of god are BS... Bruno even call them **fairy tale**, that proves he
> also has that supposed **fundamentalist** position...
>
>
That's your argument? "Bruno does it too!" ???

Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory semantic
implications as you do. I think his usage is closer to "metaphoric guide
story" of some theology, not to be taken too seriously or literally by e.g.
deriving politics or ethics etc. directly from it. Nonetheless, he recently
wrote of "non-compness of Ganesha" in some thread, which presupposes some
familiarity with the mythology, that you do not get, when it's all "silly
fairy tales"... So no, I don't think Bruno uses it the way you do in this
infantilization discrimination sense.

If you were in power there would be prohibition of religious mythology,
which is bad for Christmas mood ;-) AND the holy economy. How is doing our
accounting not a kind of Rosary praying, counting, chore thing? Exactly the
same, and no matter how much you do, pray or gain, you're always out where
you started in some sense... Another round? PGC



> Quentin
>

>
>> as the brainless faith-freaks that you criticize; just your belief with
>> you as god of validity instead of them.
>>
>>
>>> God as understood by billions people on earth...
>>>
>>
>> Billions have been wrong, they could and probably will be again.
>>
>>
>>>  You are using it incorrectly, your usage is absolutely not standard
>>> usage, and so by using it, you're misleading people who read you...
>>>
>>
>> I beg to differ. Even some Christian theologians I know, not to speak of
>> Taoist, Zen, space bunny new age people etc., agree with this type of
>> meta-definition to avoid naming something we cannot. This is standard
>> across many religions and forms of spirituality.
>>
>> I'm sorry but we will have to agree we disagree on that. You're also
>>> misleading atheistic position, and you're wrongly attributing "belief" to
>>> atheist people (especially belgians)...
>>>
>>
>> Those ARE already your beliefs, Quentin. Raising them above other
>> people's theology is what that is.
>>
>>
>>>  I'm belgian, I'm not a materialist, I consider myself atheist in
>>> regards of religions, and that's what most atheist means when they say they
>>> are atheist.
>>>
>>
>> Most people believe in prohibition. Your appeal to popular consensus
>> weakens your argument, in that it admits that there really is not much more
>> to atheism than a misled popular opinion, that is not only empty, but
>> misleading as I've laid out above. PGC
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know it is a bit subtle, and it is related with the gap between truth
>>>> and provable.
>>>>
>>>> It is related with the fact that a machine can assert its own
>>>> consistency and take it as a new axiom, but then it has to become a new
>>>> different machine, which still cannot assert (prove) its own consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, the machine can assert its own consistency and stay the same
>>>> machine, but then that machine becomes inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> This explains a lot about theology, I think, including why theologies
>>>> can easily become inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> or "ultimate truth", or "arithmetical truth", despite she is
>>>>> "correct", she became inconsistent. She asserts some G* minus G
>>>>> proposition, on herself, in the inconsistent way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he/she just use non contreversial word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> God as no description and "ultimate reality" looks already too much to
>>>>> a description.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's what you say but see below...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You will tell me that "arithmetical truth" is also a description. I
>>>>> will tell you that this is indeed the subtle point: from inside 
>>>>> arithmetic,
>>>>> machine's cannot rationally believe that God is arithmetical truth (no 
>>>>> more
>>>>> than they can rationally believe that they are (consistent) machine).
>>>>>
>>>>> All we can say is that if comp is correct, god or the ultimate reality
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You see, it's not that difficult, ultimate reality does not mean more
>>>> than utlimate reality...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Few people will understand that to believe in an ultimate reality you
>>>> need to do an act of faith. But theologian are aware that "God" needs an
>>>> act of faith.
>>>> Somehow, theologians are more aware than most scientist (in our
>>>> Aristotelian paradigm) that "the ultimate reality" asks for an act of
>>>> faith. Its existence cannot be taken as axiom, but as a meta-axiom. That's
>>>> also the logical reason why the ONE becomes MULTIPLE in Plotinian-like
>>>> theology.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I use and insist on "theology", "God" etc. is that I fear
>>>> people take science as a new pseudo-theology, like most popular book in
>>>> science which use expression like "science has proved", or worst "we know
>>>> that ...".
>>>>
>>>> By opposing science and theology, you confine theology in the fairy
>>>> tales, and you make science into a new pseudo-theology, which *looks* more
>>>> serious than fairy tales, but still imposes beliefs in the non scientific
>>>> manner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is arithmetical truth,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ultimate reality can or can't be arithmetical truth, yet you can
>>>> call it ultimate reality without refering to it as god...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I prefer not, because, as I try to explain, few people will understand
>>>> that we don't know if there is an ultimate reality, beyond our
>>>> consciousness, and so we have to pray a little bit.
>>>>
>>>> The question is not a vocabulary question. It is an understanding that
>>>> the belief in an ultimate reality is a theological belief, and that such
>>>> beliefs cannot be scientific (G), but comes from G* minus G.
>>>>
>>>> It is a bit subtle, because we can study the whole theology of a
>>>> machine simpler than us "scientifically" (indeed it is mainly given by G*).
>>>> But we cannot lift that theology on ourself without praying (not even
>>>> assuming) for comp and our relative correctness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but if a machine believes or proves that god or the ultimate reality
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> once again, it seems you can...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ? (the sentence is not finished)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> is arithmetical truth,  or *any* 3p thing, she will be inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok,  if she asserts what *is* ultimate reality, by using the word *god*
>>>> you're doing just that, you're applying what you want to fight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because (genuine or correct) believers know that God has no name,
>>>> no description, should be invoked in argument, etc.
>>>> And if you read the theological literature (abstracting from all fairy
>>>> tales and myths) you can see that most of them are aware of the problem.
>>>> You are condemning a whole great part of the literature, done by honest
>>>> researcher, by crediting the definition of God given by people who use the
>>>> idea to install there power.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the real main difference between Cannabis and God?
>>>> Both have got a lot of names, and are essentially mind-blowing things,
>>>> but for Cannabis, we got 75 years of brainwashing, for God we got 1500
>>>> years of brainwashing.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that by changing the name of Cannabis, it would become
>>>> legal? Well, it is a way to avoid locally problem and that why it has so
>>>> many names, and the same appeared with "God", but really, to abandon God
>>>> and theology, is still a way to credit the bandits who lied about cannabis
>>>> and God.
>>>>
>>>> God is not more that unpleasant all loving entity sending your friends
>>>> to hell,  than cannabis is a terrible drug which makes you rape and kill
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> Religion is not a problem, it is a natural thing fro all finite
>>>> creature looking inward, and around. the problem is when a religion, or a
>>>> science, is stolen by bandits, as a tool for getting power.
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the anticlericalism of the atheists, but they throw out
>>>> the baby with the bath water, and by doing so, they make the whole of
>>>> theology into pseudo-science and, worst, the whole of science into a
>>>> pseudo-theology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  That explains the hotness of the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> G*  minus G is meta-theology, it says what can be true but not
>>>>> rationally believed or asserted as such by machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a theory about what is reality ultimately, it is about the
>>>> primitive nature of reality, it's not about *god*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  There is a thin hair difference between the two notions as explained
>>>> above. That there is a ultimate reality is basically trivial, or looks
>>>> trivial. "God" is less trivial, and as far as I know, comp confirms a large
>>>> part of the existing theology, if you care to abstract from the myths and
>>>> legends overused by professional liars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What can be rationally asserted, is that:  IF comp is true then
>>>>> arithmetical truth plays the role of God
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree, it plays the role of ultimate reality noy *god* for the
>>>> currently shared accepted meaning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> for the machine, but no machine can consistently believes that God is
>>>>> arithmetical truth,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe in any currently human written god, as such god is not
>>>> an adequate word to describe what I believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right, but if you take the time to read them, you would see
>>>> that the theologian agree with you, and that is why the first axiom of God
>>>> or Tao is that once he has a written name, you are already inconsistent. So
>>>> we need to go at the meta-level, and use a term for the pointer on It, with
>>>> all the danger of seeing the term stolen by unscrupulous (and inconsistent)
>>>> bandits.
>>>> If you don't do that, you keep the term in the hands of the bandits.
>>>> That's why the catholics hierarchy loves the atheists: as the atheists do a
>>>> free advertising of the churches by crediting them or allowing only them
>>>> for talking on God, and this hides the fact that they (the atheists) used
>>>> an act of faith when pretending that there is a (primitive) physical
>>>> universe (that seems obvious, but scientifically that is an *extraordinary
>>>> claim* asking for an extraordinary proof or evidence (which has not been
>>>> found, nor even searched).
>>>>
>>>> I think it is the only way to fight the pseudo-religions and
>>>> pseudo-sciences: to allow us to use the scientific method in the
>>>> fundamental field. Only this makes it possible to doubt *all* gods, ...
>>>> from the one with a beard to Primitive Matter.
>>>>
>>>> I got problem with atheists well before I used the term theology or
>>>> God. They understood the point, and their opposition is completely
>>>> independent of the use of vocabulary. In the Lille thesis I was asked to
>>>> replace "theology" by "psychology", and that made the "silent" opposition
>>>> even worse, and the difference between G and G* get confused with the
>>>> difference between conscious and unconscious by psychologists, leading to
>>>> new kind of misunderstandings.
>>>>
>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to