2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> 2013/12/2 Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/12/2 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 01 Dec 2013, at 21:36, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2013/12/1 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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" >
No I called it *misleading*. > so you did no such thing. > I did. > > 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 > I did not... > (personification vs. numbers/arithmetic for example) of a category that > should even transcend the notion of category itself > Then if it is as you say, you shouldn't talk about it and trying to make a point... but wait...? that's what you're doing... > > > >> >> >>> 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. > No... god in english/french and many other language as a clear accepted meaning, and god doesn't mean shoes... even if you want it very much. > > 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!" ??? > No you're saying I'm insulting people by not believing in their god... Bruno does not obviously believe in the abrahamic god as he calls that fairy tales... > > Still, I am not certain that Bruno uses fairy tale with derogatory > semantic implications as you do. > Well ask him... > I think his usage is closer to "metaphoric guide story" of some theology, > What is left about that theology when you remove the "fairy tales" ? > 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 > Please refrain to put actions in your opponent mouth, you say that, I don't and wouldn't act like you say... Quentin > 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 [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
