On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>> That's enough for me, if you want to put credit on fairy tale, it's your
>> problem, not mine.
>>
>
> Yeah, but then Ramanujan and a lot of brilliant musicians, mystic,
> platonist etc. also require some axioms to work from. In a sense they also
> require fairy tale leap of faith, like working with any theory, but I don't
> consider any to be inherently superior or more BS than the other. Depends
> on the dream in which these are embedded and where this takes us. PGC
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  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" ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You tell me. I like a good story.
>>>
>>
>> I'm asking you, you're the one saying there is something left...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why wouldn't it be consistent to get rid of the bs theologies, to use
>>> your terms, if they can so easily be identified?
>>>
>>> I don't see any of these statements leading to some clarification of
>>> notions and possibilities of ultimate reality; you're just stating "no,
>>> that linguistic pointer is definitely false" and people practicing
>>> theologies x,y,z are "misled"
>>>
>>
>> The people who are misled is not you or Bruno, but the billions of people
>> associating god *with an all loving, omniscient, omnipresent person*,
>> because you use their vocabulary to design something *totally* different.
>> Hence using their vocabulary is misleading.
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  while Quentin is not. Good for Quentin, is all I can add, then. PGC
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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