On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 7:10:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Mar 2019, at 11:16, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 3:18:39 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 5:11:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 14:43, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> You confirm my theory that strong (non agnostic) atheism is radical
>>>> religious fundamentalism*
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never heard you or anybody else criticize me that brilliantly
>>> before, you sure put me in my place. I am devastated!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lol.
>>>
>>> The fact remains. Anyone mocking the science theology, helps the
>>> radicals, who have separated theology from science to mix it with (fake)
>>> politics (and real tyranny). You are under the influence of the post 529
>>> pseudo-christian propaganda. You defend, not intentionally I suppose, those
>>> who want us remaining non educated.
>>> The greek theology (not the greek mythology!) is at the origin of
>>> mathematics, physics, and even mathematical logic more recently.
>>>
>>> Note that the USSR, which have banned both religion and theology, did
>>> the same thing with biology. By mixing it with the state, it becomes
>>> obscurantist and non sensical (which led to a big famine).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > By theology, you know that [...] *Plato define God by* [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry did you say something? I think I fell asleep
>>>
>>>
>>> Since long …
>>> Since 529, somehow, I guess.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Epicurus (via Lucretius) had a philosophy based on physical and
>> psychical atoms.
>>
>>
>>
>> Intersting! (And just now you don’t provide links? I would be interested.
>> It would show that early materialist where not eliminativist). Plotinus
>> already complained on “eliminative materialism”, in its own term. I find
>> this both inexact and inhuman.
>>
>> But that leads to a non necessary dualism, which is also incompatible
>> with Descartes Mechanism and Turing’s one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the writings of Epicurus and Democritus and their students should
>> have been preserved and the writings of Plato and Aristotle should have
>> been destroyed.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
>> Lol
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Epicurus:
>
> Psychical [soul] atoms combine with physical [body] atoms to make
> conscious beings.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/#PsycEthi
>
> *Having established the physical basis of the world, *
>
>
> How?
>
>
>
> *Epicurus proceeds to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is
> the order in which Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course,
> consists of atoms: first, there is nothing that is not made up of atoms*
>
>
> Assuming physicalism and atomism.
>
>
>
> * and void (secondary qualities are simply accidents of the arrangement of
> atoms),*
>
>
>
> That is the eternal confusion between first person and third person, and
> it leads, with mechanism, to elimination of the person, or to dualisme, or
> indeed to panpsychism, which explains absolutely nothing: neither mind nor
> matter.
>
> Matter is an invention of the devil to distract us from the real thing.
>
> Well, in neoplatonism, you define matter by where God lose control. Of
> course it is not the christian god. The greeks neoplatonist knew already
> that it makes not much sense to assume that God is omniscient and/or
> omnipotent.
>
>
>
>
> * and second, an incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by
> bodies,*
>
>
>
> That is a good point. But that is the reason to not *assume* matter and
> movement in the first place.
>
>
>
>
> * as the soul is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the
> body, and it initiates physical movement). *
>
>
> That is the shadow of Mechanism, but adding atom of souls make the brain
> more mysterious, especially that we have not find such atoms. And would
> they exist, the mind-body problem is only made more complex, if not
> unsolvable. At least Epicurus is not eliminativist, like most religious
> person.
>
>
>
> *Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are particularly fine and are
> distributed throughout the body (LH 64), and it is by means of them that we
> have sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of pain and pleasure, which
> Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle and others to signify
> emotions instead). Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and
> when the atoms of the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support
> conscious life, the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the
> capacity for sensation (LH 65). There is also a part of the human soul that
> is concentrated in the chest, and is the seat of the higher intellectual
> functions. The distinction is important, because it is in the rational part
> that error of judgment enters in. Sensation, like pain and pleasure, is
> incorrigible just because it is a function of the non-rational part, *
>
>
> That is very good. []p&p is obviously incorrigible, and indeed []p is one
> who can err. Then G* minus G, and the variants, give the surrational part:
> true but not rationally justifiable. Good insight, in the frame of
> mechanism, but this illustrates that there is really no need of atom of
> minds, nor of matter (that’s less obvious, but if you study some papers, it
> is easy to grasp. The only difficulty consists in understanding what is a
> computation, and that such notion does no need any physicalist or
> materialist metaphysical assumption.
>
>
>
> *which does not modify a perception — that is, the reception of lamina
> emitted from macroscopic bodies — by the addition of opinion or belief.*
>
>
>
> Knowledge is true belief in company of a logos (definition, proof).
>
>
>
>
>
> is an ancient precursor to
>
> Realistic Monism (Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism)
> Galen Strawson
>
> http://www.sjsu.edu/people/anand.vaidya/courses/c2/s0/Realistic-Monism---Why-Physicalism-Entails-Panpsychism-Galen-Strawson.pdf
>
>
> I think this is correct, but that can be seen as a reductio ad absurd of
> physicalism, I would say.
>
>
>
>
> Physicalist panpsychism (Blackwell Companion to Consciousness)
> Galen Strawson
> https://www.academia.edu/25420435/Physicalist_panpsychism_2017_draft
>
>
> Note: Strawson uses "physicalism" to mean “materialism"
>
>
> That is not problem. Physicalism is a slight nuance on “materialism”. It
> is the same thing if you define matter to be the object of study of physics.
>
>
>
> since he thinks physics - what counts as its subject matter (pun intended)
> - will change in the future.
>
>
> Better to not change the name of the field, but to improve the domain.
>
> That is the difference *today* between science and religion. In science,
> when we discover that we were wrong, like discovering that Earth is round
> and not flat, nobody said that geography is BS, nor that Earth do not
> exist. We just improve the geography and the conception of Earth. But in
> religion, if we discover that “omniscience and/or omnipotence makes no
> sense, people include religion (all of them) is BS, and forbid to change
> the definition, or to improve the theory. Very often, atheists are even
> more dogmatic on any change we could bring in theology, like if they wanted
> theology to be absurd, so that they can continue to believe in Aristotle’s
> matter. That is the quintessence of obscurantism. The punishment of
> improvement and dialogs.
>
> Bruno
>
>
"Matter is an invention of the devil to distract us from the real
thing."
Maybe matter is good. It's numbers that are evil. :)
*The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first
beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship
the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich
and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on
their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the
mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls
for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the
beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.* (Revelation 13)
- pt
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
