Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 07-févr.-07, à 05:55, Brent Meeker a écrit (some time ago) > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of >> course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people >> do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis > for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: I'd say an irrational morality. I almost always make the utilitarian choice in those hypothetical moral dilemmas (mus

Re: The Meaning of Life

This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=sl

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 15-mars-07, à 19:38, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : >> >>> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is >>> deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented >>> any argument for t

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 15-mars-07, à 17:15, David Nyman a écrit : > Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' > perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any > other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of > contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree o

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 15-mars-07, à 01:38, David Nyman a écrit : > On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is >> misleading. >> It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, >> just that >> they ex

Re: The Meaning of Life

lex. Luv is a composition. Not a primitive John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PRO

Re: The Meaning of Life

Thank you, Russell John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I think high energy physicists talk about "colour charge", rather than "co

Re: The Meaning of Life

- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life (Brent's question skipped)... BM: Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain

Re: The Meaning of Life

ionable 'infinite') but the word is not. - J. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : > I am not i

Re: The Meaning of Life

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is >> deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented >> any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You >> mer

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible > that 17 is only contingently prime? Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primen

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : >  I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more b

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit : > I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian > machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong) The problem with words like "nothing" and "everything" is that they have as many meaning than there are theories

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/15/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is > misleading. > > It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just > that > > they ex

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit : > > Lurking, lurking... > > > This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, > aeons ago on my birthday last year. > > Thankee, Tom > > A little refresher now: > > > On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: > >> Besides the quest

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : > But there is no reason to believe there is any "root" cause that is > deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented > any argument for the existence of this "ultimate" or "root". You > merely refer to "closed science" a

Re: The Meaning of Life

David Nyman wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is misleading. >> It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that >> they exist as concepts. This is mathe

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is misleading. > It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that > they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I und

Re: The Meaning of Life

I think high energy physicists talk about "colour charge", rather than "colour pole", but this is by analogy to electricity with its +ve & -ve charges, rather than analogy to magnetism with its north and south poles. However at the level of analogy, which is what your story is, this distinction is

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/14/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 9:44 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/14/07, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is > > conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, > or > > God exist but not make t

Re: The Meaning of Life

My reply to the topic: The question "How to calculate the Universe?" by definition is equivalent to the question "how to calculate Everything," including the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life". It justifies our existence even if we were not to

Re: The Meaning of Life

Russell, I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true. I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as "poles". Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles.

Re: The Meaning of Life

levels, so I'll > > list a few: > > > > 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than > > nothing? > > 2) Why do human beings in general exist? > > 3) Why do I exist? > > > > The purpose of listing these three question

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 14, 9:44 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/14/07, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is > conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or > God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that > circles or inte

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/14/07, Kim Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A little refresher now: > > > On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: > > > Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question > > of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll > > list a few: > > > > 1

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 14/03/2007, at 5:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: >> nevertheless >> >> I think we need more on question 1 >> >> Questions 2 and 3 appear to have answers of sorts >> >> Kim Jones > > What kind of statement would you regard as an answer to why there > is something rather than nothing? For example

Re: The Meaning of Life

2) Why do human beings in general exist? >> 3) Why do I exist? >> >> The purpose of listing these three questions is not to deal with >> all of >> them on this thread necessarily, but to show that the question of the >> meaning of life really is connected to the

Re: The Meaning of Life

questions is not to deal with > all of > them on this thread necessarily, but to show that the question of the > meaning of life really is connected to the universal questions that > this list tries to address. One's answer to any one of these > questions > can affect

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit : > Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: > The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"< > ">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is > that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. >>> I don't like simply saying

Re: The Meaning of Life

Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge. John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > In the

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: > In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as > done > by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned > "energy" > with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your ma

Re: The Meaning of Life

Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: "> If we accept Bruno's "we are god"< ">I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits "God"' unanmeability. So the first person has some "god" attribute. you cann

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : > Still: human thinking. You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being human. You can answer "human thinking" to any (human) post. So this does not convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature prev

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 12, 12:49 am, "Danny Mayes " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : > > If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's > UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this > question I'll define "God" a

RE: The Meaning of Life

Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno’s UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed

RE: The Meaning of Life

of "assumption" Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-0

Re: The Meaning of Life

what kind of "assumption" Bruno was mentioning in the last sentence. John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : > >   > > If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or > Bruno’s UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God?  For the > purposes of this question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of > creating everything that would

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 10-mars-07, à 09:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality, > even though logically they might know that there isn't. Come on, come on, come on com, > I think this true even of those with religious beliefs: mur

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 10-mars-07, à 05:11, Brent Meeker a écrit : > Brent Meeker' quote: > "My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy > child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can." > Frank Zappa I agree with Zappa. (and thus Brent). Let me borrow his w

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 10-mars-07, à 04:30, Tom Caylor a écrit : > Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be > to lump all of consciousness into the "input interpretting" box and > "explain it" in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous > machine. Hence, now that it is all expla

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my > point about "the whole control loop". Personal tastes and second > order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our > system of consciousness. But the input is

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the >>> chocolate > fairy". You can claim that while the

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the > > chocolate > > > > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people lik

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the > chocolate > > > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can > be > > > explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evoluti

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what > > > > gives meaning. The sourc

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/8/07, Danny Mayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or > Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes > of this question I'll define "God" as an entity capable of creating > everything that would be ob

Re: The Meaning of Life

If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to > become a silly argument over semantics. > Danny Mayes > A *lot* of the debate over God seems to be a silly argument over semantics. When people ask me if I believe in God, I sometimes ask "What precisely do you mean by 'God'?". But on

RE: The Meaning of Life

If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define "God" as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical uni

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > > > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what > > > gives meaning. The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time > >

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: > > > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what > > gives meaning. The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time > > (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote > >

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > >> A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's > >> of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it > >> provides. > > > I don't like simply saying "That isn't so,"

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: >>> On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is th

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > >>> Creato

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the >>> Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a >>> pro

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Mar 1, 5:26 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, > > who > > > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, > > containing > > > t

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, > who > > doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, > containing > > these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If > you're > > ha

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the > > Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a > > process of growth just li

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All > we > > > can > > > > do is stumble ar

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we >>> can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and mak

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we > > can > > > do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best > > > guess

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: > > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or > tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivis

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a > > closed system which is supposedly totally explainable wil

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually > > > don't believe in it either. The probl

Re: The Meaning of Life

he idea that everything is (deterministically) interconnected/ interinfluencing any occurrence to 'happen' - maybe not 'causing' just 'directing/facilitating' - entailing in some sense. JM - Original Message ----- From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-

Re: The Meaning of Life

I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term "metaphysics". Theists sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I thought I

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 3:59 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually > > don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is > > ultimately based on (and i

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 23, 3:59 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that > > > the foundations of mathematics are

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 23, 3:59 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that > > the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that > > ultimate meaning is ultim

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 20, 3:47 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 > > > is not prime). In fact the famous

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 20, 3:47 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 > > is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker "God created the > > integers" makes this po

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > These are positivis

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PR

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > These are positivist questions. Thi

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this > > > whole post (and previous ones). These q

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this > > whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that > > positivism is the right way of

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, go

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, laws-from-heaven (but really from you) an

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, > > > laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, > > laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to > > provide "meaning"? >

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 16, 8:18 am, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, > laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to > provide "meaning"? > It would not provide ultimate meaning for two reasons. (No

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/16/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > > >I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based > > >on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this > > >situat

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > >I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based > >on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this > >situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary > >

Re: The Meaning of Life

Le 14-févr.-07, à 00:27, Tom Caylor a écrit : > This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning > (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense > of "true") for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the > other dog provides 1st person subject

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor writes: >I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based > >on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this > >situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary > >matter" situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tom Caylor wrote: >>> Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> Tom Cayl

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > >I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based >on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this >situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary >matter" situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I

Re: The Meaning of Life

On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: > >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >>> On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Tom Caylor writes: > >

Re: The Meaning of Life

Tom Caylor wrote: > Brent Meeker wrote: >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker "It does not matter now that in a

Re: The Meaning of Life

Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > > > > > > > > Brent Meeker > > > > > > > "

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent Meeker writes: > > > > If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think > wonder > > at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its > > wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance >

Re: The Meaning of Life

Brent Meeker writes: > > If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder > > at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its > > wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this > > observation is. > > I don't think it's true.

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > > > > > > Brent Meeker > > > > > > "It does not matter now that in a million

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/12/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > > > > > > Brent Meeker > > > > > > "It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do > now > > > will matter." > > > > > > --- Thomas Nagel > > > > > > > We might

Re: The Meaning of Life

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Tom Caylor writes: > > > > > > Brent Meeker > > > > > "It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now > > will matter." > > > > > --- Thomas Nagel > > > > > We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. > > > > > Tom > > > > That is,

Re: The Meaning of Life

is. >   >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life >> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500 >> >> Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question >> at the end the maxim from M

  1   2   3   >