Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!

2008-08-11 Thread Tom Caylor
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, please see after your quoted text. John M On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily beautiful. And this from a theist?  Yes!  This

Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!

2008-08-11 Thread Tom Caylor
Just to be clear, I was not equating God and the knowable fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything. I was just noting that my statements work with either one. On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, please see

Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!

2008-08-11 Thread John Mikes
Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf) I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in' and want to redirect my previous post. Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of BEAUTY - then think it over again with your similarly changed reply. BTW:

Re: Intelligence, Aesthetics and Bayesianism: Game over!

2008-08-11 Thread Tom Caylor
See below. On Aug 11, 7:48 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf) I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in' and want to redirect my previous post. Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of