Hi Craig Weinberg
Could a blind man stub his toe ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe?
Hi Craig Weinberg
That is such a silly pov. If a boulder
fell off of a cliff above you onto you that
you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31
Subject: Re: Re: Is there an
Hi meekerdb
So there's no or little proof then. Just what I thought.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 15:35:20
Subject: Re: Holy Smokes ! Automobile exhausts are causing polar
icecapstoalsomelt on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto
Hi meekerdb
You have faith that what Mencken said is true, am I not correct ?
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 18:31:10
Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their
Hi spudboy100
Yes, God is an alien intelligence because he does many
things we consider unjust.
- Receiving the following content -
From: spudboy100
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-20, 21:11:13
Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Does anyone have an issue with
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the
brain,
We could also assume that ground beef is caused by the grocery store, but
that doesn't tell us about ground beef.
Do you disagree that it
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bruno
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 17 Jan
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 16:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:04:10 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The assumption by scientists is that consciousness is caused by the
brain,
We could also assume that ground beef is caused by
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Could a blind man stub his toe ?
Anyone can stub their toe.
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:*
Hi Craig Weinberg
But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18
Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58
On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of
it would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.
To say that there is no field of theology is
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:17, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Question.
What is DNA ?
Life library.
DNA consist on atoms and electromagnetic fields.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em field without Electron
It means the source of this em field must be an Electron
Then we need to write :
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I am discussing ontology, there is no
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of
the words.
That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
computations.
?
God, matter, consciousness are never
On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness
everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how
the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and
how it was affected by the interprent.
On 20 Jan 2013, at 23:57, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
You seem to not understand a simple idea that is axiomatic for
me. I am trying to understand why this is. Do you understand the
On 21 Jan 2013, at 02:41, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
This may be totally irrelavent, but NDE studlier, Raymond Moody, has
a book published about 3 years ago, called Glimpses of Eternity, in
which NDE's and passings-on are a shared experience, including a
life review, seen by family and
On 27 Dec 2012, at 00:22, Roger Clough wrote:
Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
2. That I exist or do not exist.
3. That computers can be conscious or not.
4. That there is a primary physical reality or not.
You forget the main one
On 21 Jan 2013, at 14:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 13:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:
snip
Ok. That mode of reasoning is weirdly appealing to me. Even
On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.
Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch.
Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or
On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
There is no field of theology, removing the fairy
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
That is such a silly pov.
Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking
about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan
idealism.
If a boulder
fell
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and
theologians and the fight still isn't over.
That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of
philosophy, philosophy is a refinement of
Many questionable statements along this long conversation.
To your quote (life library?) - it is a figment of our conventional (bio?)
sciences, as we build 'life' theories from atoms - em - energy - etc.
*
I don't know about Turing ccness, but in my terms ccness is the response
to relations.
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field.
There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and
experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and
theologians and the fight still isn't over.
That is a fiction of historical revisionism. Science is a kind of
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is
anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is
unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:36:48 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 11:53:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and
theologians and the fight still isn't
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in
the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on
redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own
private meaning then
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:01:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 17:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You are saying that you can prove that the only way a computer can exist
is if arithmetic is irreducible?
I did not say that. I was saying that you have to assume the
On 1/21/2013 9:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
But nothing would exist for a blind man,
since he can see nothing.
Dear Roger,
Why are you hung up on vision? I think that Craig is including all
possible senses.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you
On Monday, January 21, 2013 2:05:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everything around me
On 1/21/2013 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2013 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. It is always better to stick to the most common sense of the words.
That's funny coming from a guy who used God to designate abstract
computations.
?
On Monday, January 21, 2013 1:56:36 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote
The founders of Western Enlightenment science would be quite surprised
to hear that their invention of science was a fight against theology
The
On 1/21/2013 8:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 16:37, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:21, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal
Eventually, I sure would. But it would be a nice to know anyway. At this
point to gather the evidence (what would that be??) would lead us to an
actual conclusion and theory. Or we'd somehow be communication with this super
ETI that created things. If we're speaking with a live mind, or a
On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field.
There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the
behavior of
Rclough-you have me dead to rights. Busted on that one. That tends to be my
attitude, because sometimes accepting, is really not caring. God's will,
so screw. That sort of attitude. Or maybe its a way for people to cope, by
not caring? But if caring does no good..? Round and round we go.
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being
revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology
which makes an enemy of teleology.
Yes, it is only the recently, since the
On 1/21/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, scientists are current theologians. But as such they are less modern than the
greeks. In particular, they hide the metaphysical hypotheses.
Because they've found that it is better to start from observation and to make progress
where it can be
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are
being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a
fundamentalist pathology which makes an
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have
representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
That's something evolution explains.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material
things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
That's something evolution
Bruno:
*...I have identified, in the comp context, God with Arithmetical Truth,
*
*
*
does that mean: complying with human logic (any)? Just imagine a world
(universe) without logically THINKING beings (humans?) with no math to
formulate (numbers, to express): is there a God there?
JM
*
*
On
On 1/21/2013 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are
being
revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material
things to
have representations of things,
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:35:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:20:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material
On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism
On 1/21/2013 2:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I mean if we wanted to get technical I would split the physics of
counting into the private motive experience quantitative reasoning
from the sensory experiences of figures or forms upon which we project
our representations, but yeah numbers need a
On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material things to have representations of things, intensionality,
such as numbers.
That's something evolution explains.
Brent
Hi Brent,
On 1/21/2013 5:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 4:59 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to
have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers.
That's
On 1/21/2013 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/20/2013 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2013, at 00:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 19:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear
Lecture : Scientific heresy. Nov 1, 2011 in Edinburgh.
/ By Matt Ridley /
My topic today is scientific heresy.
When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad?
How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?
#
Just this month Daniel Shechtman won the 2011 Nobel
61 matches
Mail list logo
