Hi Russell and the list:
I have been very distracted and am trying to catch up on the discussions.
At 01:35 AM 2/1/2006, you wrote:
I don't agree with equating the vacuum with Nothing, although I know
a few people do. The vacuum still has a wealth of information
associated with it.
In the
Le 25-févr.-06, à 21:03, uv wrote:
Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on February 25, 2006,
amongst a lot of other things
The practical, terrestrial act of faith consists to say yes
to a surgeon which proposes you an artificial digital brain/body.
It is a belief in a form or
Le 25-févr.-06, à 12:22, uv a écrit :
Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on February 23, 2006
The loebian machine knows that there are some truth which would be
wrong once she takes it as axiom. comp belongs to that type, and
that is why I insist that comp is more than just an
Le 23-févr.-06, à 07:32, Kim Jones a écrit :
The Loebian machine only believes the truth, yes? Not a pack of
Biblical lies, surely?
Not necessarily, or ... Well, not so easy to describe in few words. The
sound loebian machine believes the truth. True. But then the *sound*
any-entity only
Bruno:
how does Mrs. Loeb (La Machine) distinguish between
'truth' and 'not truth'? What is truth for Paul is a
lie for Peter and vice versa. Is 'she' Mrs Peter or
Mrs. Paul?
Truth is not better identifiable than reality. Or:
'quality', which aslo may be bad or good, depending on
the special
Le 21-févr.-06, à 05:50, danny mayes a écrit :
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides some explanation for the
Le 20-févr.-06, à 21:00, uv a écrit :
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and
Stoughton
1995) is a bloddy good read as we like to say here in Australia
I think myself that one problem with such books is that they are very
Christian oriented.
This is perhaps already
This is in fact the point of view of the book. The book teaches that
humanity has no need of the concept of God because we are all God
anyway so we must simply be describing ourselves when we mention God.
Theology says that Man was created in God's image
It is in fact the other way around -
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and Stoughton
1995) is a bloddy good read as we like to say here in Australia. It
is, in some ways the *kind* of revisionist theological tome the
modern world badly needs. For this reason, God speaks in a language
that any idiot can
Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] said
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and
Stoughton
1995) is a bloddy good read as we like to say here in Australia
I think myself that one problem with such books is that they are very
Christian oriented. I recently heard a lecture by David
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of
the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it
seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides
some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight
into
Le 14-févr.-06, à 05:19, danny mayes wrote (to Ben):
I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized in
the foreseeable future.
This looks like an encouraging statement :-)
The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or with any problem
with Bruno per se beyond
Which is very interesting, isn't it? People do seem want the kind of
modelled structure for their existence that theology projects. Even
though G means we can never know the truth of it, theology tells us
it is nonetheless there.
Has anyone on this list read Neale Donald Walsch's
Le 14-févr.-06, à 16:20, uv a écrit :
Bruno said
For me, all questioning is amenable to science, or put in another
way, we can kept a scientific attitude, in all fields, including
those
asking for faith.
Fair enough, as long as we all know what a 'scientific attitude' is.
Kuhn, Popper,
Bruno said
For me, all questioning is amenable to science, or put in another
way, we can kept a scientific attitude, in all fields, including
those
asking for faith.
Fair enough, as long as we all know what a 'scientific attitude' is.
Kuhn, Popper, Wittgenstein, Derrida ???
Correct
Le 30-janv.-06, à 22:07, Benjamin Udell wrote, in part, sometimes ago
(30 January):
Most people, however, do have some sort of views, which are or have
been significant in their lives, about what are traditionally called
metaphysical questions -- God, freedom, immortality, psycho-physical
because of the reception which it gets, then theology
would seem even more out of the question.
Best,
Ben
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: belief
achine metaphysicisms."
"Metaphysicology." "Metaphysicalistics." Those are, at least, pronounceable.
I'm not doing too well. It's definitely easier to criticize your word choice than to supply you with a better word choice. Still, if plain old "metaphysics" is out of the ques
Tom Caylor writes:
We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are THINKING
ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS (e.g.
philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that DOING THINGS
(engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking
Le 09-févr.-06, à 07:22, Kim Jones a écrit :
I was just about to ask what an angel was! You must have read my mind,
Bruno.
Non-machine-emulable is angel. OK.
Why do they(?) have to be called angel? Can one liken them(?) to the
theological description of an angel or is there some other
Le 06-févr.-06, à 18:54, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My answer is probably too short, but I want to take the risk of being
misinterpreted in order to be plain:
OK, I will take the risk of misinterpreting you.
We can't JUST DO things (like AI).
Actually a Universal Dovetailer do
I was just about to ask what an angel was! You must have read my
mind, Bruno.
Non-machine-emulable is angel. OK.
Why do they(?) have to be called angel? Can one liken them(?) to
the theological description of an angel or is there some other reason?
regards
Kim Jones
On 08/02/2006, at
Norman,
As far as I understand you, we agree (on this a t least). The explanation on the list that I was alluding toward, is here, so you could perhaps verify:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html
Bruno
Le 05-févr.-06, à 00:51, Norman Samish a écrit :
Bruno,
Le 05-févr.-06, à 03:07, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species.
Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest,
and I
hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in
order
to enhance my own understanding.
There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet
you
seem to
To realize that we are just machines in a physical world, and that
this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the
meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering
conceptualization.
To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then
to
Houston
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
My belief
: Jeanne Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest, and I
hope
John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about the same nature (world) and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about the same nature (world) and
you can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
John,
Le 04-févr.-06, à 17:20, John M a écrit :
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding.
I don't think so. I test
Bruno,
Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say
my argument is not valid. Granted,much of what you write is
unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know
little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've
said so far:
(Norman ONE)
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species. There is a fair bit of evidence that something
Le 02-févr.-06, à 17:31, Norman Samish a écrit :
My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible. If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible.
This could be a reasonable
Le 03-févr.-06, à 00:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I would like to think there is a qualitative difference between
scientific belief and religious belief: scientific belief is adjusted
in the light of contradictory evidence, while religious belief is not.
The problem is that we are
Le 02-févr.-06, à 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote:
Bruno:
>To believe in something in spite of refutation is bad faith.
>To believe in something in spite of contrary evidences ? It depends. I
>can imagine situations where I would find that a remarkable attitude,
>and I can imagine others
Bruno:
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
Bruno and list:
We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
understand the entirety (wholeness) and follow
all
existence (whatever you may call it) by our human
mind
and logic...
I would like to think there is a qualitative difference between scientific
belief and religious belief: scientific belief is adjusted in the light of
contradictory evidence, while religious belief is not. At the very least,
there is a quantitative difference: religious belief is adhered to more
That's very good, Tom! It's the conclusion I arrived at a few years ago, and
I don't see why you describe it as an abandonning of truth. I think being
upset at this conclusion is like reaching for the nearest nailed-down object
when you first learn that the Earth is a sphere: if you didn't
Brent, list,
I've edited my previous post, added some corrections notes, and pared down a
lot of the stuff from previous posts. At this point I'm sending it on a for
what it's worth basis -- I'm a little tired of it myself!
I've also thought to try to put this back in its original context but
Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in
language between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to believe in.
I don't think a scientist ever believes in a
Le 30-janv.-06, à 17:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote :
Bruno wrote:
I think everyone has religious faith...
Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement,
Its consequences are no less searing I'm afraid. It means that an
atheist is someone who has some religious
Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
Bruno and list:
We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
understand the entirety (wholeness) and follow all
existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind
and logic...
Who can be sure of that?
I like to leave a 'slot' open
Brent, list,
[Ben] At this point I'm not talking about aspiring. I'm talking
straightforwardly about being in control, making decisions -- at least for
oneself. Some want more power than that. Some have more power than that and
don't want it. Some have all that and want still more. Parents
~~
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is
fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and
there is n
Norman wrote:
I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if
there
is no God, those that decide to have faith,
and
have the ability to have faith,in a benign
God
have gained quite a bit. They have faith in
an
afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of
good
over evil, etc. Without
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno
Marchal wrote: Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit
: I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle
difference in language between Danny and Stathis.
Danny refers to "believe in". I don't think a
~~
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is
fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham
John M wrote:
Norman:
just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife:
to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by
'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain
and senility?
Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial
life for the introduction in heaven: let us say:
.
-Kevin
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Norman:
just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife:
to sing the pius chants
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense
because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and
die...
Tom
Thats funny stuff. And true!
Danny Mayes
PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in language between
Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to believe in. I don't think
Bruno wrote:
I think everyone has religious faith...
Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement,
which goes back to why the word theology is taboo. As it's commonly
said, the two topics to stay away from in conversation are religion and
politics.
But, without using
Tom wrote:
what are we left with?
To make my point more plain, I will give my own answer to this
question. If we abandon a belief in truth, or if we totally separate
truth from our lives, then what are we left with? We are left devoid
of meaning in our lives. We would end up with
...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense
because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and
die...
Tom
Tom, Brent, Bruno, list,
Bruno wrote Brent agreed,
I think everyone has religious faith...
I don't think that I could go along with that, at least not in the strict
sense of "religion" -- true enough, religion has, at its core, valuings with
regard to power and submission, ruling and
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Tom, Brent, Bruno, list,
Bruno wrote Brent agreed,
I think everyone has religious faith...
I don't think that I could go along with that, at least not in the
strict sense of religion -- true enough, religion has, at its core,
valuings with regard to power and
Brent, list
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. End as something of value doesn't
imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
confront that. It may help to
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Brent, list
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. End as something of value
doesn't imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
confront
Brent, list,
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. End as something of value
doesn't imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
confront that. It may help
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Brent, list,
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. End as something of value
doesn't imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning.
A person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does
have to
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
My belief is that in matters of faith, you can choose to believe or
not believe based on whether it suits your personal preferences. Your
example of the Nazis would not apply because there is overwhelming
evidence that the Nazis existed.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
[Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described
above?]
I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God and
Heaven that was relevant.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the
That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, the real
God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a few dozen people,
or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and may punish you. An
analogous situation arises when creationists demand that the Biblical
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship
the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought,
you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied
yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures
: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is
fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and there is no god, you
have given up freedom
66 matches
Mail list logo
