Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
George Levy wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: George Levy writes: One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number. There is a clear difference between, on the one hand, believing x despite the lack of any supporting evidence and, on the other hand, not believing x because of the lack of any supporting evidence As far as I know atheists believe in no god ( B~G or equivalently B( G=f ) ) and agnostics do not commit themselves to believing in god. (~BG) . In that sense atheists are true believers. You are confusing the instance with the class. The fact that zero represents a null value does not mean that its status as a number is nil. The fact that atheists believe in zero god does not mean they do not believe in anything. George Atheists do not always define the term "atheism" as believing there is no God, they often define it simply as lacking any belief in God--see the quotes from various atheist writers at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: George Levy writes: One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number. There is a clear difference between, on the one hand, believing x despite the lack of any supporting evidence and, on the other hand, not believing x because of the lack of any supporting evidence As far as I know atheists believe in no god ( B~G or equivalently B( G=f ) ) and agnostics do not commit themselves to believing in god. (~BG) . In that sense atheists are true believers. You are confusing the instance with the class. The fact that zero represents a null value does not mean that its status as a number is nil. The fact that atheists believe in zero god does not mean they do not believe in anything. George
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
> Bruno it is you and only you who can decide about the title. Just keep in mind that with theology libraries and buyers will connotate a religious oeuvre, with psychology a neurological or psychiatric one, wich mewchanism an engineering treatise, with 1st person a psychological babble, so people will abstain from reading it. Did you identify a topic for the library systematic? (I wonder) I mentioned 'blickfang' and it is a real term. It sells the text (not in money-terms, but in readership). I would not suggest "Advanced thinking beyond the misconceptions of conventional sciences" but I strongly advise against words with misleading baggage. (If my suggestion is any worth). Maybe tuppence? John M
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Except I think that identifying G* with God is unhelpful. God is at
best an incoherent concept, which is part of the reason why theology
is a problematic word. G* is basically Truth by another name.
Bruno wants to use theology in its original Hellenistic sense - fine,
except he will have his work cut out explaining that this is how he
intends to use the word. Of course if he picks a completely new word
then he will need to explain this as well.
Cheers
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:16:29PM -0800, George Levy wrote:
> Bruno
> I am still thinking about the naming issue and I am not 100% satisfied
> with any suggestion. The field we are discussing is really at the
> intersection of three subjects: Theology, Physics and Psychology. This
> reminds me that about six years ago I wrote a book which was never
> published (I did not have the credentials and/or the book was too "far
> out" for the editors). I entitled the book "God, the World and I." In
> terms of your theory "God, the World and I" may correspond to G*, G and
> the first person.
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpa4RXSioiAT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Bruno I am still thinking about the naming issue and I am not 100% satisfied with any suggestion. The field we are discussing is really at the intersection of three subjects: Theology, Physics and Psychology. This reminds me that about six years ago I wrote a book which was never published (I did not have the credentials and/or the book was too "far out" for the editors). I entitled the book "God, the World and I." In terms of your theory "God, the World and I" may correspond to G*, G and the first person. I am not sure how this could affect the naming issue. Trying to combine these three concepts we could get titles such as: First person Theological Physics? First-person Theo-Mechanics? First-person Physical Theology? First-person Machine Theology?? Theological Physical Psychology? Psychology is not really satisfying... I should really be the science of the "first-person, the "self" or the "observer" possibly the term for it is "relativistic" instead of "psychology")...so we get "Relativistic Theological Physics" or "Relativistic Theological Mechanics".h Upon hearing these words, people may decide to lock us up in an insane asilum. :-\ George
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
George Levy writes: I understand Bruno's stand on Machine Theology. After all we are really talking about the "soul in the machine." It is really controversial but so what? It will certainly drive the point home. One more point for Stathis: If atheism is not a religion, then zero is not a number. We can argue about the precise definition of words, but I think a fundamental point is missed if religion and atheism are put on a par. It is like the Christian fundamentalists' demand that "creation science" be taught in schools alongside evolutionary biology, because nobody can reasonably claim that evolutionary biology is *certainly* true and "creation science" *certainly* false. There is a clear difference between, on the one hand, believing x despite the lack of any supporting evidence and, on the other hand, not believing x because of the lack of any supporting evidence - especially if x is something inherently bizarre or incredible. Stathis Papaioannou _ realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au
