Re: Re: Berkeley, Plato and Leibniz on existence
Hi Bruno Marchal I think it is safe to treat the One as something that at least has the features of the Christian God (or I suppose any god)-- omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Leibniz created his metaphysics to allow everything to happen as ideas, not physically. All of the action occurs in the Ideal world. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:04:54 Subject: Re: Berkeley, Plato and Leibniz on existence On 23 Jan 2013, at 12:01, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal An interesting way putting it. But that matter is only dreamed sounds like a stronger version of Berkeleyism. You say that matter doesn't really exist at all, Berkeley would say that it only exists if we perceive it. Both of these positions can be saved IMHO if there is some external, continuous, omnipresent observer. Like the One. I suspect that you already hold that view. It is an open problem. Is the One a person? I don't know. It surely becomes a person when linked to belief, as this gives the inner God (the universal soul, the knower). I do have some evidence that either the ONE is a person, but I have also evidence that such a ONE might not be the real ONE, but still more particular instantiations. All this is quite complex. Leibniz would not make such a strong statement, however. He would say that matter is not illusory at all, it is both an idea (a perception, a dream), which to us appears as a phenomenon, but to God appears as it really is. I am not sure I can translate that in the machine's language today. Too much complex. It is for the future generations. Keep in mind that the ideally correct machines remains mute all around the notion of God. To progress we will have to perturb her a little bit, and make her less correct, but then there is the risk of making her soul fall, and she has all the cognitive ability to develop her own wishful thinking. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:11:04 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say: Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Wikipedia says: Epistemology (i/ p st m l d i/ from Greek p?st ľ? - episteme, meaning knowledge, understanding, and ? ?? - logos, meaning study of) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.[1][2] It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given subject or entity can be known. How can matter be epistemological ? Because matter is only dreamed. It is an appearance. there is no stuff. Weal materialism is false (if comp is true, that is if we are machine). It's just nondescriptive stuff. That does not exist. That is a myth, even if it is a very old one. It is the result of billions years of simplification done by nature. Our brains has been programmed to surivive, not to contemplate the possible ultimate truth. It cannot be knowledge, for knowledge can be defined as a true belief. But there's nothing to believe. It's just nondescriptive stuff. It is indeed not true belief, but it is still belief. false belief if you want. Illusion. Dream. As to truth not being epistemological, consider this. If knowledge is a true belief, and epistemology provides you with knowledge, then that knowledge must be true by definition. I agree with knowledge = true belief (cf Bp p), but this makes truth primary with respect to knowledge. To have a knowledge you need two things: a belief, and a reality in which that belief is true. 'and of course you need a link to that reality, like being present there). You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:38:01 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading 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. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Why the categories seem to be essential
Hi Bruno Marchal That Is why IMHO Peirce's categories seem necessary to this project. I. For what we experience comes from Firstness, raw experience. The computer cannot duplicate that, for that state is subjective, which means a living, symbol-free experience. It has no symbolic form yet. II. The symbolic form comes from Secondness, the PERSONAL recognition from memory which Peirce calls a bump of an object (if there is one) that was found in Firstness (such as an apple). Now there is the seer and the seen, making two or Secondness. The person recognizes an apple but has not yet placed a name on it. I suppose this state would be a comparative image of an apple drawn from memory. III. Thirdness then occurs when a name (the third item) is applied to the Secondness state above. If the computer were to duplicate the above, it would need I -- a camera viewing an apple II - image recognition software tuned to a given personality and his memory. III - output the word apple I suppose 1p would ( I+ II) and 3p would be (III). - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:53:28 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 23 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Just trying to clarify things. 1) OK, I partly understand if we allow words as output. ... and inputs. OK. But words are descriptions (3p, or Thirdness), OK. not experience (1p, or Firstness). Yes. Experiences are not words. 2) Let us admit for the moment that it is possible for a computer to be conscious. What would it be conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ? In fact, a computer is never conscious. Similarly, my brain is not conscious. No more than my liver. It is the (immaterial) person which is conscious. The brain, or the computer, is only a local tool to make that conscious person able to manifest itself relatively to its most probable computational histories. The person is defined mainly by its first person experience, which is not something that we can identify with anything third person describable. But we can define it, at least in a first approximation, by the knower (notably the one who know the content of its memories). It has been shown, by Montague and Kaplan precisely, that like truth, knowledge by a machine cannot be defined in the language of the machine. But as scientists, by studying much simpler machine than ourselves, we can use a local and little theory of truth (like Traski's one) to (meta) define the knowledge of the machine (notably by linking the machine's belief (which are definable and representable in 3p) and truth. This works well, and explains already why the introspecting machine cannot know who she is. The identity card, or even the complete description of her body, will not do the trick (that leads only to a 3p copy, not her). That explains also that the knowing machine can only *bet* on a substitution level, without ever being sure it is correct, making comp asking for an act of faith (similar to some faith in some possible reincarnation). It is counter-intuitive, and it does leads to the reversal: eventually the brain and bodies are construct of the mind, even if they are also related to deep and complex 3p number relations. Consciousness is not due to the running of a computer. It only appears locally to be like that. In the global big picture, it is the running of a computer which appear as an event in consciousness. I hope this can help a bit. It is hard to explain something counter-intuitive in intuitive terms, and that is why I use the deductive method, starting from the hypothesis that there is a level where we are 3p duplicable. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the
Re: Re: A blind man creating a rock by tripping on it.
Hi Craig Weinberg Obviously you don't want to have a rational discussion. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:37:35 Subject: Re: A blind man creating a rock by tripping on it. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg This get sillier the more realistically we examine your claim. It would also make an interesting experiment to record with a videocam set off with a trip wire that could be posted on Youtube. How fast is the object of perception created in the brain? There is no object created in the brain. Perception is an experience which is accessed through the sensitivities of the brain to the body and the body to the world. How fast would the rock be created ? The rock is not created, except geologically. You really have no idea what I'm talking about. Would it start being created at the point of contact, or all over ? Not created - noticed in the experience of contact. Would that be faster than the blind man's reaction time ? What does faster have to do with anything. If you can see, then you detect the rock at a distance from your body. If you can't see, then you detect the rock as it contacts your body or a prosthetic extension of your body. Eyes extend the sense of your brain into a public optical context. Would there be a heat of solidification required ? Would that heat or cool the surrounding area ? You are way out in your own strawman version of my view. Would what require a heat or solidification? Kicking a rock? Would the creation of the rock show up on a videocam recording the eventCould we hear that happen ? What would the creation of a rock sound like ? Rocks sound like rocks when you kick them. They show up on videocam without being created - they are detected by the photosensitive CDC, but that is as far as it goes. That photosensitivity is not shared by any organism which interprets it though emotional or cognitive sensitivity. How does the speed of creation of the rock compare with the blind man's reaction time to contacting the rock ? What would his perception look like to a blind man? There is no rock 'created'. You are thinking of a caricature of idealism and projecting it onto me, and I suspect that you always will. Not your fault, but you aren't going to learn anything if you don't understand what I'm proposing. Craig Etc. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 15:43:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:12:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? Then he detects it when he trips over it. Having eyes allows us to extend the range of our tripping and changes the quality of the experience as well. Craig - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 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 indirectly. - 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 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 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? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group,
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Craig Weinberg Period, meaning that's it. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of course... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Craig Weinberg An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.[10] According to William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations.[11] Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.[12] Some studies state that in developed countries, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.[13][14] Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies. [15] - wikipedia - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of
Science is a religion by itself.
Belief . . . from history of physics. =. Many years Max Planck was attracted with the absolutely black body problem. If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘ Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et ) This unit does not come on formulas or equations. Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry. Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively. They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically ===.. Phenomenology. 1. the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically ===… So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action ‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions’. Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit but without success. We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle. But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer. ==. There are 1000 books and millions articles about ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’. Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief in religion:‘ I believe because it is absurd.’ / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) / ( in science – big bang, in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.) ==.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
meditation
Hi all, I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of oneness with the universe, non separation, etc. Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse? Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
I always considered h to just be a constant of proportionality between energy and frequency that is determined empirically. What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond measurement and subject to belief. For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind; whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is, fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind. So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon) requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area and/or time. It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for all quantum wave functions in general. In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a physical particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI). That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model; but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world. I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space. But your question really is what does a physical particle look like? My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course, point particles are there as well. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Belief . . . from history of physics. =. Many years Max Planck was attracted with the absolutely black body problem. If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘ Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et ) This unit does not come on formulas or equations. Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry. Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively. They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically ===.. Phenomenology. 1. the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically ===… So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action ‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions’. Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit but without success. We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle. But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer. ==. There are 1000 books and millions articles about ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’. Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief in religion:‘ I believe because it is absurd.’ / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) / ( in science – big bang, in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.) ==.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Martin Luther on Rationality
I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets. We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a Christian without intense embarrassment. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
I though that, this was not a site for enhancing the self esteem of self-proclaimed rationalists neither an insult-you-an-infidel theraphy group. 2013/1/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets. We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a Christian without intense embarrassment. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Something that intrigues me is that arithmetics does not seem to exist in the primordial singularity that spawned the 14d Metaverse nor in any singularities that that spawned 12d universes because the quantum fields in the singularities are not discrete. In order to get a discrete structure capable of arithmetics each singularity must first spawn a 4D spacetime together with a 3D subspace containing a cubic lattice of compactified 6d particles capable of arithmetic computation. Subspace arithmetics then computes everything that can happen then on forever and writes the results on the fluxes of the timeless deterministic unconscious MWI 4D Block Space of the Metaverse. But consciousness and free choice appear to exist in our universe. If so then the subspace arithmetics (what I think of as the Quantum Mind) must recalculate the future just like your GPS does when you decide to take a different path than what the GPS system recommends. Now this will become religion if I can derive ritual like mantras from the metaphysics. It is my opinion that religion requires ritual, something I have already done for string theory. So string theory IS my religion. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I always considered h to just be a constant of proportionality between energy and frequency that is determined empirically. What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond measurement and subject to belief. For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind; whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is, fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind. So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon) requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area and/or time. It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for all quantum wave functions in general. In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a physical particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI). That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model; but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world. I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space. But your question really is what does a physical particle look like? My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics. Of course, point particles are there as well. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:37 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Belief . . . from history of physics. =. Many years Max Planck was attracted with the absolutely black body problem. If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘ Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et ) This unit does not come on formulas or equations. Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry. Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively. They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically ===.. Phenomenology. 1. the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/phenomenologically ===… So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action ‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional philosophical questions’. Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit but without success. We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle. But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer. ==. There are 1000 books and millions articles about ‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’. Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief in religion:‘ I believe because it is absurd.’ / Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) / ( in science – big bang, in religion - God create
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 7:32 AM, John Clark wrote: I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets. We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a Christian without intense embarrassment. John K Clark Of course we are now told that religion is not science, but that it is the source of morality which is beyond reason: We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]. ---Martin Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ---Martin Luther Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy -- the Jews. The work that Christ started but did not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude. --- The Book of Political Quotes, London: Angus Robertson Publishers, 1982, p. 195) We stand at the end of the Age of Reason. A new era of the magical explanation of the world is rising. --Adolf Hitler from Gespräch mit Hitler by Herman Raschning quoted by Francis Slakey When the lights of reason go out New Scientist 11 September 1993. Brent El sueño de la razón produce monstruos. --Francisco de Goya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: A blind man creating a rock by tripping on it.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:45:15 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Obviously you don't want to have a rational discussion. Obviously you can't defend your criticism. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:37:35 *Subject:* Re: A blind man creating a rock by tripping on it. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg This get sillier the more realistically we examine your claim. It would also make an interesting experiment to record with a videocam set off with a trip wire that could be posted on Youtube. How fast is the object of perception created in the brain? There is no object created in the brain. Perception is an experience which is accessed through the sensitivities of the brain to the body and the body to the world. How fast would the rock be created ? The rock is not created, except geologically. You really have no idea what I'm talking about. Would it start being created at the point of contact, or all over ? Not created - noticed in the experience of contact. Would that be faster than the blind man's reaction time ? What does faster have to do with anything. If you can see, then you detect the rock at a distance from your body. If you can't see, then you detect the rock as it contacts your body or a prosthetic extension of your body. Eyes extend the sense of your brain into a public optical context. Would there be a heat of solidification required ? Would that heat or cool the surrounding area ? You are way out in your own strawman version of my view. Would what require a heat or solidification? Kicking a rock? Would the creation of the rock show up on a videocam recording the eventCould we hear that happen ? What would the creation of a rock sound like ? Rocks sound like rocks when you kick them. They show up on videocam without being created - they are detected by the photosensitive CDC, but that is as far as it goes. That photosensitivity is not shared by any organism which interprets it though emotional or cognitive sensitivity. How does the speed of creation of the rock compare with the blind man's reaction time to contacting the rock ? What would his perception look like to a blind man? There is no rock 'created'. You are thinking of a caricature of idealism and projecting it onto me, and I suspect that you always will. Not your fault, but you aren't going to learn anything if you don't understand what I'm proposing. Craig Etc. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:43:19 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:12:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? Then he detects it when he trips over it. Having eyes allows us to extend the range of our tripping and changes the quality of the experience as well. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy 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 indirectly. - 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 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 *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? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, you can see that in two current junk science cults: (a) materialism (b) climate change What I can see is that your responses seem to be generated by this logic tree: Do I Understand It? Yes = Leibniz No = God Do I Like It? Yes = Rational No = Blame Liberals (aka Nazi-Communist Jews who advocate a Welfare-Police state) Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:15:40 *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb 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 enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/btCFEZ0P0pMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets. We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a Christian without intense embarrassment. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/24/2013 8:17 AM, John Clark wrote: It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. Interestingly, in Aramaic the word was Elohim, and my jewish/anthropologist friend tells me that's a plural. So it should have been translated gods, except that didn't sit well with the later monotheism. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 23 Jan 2013, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Crystal meth, like crack cocaine, or the quite terrible Krokodil, are typical products of prohibition. Krokodil appeared in Russia after an attempt to make heroin disappear in large region there. Like wood alcohol during alcohol interdiction, prohibition invites people to build ersatz which are usually far more dangerous than the original products. Bruno Craig - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. � than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?� Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.� � Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. �ohn K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: remarkable female chess master
On 23 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Roger Clough wrote: Hi - This national geographic special shows a young hungarian lady who can essentially play and win five games of chess blindfolded. Instead of a blindfold, here she is playing only by voice to voice over a mobile phone. Her father, a psychologist, trained her to excel at chess. This would seem to argue for nurture versus nature, for chess is a position-sensitive game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E Also of interest is that the part of the right side of the brain that deals with spacial relations (not getting lost while hunting) is thicker in males. But the corpus calliostrum or tissue connecting the right and left sides of the brain is more substantial in females. Some uses this to explain why women are so chatty. But I am not sure that there are serious confirmation of this. But an efficacious corpus callosum might help an entity to ease the natural tension between the analytical intellect (Bp) and the intuitive soul (Bp p). Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. But it did happen. The Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere, how far away and how big the Sun was. They had a speculative idea of biological evolution. They had the concept of atoms and how all matter might be constructed from just a few basic components in different combinations. Aristotle was an empiricist. If it had not been for the early Church's emphasis on faith, dogma, and rationalism, science would be centuries more advanced. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:17:30 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1version=NIV And Darwin provided a real explanation, he didn't just say that complex life evolved from much simpler life, he provided the engine, he explained how the mechanism works. But exactly how did God create the heavens and the earth? Genesis doesn't say, and that's why Genesis explains absolutely nothing; it might as well have just said stuff happens for all the enlightenment it brought. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, I know. That's the problem. Make up your mind, do you have a problem with the God concept being too simple or too complex? so how complex could it be? Infinitely, and that's a 10 letter word. Infinity is not quite as simple as God, but it is still very simple compared to natural selection and genetic replication. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? I believe so. I'm not sure of the exact verse but it's somewhere in the Bible, I think it's in The Book Of Popeye I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam. I was just thinking that there should be a Chuckle Like Popeye Day added to the calendar actually. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species Gutenberg would have been slowly burned alive by the church. Do you have any reason for defending the barbaric actions of this institution other than the fact that I don't like it? I don't like the church either, but the church is not theology. To me, the church is a social organization which uses the popularity of theological themes to gain political influence and control over a population. All such organizations can be as barbaric, from governments to business to country clubs and unions. Theological ideas however, are just early philosophy, which is early science. Science, in its refinement of philosophy has made obvious strides beyond theology, but not everything that has been discarded along the way can be forgotten. This is a simplistic view of progress. Until science can reconcile physics with psyche in a way which does not diminish either one, there will continue to be a huge blind spot which fundamentalist churches will exploit. I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. You can study mythology or you can study the appalling behavior of primitive bronze age tribes but there is nothing in theology to study. There is no field, there is no there there. http://divinity.duke.edu/sites/default/files/documents/academics/course-schedule-course-listing-2012-fall.pdf Hyperbole and bigotry are the antithesis of science, IMO. Ignorance plus arrogance only helps your ego, not science. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Ba_F2n9-G5AJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Then we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning. They can overlap, but are different things. Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: meditation
I imagine your story as a Calvin and Hobbes strip :) On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I once had the experience of oneness with the universe. As an almost teenager one winter I was sliding in an apple orchard 1/2 mile from home. It was so much fun that even after nightfall and everybody else going home, I continued sliding down and trunging up the hill. Finally I just laid back on my sled and starred at the stars. It was then that I experienced 'oneness with the universe'. It scared the shit out of me and I ran all the way home. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi all, I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of oneness with the universe, non separation, etc. Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse? Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
All these things are part of the myths of modernity. The reality is quite different. The idea that the medievals though that the earth was flat is larguely a myth, as true as the fact that now a fair amount of the people in the world believe that Man has not been in the Moon. Inquisition, for example, and the burning of withches was a phenomenon of the early modern age not from the middle age, where woman had quite more freedon, The popular ideas about the medieval era are based in prejudices that are part of the essence of modernity, which has the need of the existence of a dark age (the Middle Age) and a Golden age (The ancient age) for its existence. the mytical tree stages in history is part of this gnostic elaboration invented by Joachim de Fiore. Since them all ideological creations, including the modern division of history had three stages. 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. But it did happen. The Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere, how far away and how big the Sun was. They had a speculative idea of biological evolution. They had the concept of atoms and how all matter might be constructed from just a few basic components in different combinations. Aristotle was an empiricist. If it had not been for the early Church's emphasis on faith, dogma, and rationalism, science would be centuries more advanced. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support the person who has such stable illusions. Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of? I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc. I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, Bp, or p. The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. *that* should be illegal. I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them to use it. My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent. Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no logical reason. While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration. Why? Torturers know very well how the effect is unpleasant for the victim. That's what I'm saying - you assume that there is a such thing as 'unpleasant'. There is no such thing as unpleasant for a computer, there is only off and on, and off, off, on, and off, on, off... It only seems to work retrospectively when we take perception and participation for granted. If we look at it prospectively instead, we see that a universe founded on logic has no possibility of developing perception or participation, Universe are not founded on logics. Even arithmetic is not founded on logic. You talk like a 19th century logician. Logicism has failed since, even for numbers and machines. The fact that you seem unaware of this might explain your prejudices on machines and numbers. Ok, what is arithmetic founded on? as it already includes in its axioms an assumption of quantitative sense. Comp is mainly an assumption that some quantitative relation can support qualitative relations locally. But you cannot indentify them, as they obey different logic, like Bp and Bp p, for example. The quality appears thanks to the reference to truth (a non formalizable notion). I don't disagree that quality likely relates to truth association, but truth association is not necessary or sufficient to explain its appearance. I would say that even truth is incorrect - qualia is experience of
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:46:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Period, meaning that's it. I know what you meant by period. If you noticed, I attached a list of serial killers who followed what they understood to be the voice of God. The implication is that if you disable your own critical thinking and open your will to whatever claims to be God in your psyche, then don't be surprised if you end up murdering and eating people, as so many have found out and continue to find out. Ah, but they're probably Liberals, eh? The Godless Nazi-Hippies that do whatever God says. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of course... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg An article in the American Journal of Psychiatryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Psychiatryin 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-10According to William Bainbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sims_Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations.[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-11Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.[12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-12Some studies state that in developed countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-13 [14]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-mmartin-14Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies. [15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-15 - wikipedia Maybe it's because atheists have higher intelligence on average, and higher intelligence is associated with higher suicide rates in some studies. It's not that hard to see why. If you are smart enough to see through religion, you are smart enough to see through the spectacle that passes for life on this planet. Without the fear of burning in hell forever, a lot of people would probably be more likely to end their lives. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:59:03 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Mechanism is not a part of something. It is a proposition about the possibility of surviving with an artificial brain of some sort. Is there anything other than mechanism in the universe in your use of mechanism? Then we get a quantitative explanation of how the laws of physics evolved---logico-arithmetically, sufficiently precise to test the hypothesis. Don't confuse science-fiction and theoretical reasoning. They can overlap, but are different things. They are different things, but sometimes we like to think that one is the other. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Jd-t9onQ4nkJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
But your question really is what does a physical particle look like? My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics.. . . . So string theory IS my religion. / Richard Ruquist / Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics? /socratus/ ==.. 1 Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin / Part 8. The first superstring revolution. Page 126 – 127. ‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . . ‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up the possibility that it was true of essentially all the properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would mean that properties of the elementary particles were environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean that physics would be more like biology, in that the properties of the elementary particles would depend on the history of our universe. ‘ # ‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. Lee Smolin. / 2 String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘ / page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene / 3. We don't know what we are talking about / - Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./ 4. How did the idea of many dimensions arise? ==.. It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is. #. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory. Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried to explain SRT using 5D space. This theory was tested and found insufficient. Well, said physicists and mathematicians, maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it. And they had done it. But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, they must add a new parameter. Because it is impossible to create new D space without a new force, a new parameter. And they take this parameter arbitrarily ( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk… To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: with one more parameter the elephant will fly. The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories. Where are our brains? Where is the logic? # If we don't know what 1+1 = 2 how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ? And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ? =. If I were a king, I would publish a law: every physicist who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal To the winner over common sense because they have won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ==. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I always considered h to just be a constant of proportionality between energy and frequency that is determined empirically. What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond measurement and subject to belief. For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind; whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is, fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind. So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon) requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area and/or time. It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for all quantum wave functions in general. In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a physical particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI). That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model; but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world. I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the Quantum Mind being mainly a timeless virtual MWI Block Space. But your question really is what does a physical particle look like? My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that strings are still concepts in the
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: But your question really is what does a physical particle look like? My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics.. . . . So string theory IS my religion. / Richard Ruquist / Do you advise me to believe in your religion of metaphysics? /socratus/ No. You have to find your own religion if that is what you want. ==.. 1 Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin / Part 8. The first superstring revolution. Page 126 – 127. ‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . . ‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up the possibility that it was true of essentially all the properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would mean that properties of the elementary particles were environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean that physics would be more like biology, in that the properties of the elementary particles would depend on the history of our universe. ‘ # ‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. Lee Smolin. / 2 String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘ / page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene / 3. We don't know what we are talking about / - Nobel laureate David Gross referring to the current state of string theory ./ 4. How did the idea of many dimensions arise? ==.. It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is. #. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory. Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried to explain SRT using 5D space. This theory was tested and found insufficient. Well, said physicists and mathematicians, maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it. And they had done it. But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, they must add a new parameter. Because it is impossible to create new D space without a new force, a new parameter. And they take this parameter arbitrarily ( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules). The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk… To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: with one more parameter the elephant will fly. The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories. Where are our brains? Where is the logic? # If we don't know what 1+1 = 2 how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ? And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ? =. If I were a king, I would publish a law: every physicist who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal To the winner over common sense because they have won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ==. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I always considered h to just be a constant of proportionality between energy and frequency that is determined empirically. What a quantum particle is may be metaphysical- that is, beyond measurement and subject to belief. For example I believe in a Quantum Mind- Physical world duality where both wave functions and their quantization exist in the quantum mind; whereas only physical particles exist in the physical world. That is, fields, forces and action at a distance all exist in the quantum mind. So lets consider the radiation of EM waves/fields from electrons in an antenna. As the waves spread out, their intensity or amplitude decreases as 1/r squared, so that one quanta of energy (or one photon) requires integration of the amplitude over larger and larger area and/or time. It is my conjecture that arithmetics of the Quantum Mind do a running quantization so that virtual particles are realized in the Quantum Mind that are digital equivalents to the analog EM fields, Same for all quantum wave functions in general. In the MWI scenario, every such virtual particle becomes a physical particle in a new universe. However, it is also possible that all virtual particles but one get cancelled by anti-particles ala Feynman QED or Cramer analysis thereby resulting in a single universe (SWI). That thinking combines a collapse model with a hidden variable model; but both models apply to the quantum mind and not the physical world. I believe that for my combined model to be true, the arithmetics of the quantum mind must be instantaneous, consistent with the
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
In fact it is just the opposite: the position of Luther, like the one of Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern science and were precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism. Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these matters was called natural revelation). But they were not agains the use of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern radical separation between faith and science, between is and ough . (which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases ) Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the independence of God from any natural limitation of moral reasoning stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, the main schools of Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous miracle, and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of Allá that would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change at any moment. Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that “it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.’” 2013/1/24 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. Richard On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but his solution to that problem was not to get better ideas but to simply insist that people check their brain at the door before they start to think about God; here are some of the noises that particular bipedal hominid made with his mouth, although I think the noises made from the other end of Luther's gastrointestinal tract may have contain more wisdom, at least they might have disclosed some evidence on how the human digestive system works: “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of reason. Reason should be destroyed in all Christians. Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and know nothing but the word of God. Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets. We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist. People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. After this contemptible performance, after flat out praising the virtues of stupidity and unapologetically trying to turn everybody into imbeciles I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Lutheran or a Protestant or even a Christian without intense embarrassment. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe
Re: the curse of materialism
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there So you repeat, ad nauseum. ...and you deny. - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with 'the data coming out'. It knows about Mars because it can navigate on Mars and accomplish things on Mars (which is more than you can do) and anybody watching it would conclude that. Then a cadaver knows about rigor mortis. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Iu6jKDmcPlMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 9:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: All these things are part of the myths of modernity. The reality is quite different. The idea that the medievals though that the earth was flat is larguely a myth, As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. --- St. Augustine To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni as true as the fact that now a fair amount of the people in the world believe that Man has not been in the Moon. Inquisition, for example, and the burning of withches was a phenomenon of the early modern age not from the middle age, where woman had quite more freedon, The Church punished heresy from the time it gained power. Inquistions became formalized with the suppression of the Cathars in the 12th century (the medieval period by any reckoning) Certainly, the pursuit of knowledge was obstructed by the Church as long as it had the power - not just in the medieval period. The Spanish Inquisition ended in 1834. The popular ideas about the medieval era are based in prejudices that are part of the essence of modernity, which has the need of the existence of a dark age (the Middle Age) and a Golden age (The ancient age) for its existence. the mytical tree stages in history is part of this gnostic elaboration invented by Joachim de Fiore. Since them all ideological creations, including the modern division of history had three stages. And the Catholic Church has been trying to revise history ever since to conceal it's role in obstructing science, oppressing women, harboring pedophiles, and murdering jews. Brent 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. But it did happen. The Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere, how far away and how big the Sun was. They had a speculative idea of biological evolution. They had the concept of atoms and how all matter might be constructed from just a few basic components in different combinations. Aristotle was an empiricist. If it had not been for the early Church's emphasis on faith, dogma, and rationalism, science would be centuries more advanced. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6050 - Release Date: 01/22/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/24/2013 9:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.^[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-10 According to William Bainbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sims_Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations.^[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-11 Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.^[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-12 Some studies state that in developed countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.^[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-13 ^[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-mmartin-14 Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies. ^[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-15 ^- wikipedia Maybe it's because atheists have higher intelligence on average, and higher intelligence is associated with higher suicide rates in some studies. It's not that hard to see why. If you are smart enough to see through religion, you are smart enough to see through the spectacle that passes for life on this planet. Without the fear of burning in hell forever, a lot of people would probably be more likely to end their lives. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
In the same way, except a few in a concrete time in the greek history, the Greeks believed that the earth was flat, with the center in Greece. The world okeanos, (ocean) was a river, that surrounded the earth, where greece was at the center. The XII century, the time of Juachim de Fiore, and the time of the Katars was a time of greath economic growth. It is true that the inquisition was created at that time, but except with the katars (that worshipped Lucifer), the Inquisition became really active in the Renaissance.The horrid Spanish Inquisition produced around 2000 death penalties, while the protestants burned without ,judicial case, thousands between battle and battle in the European wars of religion Compare this with the hundreds of thousands killed in La Vendee, a smal region of France in a few days, killed by the rationalist french revolutionaries or the hundred millions killed by the scientific socialists. (or the 5+30 millions killed by the modern eugenesists). The selection of stories in a biased way is a proof of nothing but the own prejudices. 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 9:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: All these things are part of the myths of modernity. The reality is quite different. The idea that the medievals though that the earth was flat is larguely a myth, As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. --- St. Augustine To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni as true as the fact that now a fair amount of the people in the world believe that Man has not been in the Moon. Inquisition, for example, and the burning of withches was a phenomenon of the early modern age not from the middle age, where woman had quite more freedon, The Church punished heresy from the time it gained power. Inquistions became formalized with the suppression of the Cathars in the 12th century (the medieval period by any reckoning) Certainly, the pursuit of knowledge was obstructed by the Church as long as it had the power - not just in the medieval period. The Spanish Inquisition ended in 1834. The popular ideas about the medieval era are based in prejudices that are part of the essence of modernity, which has the need of the existence of a dark age (the Middle Age) and a Golden age (The ancient age) for its existence. the mytical tree stages in history is part of this gnostic elaboration invented by Joachim de Fiore. Since them all ideological creations, including the modern division of history had three stages. And the Catholic Church has been trying to revise history ever since to conceal it's role in obstructing science, oppressing women, harboring pedophiles, and murdering jews. Brent 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. But it did happen. The Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere, how far away and how big the Sun was. They had a speculative idea of biological evolution. They had the concept of atoms and how all matter might be constructed from just a few basic components in different combinations. Aristotle was an empiricist. If it had not been for the early Church's emphasis on faith, dogma, and rationalism, science would be centuries more advanced. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6050 - Release Date: 01/22/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group,
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In fact it is just the opposite: the position of Luther, like the one of Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern science and were precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism. They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be arrived at by arm chair cogitation. A 'precursor' to radical positivism would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism. Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these matters was called natural revelation). But they were not agains the use of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern radical separation between faith and science, between is and ough . (which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases ) Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the independence of God from any natural limitation of moral reasoning stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, the main schools of Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous miracle, Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God is the ground of all being and continuously sustains the world. and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of Allá that would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change at any moment. Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that “it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.’” Brent The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On 1/24/2013 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there So you repeat, ad nauseum. ...and you deny. But I give a reason for my idea. That things that act intelligent are intelligent. You just complain that they can't be because...? - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with 'the data coming out'. It knows about Mars because it can navigate on Mars and accomplish things on Mars (which is more than you can do) and anybody watching it would conclude that. Then a cadaver knows about rigor mortis. We can only know that if the cadaver can act on the knowledge - maybe you've seen too many zombie movies. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:13:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In fact it is just the opposite: the position of Luther, like the one of Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern science and were precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism. They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be arrived at by arm chair cogitation. A 'precursor' to radical positivism would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism. Empiricists still sit in chairs and cogitate. Adding instruments to validate cogitation only improves on that, not replaces it. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3rr-No8dHhgJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In fact it is just the opposite: the position of Luther, like the one of Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern science and were precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism. They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be arrived at by arm chair cogitation. A 'precursor' to radical positivism would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism that is ahistoric. Rationalism did not exist at that time. You have to know the mentality of that time and what where their main philosophical preocupations. That is something that you have not the least intention to know. Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these matters was called natural revelation). But they were not agains the use of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern radical separation between faith and science, between is and ough . (which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases ) Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the independence of God from any natural limitation of moral reasoning stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, the main schools of Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous miracle, Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God is the ground of all being and continuously sustains the world. That is not true. With almost as contempt for the details as you, I would say that the God of Aquinas was limited by reason. That is exactly what Duns Scotus, Ocham and Luther rejected. and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of Allá that would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change at any moment. Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that “it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. ‘You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.’” Brent The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 10:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In the same way, except a few in a concrete time in the greek history, the Greeks believed that the earth was flat, with the center in Greece. The world okeanos, (ocean) was a river, that surrounded the earth, where greece was at the center. The XII century, the time of Juachim de Fiore, and the time of the Katars was a time of greath economic growth. It is true that the inquisition was created at that time, but except with the katars (that worshipped Lucifer), the Inquisition became really active in the Renaissance.The horrid Spanish Inquisition produced around 2000 death penalties, while the protestants burned without ,judicial case, thousands between battle and battle in the European wars of religion Compare this with the hundreds of thousands killed in La Vendee, a smal region of France in a few days, killed by the rationalist french revolutionaries It was more like 70,000 and it was in putting down an insurrection. or the hundred millions killed by the scientific socialists. The Stalinist and Maoists were hardly 'scientific', they just weren't theists. For example, they rejected Darwin just like Baptists do. (or the 5+30 millions killed by the modern eugenesists). The selection of stories in a biased way is a proof of nothing but the own prejudices. It seems strange to hear moral relativism from a Christian. I'd say it's evidence that all those events and whatever agenda they were implementing were evil. But the point is that the Church held itself as the sole and absolute moral authority with instructions directly from God. So it's a little more significant when it commits its crimes in the name of God. Brent 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 9:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: All these things are part of the myths of modernity. The reality is quite different. The idea that the medievals though that the earth was flat is larguely a myth, As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. --- St. Augustine To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni as true as the fact that now a fair amount of the people in the world believe that Man has not been in the Moon. Inquisition, for example, and the burning of withches was a phenomenon of the early modern age not from the middle age, where woman had quite more freedon, The Church punished heresy from the time it gained power. Inquistions became formalized with the suppression of the Cathars in the 12th century (the medieval period by any reckoning) Certainly, the pursuit of knowledge was obstructed by the Church as long as it had the power - not just in the medieval period. The Spanish Inquisition ended in 1834. The popular ideas about the medieval era are based in prejudices that are part of the essence of modernity, which has the need of the existence of a dark age (the Middle Age) and a Golden age (The ancient age) for its existence. the mytical tree stages in history is part of this gnostic elaboration invented by Joachim de Fiore. Since them all ideological creations, including the modern division of history had three stages. And the Catholic Church has been trying to revise history ever since to conceal it's role in obstructing science, oppressing women, harboring pedophiles, and murdering jews. Brent 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: This is exactly what happened to Islam in the 1300s. After the fundamentalists took over, rationality was dispensed with, and centuries of scientific progress were deemed sufficient for Islam for all time. And so it seems that Islam went from world leadership in science to where it is today. Fortunately the same did not happen to the Christians. But based on John's comments, I wonder why not. But it did happen. The Greeks already knew the Earth was a sphere, how far away and how big the Sun was. They had a speculative idea of biological evolution. They had the concept of atoms and how all matter might be constructed from just a few basic components in different combinations. Aristotle was an empiricist. If it had not been for the early Church's emphasis on faith, dogma, and rationalism, science would be centuries more advanced. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: the curse of materialism
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:17:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/24/2013 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:13:25 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there So you repeat, ad nauseum. ...and you deny. But I give a reason for my idea. That things that act intelligent are intelligent. You just complain that they can't be because...? That isn't a reason, it's naive realism. Wood alcohol acts like vodka too, but they aren't the same thing, and it turns out to be an important distinction if you are getting drunk. - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with 'the data coming out'. It knows about Mars because it can navigate on Mars and accomplish things on Mars (which is more than you can do) and anybody watching it would conclude that. Then a cadaver knows about rigor mortis. We can only know that if the cadaver can act on the knowledge - maybe you've seen too many zombie movies. It does act on its knowledge - by lying very still. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LumB1Vm27c4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:31:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Couldn't we substitute anything for matter? How is it falsifiable? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bTcZo_xh380J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Yes, the Bible is a reprehensible document not only because of what it says but because of what it does not say. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: Has it come to this, do I really have to prove that the Bible doesn't teach that God is of no importance? Craig, I think you've lost track of the position you're arguing for and just feel obligated to contradict anything said, even if it supports your view, rather like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:31:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Couldn't we substitute anything for matter? How is it falsifiable? Of course, but we know that matter exists. Perhaps force and energy or even consciousness should be included along with the original creation of matter. I do not think it is falsifiable, that arithmetics created matter. But Bruno seems to think that it is. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bTcZo_xh380J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011
On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12. Interesting. Thanks. A bit sad, also. If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal machine's many worlds interpretation of arithmetic. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:45:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being was complex it certainly should have. Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said rather than what it actually says. Yes, the Bible is a reprehensible document not only because of what it says but because of what it does not say. Show me where in Genesis it says anything about God being grand or complex: Has it come to this, do I really have to prove that the Bible doesn't teach that God is of no importance? Craig, I think you've lost track of the position you're arguing for and just feel obligated to contradict anything said, even if it supports your view, rather like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Certainly God is supposed to be of the utmost importance, but that sense of grandeur is not rooted in complexity, either conceptually or literally. A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. If you recall, I said that religion does the exact same thing. The God concept is grand in a different way than natural selection is grand, but they are comparable as far as the relation of simplicity to complexity. This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fRG8Yp6bSYEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 10:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The Stalinist and Maoists were hardly 'scientific', they just weren't theists. For example, they rejected Darwin just like Baptists do. They were as scientific as your global warmist friends. Really? Where are their peer-reviewed papers, their instruments, their data, where did they publish? They were arm chair philosophers and ruthless tyrants. Global warming is a simple and direct inference from the absorbtion spectrum and chemistry of CO2 and well as an empirically confirmed phenomena - but I suppose you're waiting for the Vatican to pronounce on it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On 1/24/2013 10:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 10:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In the same way, except a few in a concrete time in the greek history, the Greeks believed that the earth was flat, with the center in Greece. The world okeanos, (ocean) was a river, that surrounded the earth, where greece was at the center. The XII century, the time of Juachim de Fiore, and the time of the Katars was a time of greath economic growth. It is true that the inquisition was created at that time, but except with the katars (that worshipped Lucifer), the Inquisition became really active in the Renaissance.The horrid Spanish Inquisition produced around 2000 death penalties, while the protestants burned without ,judicial case, thousands between battle and battle in the European wars of religion Compare this with the hundreds of thousands killed in La Vendee, a smal region of France in a few days, killed by the rationalist french revolutionaries It was more like 70,000 and it was in putting down an insurrection. or the hundred millions killed by the scientific socialists. The Stalinist and Maoists were hardly 'scientific', they just weren't theists. For example, they rejected Darwin just like Baptists do. They were as scientific as your global warmist friends. The people like you have a great advantage: you are born every morning, and with the tooth paste, hearing the news, blaming the world for their faults, A least I place the blame where it belongs. You blame whoever is not a fellow theist. you auto-sanctify yourselves. And you have a professional priesthood to save you the trouble. Your country did something bad? You are not concerned, I marched in protest of Viet Nam and the second Iraq war and in support of the civil rights movement. I canvassed votes for Gene McCarthy door-to-door and later for George McGovern. you blame your country. Your father did something bad? you blame your father, Well sure. I'm not God who punishes everybody for what Adam and Eve did. You are nothing. you are you. Make up your mind. You can blame everyone else for his faults, but you were born yesterday, you are willing to betray your father to avoid any blame. Now you're just ranting. (or the 5+30 millions killed by the modern eugenesists). And hundreds of millions condemned to starvation and venereal disease by the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and condoms. The selection of stories in a biased way is a proof of nothing but the own prejudices. It seems strange to hear moral relativism from a Christian. I'd say it's evidence that all those events and whatever agenda they were implementing were evil. But the point is that the Church held itself as the sole and absolute moral authority with instructions directly from God. So it's a little more significant when it commits its crimes in the name of God. I accept the good things and the true bad things of my tradition. but not the false ones. Of your tradition? Is there nothing you have done yourself? You just accept the bad? You have not protested the pedophilia, the oppression of women, the ignorant opposition to stem cell research, the homophobia,... And you? have you something to blame yourself?. You are one in a wave of hypocrites that will repeat the bloody errors of your tradition, Maybe so, but so far as I know no scientist has advocated burning an opponent at the stake. that has a long history of horrors. It is not certainly the tradition of your country, neither the tradition of Christendom. You don´t even know it. It is more: you negate it. I know the traditions of my country quite well and they include religious tolerance - the first nation to encode that in its constitution. Brent If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination. --- Timothy Dwight, President of Yale 1795-1817 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 24 Jan 2013, at 09:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal and all-- Rather than living in such a dreary scientific world, yhe point is to escape from the world of science into the world of Mind. Those worlds are not necessarily separated. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 11:07:09 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011
Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? The informational and MW together got 42% of the vote, equal to Copenhagen. Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12. Interesting. Thanks. A bit sad, also. If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal machine's many worlds interpretation of arithmetic. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: meditation
Hi Telmo, On 24 Jan 2013, at 16:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi all, I was thinking about meditation and how people report experiences of oneness with the universe, non separation, etc. Meditation is a process of quieting the mind. One could say reducing it's complexity. Simpler states have more undistinguishable observer moments. Could it be that what's happening is that the consciousness of the successful meditator becomes identified with a larger set of states in the multi-verse? Just the sketch of an idea, sorry for the lack of rigour. It is a quite good insight. I think that something like that operates with dissociative substance (ketamine, salvinorin, ...). Apparently, they disconnect parts of the brain, so that the conscious part get its complexity reduced, and that might give a view of the multiverse (as in many salvia reports). The point of finding a (comp, or ensemble) TOE is when you get a theory rich enough (in universes/models), but not to much, for not becoming trivial. Then the point is that to get plural-realities, some probabilistic interference has to play a role in the elimination of some infinities. The relation is known in algebra (more equations, less solutions) and in logic (more axioms, less models). It is related with the Galois connection. Well, meditations might be enough, perhaps. Sleep leads also to dissociate state, simpler version of oneself, and the resulting strange realities. It is related with the idea that brains acts like filter of consciousness (as opposed to producer of consciousness). Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011
On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? It's the view most advocated by Asher and Fuchs, that the WF is just an encoding of what the experimenter knows about the physical system based on its preparation. Brent The informational and MW together got 42% of the vote, equal to Copenhagen. Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12. Interesting. Thanks. A bit sad, also. If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal machine's many worlds interpretation of arithmetic. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2639/6054 - Release Date: 01/24/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: mega-consciousness,created by bio-electrical circuitry?
Fascinating. I described in this list that the future of humanity would be our coming back to bacteria form, in such giant brain form, as it is more suitable to survive long period, and explore the galaxy, and enough to emulate our usual realities we are fond of, but apparently bacteria have already developed the idea :) May be all bacteria have already some wireless connection? We are bacteria colonies, as an eukaryotic cell is a descendent of little colony of bacteria, except the nucleus which looks more like a virus. I think that virus might be the bacteria's mailing, but the technology get a bit beyond what the bacteria predicted. (Not to take literally, ... but those Desulfobulbaceae are cute :) Bruno On 27 Oct 2012, at 21:59, meekerdb wrote: UH OH! We may have to consider the ethics of our treatment of bacteria next. Brent The seafloor is home to a vast electrical network created by bacteria Annalee Newitz It sounds a little bit like one of the subplots in Avatar, where we discover that the moon Pandora possesses a kind of mega-consciousness created by bio-electrical circuitry. But this is actually real. Two years ago, researchers discovered a strange electro-chemical signature in the sludge at the bottom of Aarhus Bay in Denmark. Now, they've discovered what was causing it: a vast network of bacteria that form electrical connections with each other, almost like nerve cells in the brain. Above, you can see what you might call tiny electrical wires that connect each bacterial cell, under an electron microscope. The wires are blue, and they are running through a piece of sediment, or sand from the seafloor. Over at Wired Science, Brandon Keim explains: The bacteria were first detected in 2010 by researchers perplexed at chemical fluctuations in sediments from the bottom of Aarhus Bay . . . Almost instantaneously linking changing oxygen levels in water with reactions in mud nearly an inch below, the fluctuations occurred too fast to be explained by chemistry. Only an electrical signal made sense — but no known bacteria could transmit electricity across such comparatively vast distances. Were bacteria the size of humans, the signals would be making a journey 12 miles long. Now the mysterious bacteria have been identified. They belong to a microbial family called Desulfobulbaceae, though they share just 92 percent of their genes with any previously known member of that family. They deserve to be considered a new genus, the study of which could open a new scientific frontier for understanding the interface of biology, geology and chemistry across the undersea world. Even more incredible, it turns out these bacteria are found all over the world, their tiny electrical cables woven deeply into the mud of the ocean bottom. Keim writes that the scientists found a full half-mile of Desulfobulbacea cable in one teaspoonful of mud. The seafloor is home to a vast electrical network created by bacteria In other words, the entire ocean bed may be electrified in the same way our nervous systems are. They're networks of individual cells connected by electro-chemical signals — essentially they are an enormous multi-cellular organism. These bacteria breathe by absorbing oxygen and hydrogen sulfide, emitting water as a byproduct. They might be serving as a vast water purification system on the ocean bottom, or they might be part of a geological process that's a lot more complex. We also have no way of knowing how other sea creatures are interacting with this giant electrical grid organism. What matters here is that we've just discovered a new kind of life that is not only ubiquitous, but also engaging in electro-chemical processes throughout the oceans. There's no evidence that this life form is thinking in any way that we'd recognize, but it certainly sounds like the perfect opening to a science fiction story. Read more about this bacterial network, and see more amazing pictures, in Wired. Read the scientists' paper in Nature. Images via Nils Risgaard-Petersen; schematic via Nature http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/bacteria-electric-wires -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: mega-consciousness,created by bio-electrical circuitry?
Oops sorry, it was an old post! But I really love those bacteria. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
John, I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity ). The concept is also not dissimilar to the Neti Neti (Not this, not that) explanation of Brahman in Hindusim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti ) or the Nirguna Brahman, which is Brahman without qualities. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. Bruno often says, arithmetic is much bigger when seen from the inside. Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything and neither can I; and there is a reason the word simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Saying animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying animals exist because of flobkneegrab. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless. Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it teaches that God is grand. This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
Brent: I hold you in a much higher standard than being a participant in such tongue-lashing about topics absolutely not fitting the Everything List and its goals. Could we save (use?) this list for reasonable scientific discussion? \ Does anybody have a 'fitting' topic we could discuss? For many weeks it goes round and round without sense-making. Unfortunately Bruno, lately arbiter of (his) topics as center of most discussions - feels quite comfortable in the faith-related huppla. Hoping for a better time Onlist John Mikes On 1/24/13, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: I know the traditions of my country quite well and they include religious tolerance - the first nation to encode that in its constitution. You are an unleashed ate moralist, devoid of any principle or reality. your knowledge of History is a the one of a Lego game where you construct your excuses your auto-sanctifications and were you find your trowable one-line weapons. You convert any discussion into a waste of time. 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 10:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2013/1/24 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/24/2013 10:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: In the same way, except a few in a concrete time in the greek history, the Greeks believed that the earth was flat, with the center in Greece. The world okeanos, (ocean) was a river, that surrounded the earth, where greece was at the center. The XII century, the time of Juachim de Fiore, and the time of the Katars was a time of greath economic growth. It is true that the inquisition was created at that time, but except with the katars (that worshipped Lucifer), the Inquisition became really active in the Renaissance.The horrid Spanish Inquisition produced around 2000 death penalties, while the protestants burned without ,judicial case, thousands between battle and battle in the European wars of religion Compare this with the hundreds of thousands killed in La Vendee, a smal region of France in a few days, killed by the rationalist french revolutionaries It was more like 70,000 and it was in putting down an insurrection. or the hundred millions killed by the scientific socialists. The Stalinist and Maoists were hardly 'scientific', they just weren't theists. For example, they rejected Darwin just like Baptists do. They were as scientific as your global warmist friends. The people like you have a great advantage: you are born every morning, and with the tooth paste, hearing the news, blaming the world for their faults, A least I place the blame where it belongs. You blame whoever is not a fellow theist. you auto-sanctify yourselves. And you have a professional priesthood to save you the trouble. Your country did something bad? You are not concerned, I marched in protest of Viet Nam and the second Iraq war and in support of the civil rights movement. I canvassed votes for Gene McCarthy door-to-door and later for George McGovern. you blame your country. Your father did something bad? you blame your father, Well sure. I'm not God who punishes everybody for what Adam and Eve did. You are nothing. you are you. Make up your mind. You can blame everyone else for his faults, but you were born yesterday, you are willing to betray your father to avoid any blame. Now you're just ranting. (or the 5+30 millions killed by the modern eugenesists). And hundreds of millions condemned to starvation and venereal disease by the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and condoms. The selection of stories in a biased way is a proof of nothing but the own prejudices. It seems strange to hear moral relativism from a Christian. I'd say it's evidence that all those events and whatever agenda they were implementing were evil. But the point is that the Church held itself as the sole and absolute moral authority with instructions directly from God. So it's a little more significant when it commits its crimes in the name of God. I accept the good things and the true bad things of my tradition. but not the false ones. Of your tradition? Is there nothing you have done yourself? You just accept the bad? You have not protested the pedophilia, the oppression of women, the ignorant opposition to stem cell research, the homophobia,... And you? have you something to blame yourself?. You are one in a wave of hypocrites that will repeat the bloody errors of your tradition, Maybe so, but so far as I know no scientist has advocated burning an opponent at the stake. that has a long history of horrors. It is not certainly the tradition of your country, neither the tradition of Christendom. You don´t even know it. It is more: you negate it. I know the traditions of my country quite well and they include religious tolerance - the first nation to encode that in its constitution. Brent If God
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several religions And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin provided the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those religions need to explain exactly how the invisible man in the sky did it. Of course, the whole question of what is simple and what is complex requires a definition of complexity. The universal dovetailer is a simple program, yet it generates all programs. The Mandlebrot set has a simple definition, but is infinitely detailed. Pi has a simple definition, but an infinite expansion of digits. So apparent complexity, of a universe, a world, etc. need not be dependent on complex underlying principles or systems. If you don't like the simple-complex dimension use the humble-grand dimension. The Bible says something grand made something humble and it doesn't say how so it explains nothing; Darwin says something humble made something grand and the best part is he said how it did in, and that is a explanation worthy of the name. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
Bruno: WHAT 'evidences'??? we have no way to judge them. We either *accept* the (belief-based) figment as REAL - i.e. TRUE, *or not*. The first case we call 'evidence'. Or: justification. Then base our belief (even system) on such. John (M) On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: A two year old can understand what God is supposed to be. A two year old can't understand how something simple can know everything and neither can I; Nor can they understand how something simple like 'probability' or 'determinism' can account for everything. and there is a reason the word simple is often used as a synonym for stupid. And the Bible just says that God made animals but it doesn't say how, but Darwin didn't just say Evolution made animals he explained how it did it. Right, because evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. God concepts are an inescapable feature of all known human cultures (for better or worse, obviously). Saying animals exist because of God is no more helpful than saying animals exist because of flobkneegrab. The position that I am arguing is knock down that unsupported balloon that you tried to float about science being better than religion because science always means that complex things are explained by simple things. That is not what science means that is what a explanation means; a theory (like the God theory) that explains the existence of something unlikely (like us) by postulating the existence of something even more unlikely (like God) is worse than useless. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Your straw man of me arguing that God is not important didn't work. Good, now I don't have to find a verse in the Bible proving that it teaches that God is grand. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). This is something that science and religion have in common, not which sets them apart. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Does that mean I'm wrong about science and religion having simple causation to complexity in common? No, it does not. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jzP8Up4M_ngJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time, Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/24/2013 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time, Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless. Scottsdale is pretty cosmopolitan - it's where airline pilots go to retire. NYC of course is as secular, diverse, and worldly as any place in the world. Try visiting small towns in Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma,... It's not called the bible belt for nothing. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:05:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/24/2013 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdbmeek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time, Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless. Scottsdale is pretty cosmopolitan - it's where airline pilots go to retire. NYC of course is as secular, diverse, and worldly as any place in the world. Try visiting small towns in Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma,... It's not called the bible belt for nothing. It would be more tedious than genuinely threatening to be an atheist adult in redneck America - unless you insist upon being as vocal as the Fundies. Yes, there's a lot of churches, and people will ask you what church you go to, but they will also ask you what sports team you support and think you are just as threatening if you are unaffiliated that way. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/24/2013 6:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:05:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/24/2013 5:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:55 AM, meekerdbmeek...@verizon.net wrote: It's probably a lot simpler than that. In the U.S. if you're an atheist it may be hard to find a sympathetic ear. Depending a lot on where you live, you may be isolated and reviled. Is that really true? I was in the US recently for the first time, Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless. Scottsdale is pretty cosmopolitan - it's where airline pilots go to retire. NYC of course is as secular, diverse, and worldly as any place in the world. Try visiting small towns in Kentucky, South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma,... It's not called the bible belt for nothing. It would be more tedious than genuinely threatening to be an atheist adult in redneck America - unless you insist upon being as vocal as the Fundies. Yes, there's a lot of churches, and people will ask you what church you go to, but they will also ask you what sports team you support and think you are just as threatening if you are unaffiliated that way. I'd didn't say they'd be threatening. But if you were an atheist looking for a friendly ear the only ones you'd find would probably want to convert you. I don't know that not being able to talk to others about your (non) religious beliefs would be cause for suicide though. Especially now that there's the internet... I can't remember the last time I had a conversation with someone about religion IRL. If it was that important to find a friendly ear in multiple neighbors and co-workers specifically to listen to you talk about being an atheist, then that makes me think about questioning the claim that atheism isn't like a religion. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Sensing the presence of God
On 1/24/2013 8:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't know that not being able to talk to others about your (non) religious beliefs would be cause for suicide though. Not a cause, just the absence of a little prevention. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive because the human mind tends to endow intentionality to nearly everything. That's why Darwin's ideas, although simpler than Newton's, too longer to find. Funny thing that. In a universe devoid of intention, the human mind is overflowing with the illusion of intention. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Darwin can't explain why there is something rather than nothing and neither can anybody else, I can, and I have. There is no 'nothing'. Nothing is an idea that a participant in something has about the absence of everything. least of all the invisible man in the sky dingbats. Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's a pretty good accomplishment. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not knocking Darwin. Science can explain a lot but it hasn't explained everything, but religion hasn't explained anything. Zip zero nada goose egg. Religion is not about explaining what is useful, it is about explaining what seems important. Judging religion as a competitor to science is like judging your head as a competitor to the rest of your body. Again, you make it about winning winners who win, proving the non-winners to be LOSERS. This is not the attitude of science, or philosophy, or theology, it is wrestling. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). I am quite familiar with the use-mention distinction and that ain't it. If God is grand so is the concept. Uh, no. The US Federal Tax Code is grand. The concept of a nation having a tax code is not grand. The God concept is incredibly primitive and compelling (as attested to by anthropological universality). It is basically this. A child understands: I can know things and do things. Grownups know more things and can do more things than I can do - they are wiser, stronger, more aware, and have been around longer. Who can do and know more things than grownups? There must be grand-grownups who know and do more than anyone. There must be someone who knows and does everything. Our Father, who art in heaven... That's it. Big Daddy = God. Not complex. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Despite its many faults the argument from authority beats the hell out of argument from ignorance; and Craig let's face reality, you know next to no science and the really depressing thing is that you're not even trying to learn more. When the first fallacy fails, move on to the Ad Hominem. You must have forgotten to defend your reasoning though. Let's face reality John, you can't stand losing. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/24/2013 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:08:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: evolution is complex and counter-intuitive. The basic idea behind Evolution is not complex but it is counter-intuitive because the human mind tends to endow intentionality to nearly everything. That's why Darwin's ideas, although simpler than Newton's, too longer to find. Funny thing that. In a universe devoid of intention, the human mind is overflowing with the illusion of intention. A universe from invisible, intangible laws that pop into 'existence' from nowhere seems likely? Darwin can't explain why there is something rather than nothing and neither can anybody else, I can, and I have. There is no 'nothing'. Nothing is an idea that a participant in something has about the absence of everything. least of all the invisible man in the sky dingbats. Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's a pretty good accomplishment. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not knocking Darwin. Science can explain a lot but it hasn't explained everything, but religion hasn't explained anything. Zip zero nada goose egg. Religion is not about explaining what is useful, it is about explaining what seems important. Judging religion as a competitor to science is like judging your head as a competitor to the rest of your body. Again, you make it about winning winners who win, proving the non-winners to be LOSERS. This is not the attitude of science, or philosophy, or theology, it is wrestling. I didn't say that God is not seen as grand, only that the concept of God is not a grand concept. See (use-mention distinction). I am quite familiar with the use-mention distinction and that ain't it. If God is grand so is the concept. Uh, no. The US Federal Tax Code is grand. The concept of a nation having a tax code is not grand. The God concept is incredibly primitive and compelling (as attested to by anthropological universality). It is basically this. A child understands: I can know things and do things. Grownups know more things and can do more things than I can do - they are wiser, stronger, more aware, and have been around longer. Who can do and know more things than grownups? There must be grand-grownups who know and do more than anyone. There must be someone who knows and does everything. Our Father, who art in heaven... That's it. Big Daddy = God. Not complex. But you aren't exactly a expert on science, you admitted that to you most scientific papers are just a huge amount of mumbo jumbo, so your readers might be wise to take your views on the value of science with a grain of salt. Argument from authority. Despite its many faults the argument from authority beats the hell out of argument from ignorance; and Craig let's face reality, you know next to no science and the really depressing thing is that you're not even trying to learn more. When the first fallacy fails, move on to the Ad Hominem. You must have forgotten to defend your reasoning though. Let's face reality John, you can't stand losing. Craig Hear Hear! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
