Re: Selecting your future branch
On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John Clark is NOT a comp believer. This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and step 2. I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those steps were This might explains your difficulty. but I do know that If one starts with any contradictory concept, such as comp for example, Computationalism is contradictory? What is the contradiction? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The subtle distinction between belief faith
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:37 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The subtle distinction between belief faith On 16 Jul 2014, at 04:23, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Some quoted passages from Alan Watts (author of The Wisdom of Insecurity - 1951) regarding the distinction between belief and faith that seemed pertinent to me to several of the discussion threads going on here. Chris Quoting him: We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would lief or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception. [...] The present phase of human thought and history ... almost compels us to face reality with open minds, and you can only know God through an open mind just as you can only see the sky through a clear window. You will not see the sky if you have covered the glass with blue paint. But religious people who resist the scraping of the paint from the glass, who regard the scientific attitude with fear and mistrust, and confuse faith with clinging to certain ideas, are curiously ignorant of laws of the spiritual life which they might find in their own traditional records. A careful study of comparative religion and spiritual philosophy reveals that abandonment of belief, of any clinging to a future life for one's own, and of any attempt to escape from finitude and mortality, is a regular and normal stage in the way of the spirit. Indeed, this is actually such a first principle of the spiritual life that it should have been obvious from the beginning, and it seems, after all, surprising that learned theologians should adopt anything but a cooperative attitude towards the critical philosophy of science. Nice quote. Note that Conscience Mécanisme gives Alan Watts all its due. That guy saves my life and perhaps my afterlife :) Bruno Yeah... he helped a lot of minds escape prisons within. Chris -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Gödel of the Gaps
On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jul 2014, at 15:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: So much of our attention in logic and math is focused on using processes to turn specific inputs into even more specific binary outputs. Very little attention is paid to what inputs and outputs are or to the understanding of what truth is in theoretical terms. Come on! ? The possibility of inputs is assumed from the start, since no program can exist without being 'input' into some kind of material substrate which has been selected or engineered for that purpose. In which theory? What theory details the ontology of inputs? Arithmetic. The subset of true sigma_1 sentences emulate the UD, that is the activity of all programs on all inputs. You can't program a device to be programmable if it isn't already. Overlooking this is part of the gap between mathematics and reality which is overlooked by all forms of simulation theory and emergentism. You are quick. Correct from the 1p machine's view on their own 1p. You do confuse []p and []p p. So you are saying that programmability is universal outside of 1p views? At least in the same sense that 23 is prime outside 1p views. Like infinite computational resources in a dimensionless pool? You can see it that way. Without some initial connection between sensitive agents which are concretely real and non-theoretical, there can be no storage or processing of information. Before we can input any definitions of logical functions, we have to find something which behaves logically and responds reliably to our manipulations of it. The implications of binary logic, of making distinctions between true/go and false/stop are more far reaching than we might assume. I suggest that if a machine's operations can be boiled down to true and false bits, then it can have no capacity to exercise intentionality. It has no freedom of action because freedom is a creative act, and creativity in turn entails questioning what is true and what is not. The creative impulse can drive us to attack the truth until it cracks and reveals how it is also false. Creativity also entails redeeming what has been seen as false so that it reveals a new truth. These capabilities and appreciation of them are well beyond the functional description of what a machine would do. Machine logic is, by contrast, the death of choice. To compute is to automate and reduce sense into an abstract sense-of- motion. Leibniz called his early computer a Stepped Reckoner, and that it very apt. The word reckon derives from etymological roots that are shared with 'reg', as in regal, ruler, and moving straight ahead. It is a straightener or comb of physically embodied rules. A computer functionalizes and conditions reality into rules, step by step, in a mindless imitation of mind. A program or a script is a frozen record of sense-making in retrospect. It is built of propositions defined in isolation rather than sensations which share the common history of all sensation. The computing machine itself does not exist in the natural world, but rather is distilled from the world's most mechanistic tendencies. All that does not fit into true or false is discarded. Although Gödel is famous for discovering the incompleteness of formal systems, that discovery itself exists within a formal context. The ideal machine, for example, which cannot prove anything that is false, subscribes to the view that truth and falsehood are categories which are true rather than truth and falsehood being possible qualities within a continuum of sense making. There is a Platonic metaphysics at work here, which conjures a block universe of forms which are eternally true and good. In fact, a casual inspection of our own experience reveals no such clear-cut categories, and the goodness and truth of the situations we encounter are often inseparable from their opposite. We seek sensory experiences for the sake of appreciating them directly, rather than only for their truth or functional benefits. Truth is only one of the qualities of sense which matters. The way that a computer processes information is fundamentally different than the way that conscious thought works. Where a consistent machine cannot give a formal proof of its own consistency, a person can be certain of their own certainty without proof. That doesn't always mean that the person's feeling turns out to match what they or others will understand to be true later on, but unlike a computer, we have available to us an experience of a sense of certainty (especially a 'common sense') that is an informal feeling rather than a formal logical proof. A computer has neither certainty nor uncertainty, so it makes no difference to it whether a proof exists or not. The
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control – the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Chris -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Both the right and left? Naw! The Left respects useful tools practicing religion for the cause. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are the most prominent and successful, for the 'cause.' The cause is ideological, a faith movement, sans, religion. as such. Is religion bloodthirsty? For sure. Worldwide, its generally not Christians or Hindus starting the wars. It may simply be a 'phase' like the Jesus people from 325 AD thru 1914? Perhaps, the Jihad will mellow out soon? The primo motivation for the slaughters done by Christians, and now done by Islamists, is the afterlife thing. Until we come up with that, somehow, the fun will continue. I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 4:33 am Subject: RE: Atheist From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm… this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control – the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Chris -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Here's a curious article on AGW (exaggerated or not) that may explain things better. The synergy of biology interacting with geology is fascinating to me. It makes me feel (not know) that Earth must vanishingly rare as a biotic planet. We may detect planets with nitrogen-oxygen atmospheres with better optical telescopes, but just the complexity here, and not around us, in the solar system...is kind of depressing too. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140716183128.htm -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 7:43 pm Subject: Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy? But continue your technocratic discussion. How many kilowats are necessary for whatever stupid nothingness. You look like the youngs of the nazi germany dreaming in a future of peace,, running happy trough the green country when the first jew stablishments started to be burned in the cities. You believe that the mass promotion of abortion, the homosexualism, the feminazism, the laws for the breakup of the family, the mass indoctrination in the schools, TV, newspapers, Hollywood will welcome a cheap source of energy that would render the political excuses that maintain the elite in power unnecessary and unfounded?. You are s naive. And I´m being compasionate with that qualification 2014-07-15 1:18 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: It is more, once wind turbines and solar panes started to be installed in mass quantitites, that was heavily opposed by the hard ecologists with excuses so excentric as they endanger the aestetic, they distract the passing birds and so on. Once they saw that the production of electricity and the subsidies to eco-energies reduced the global efficiency of energy production and created more problems than the ones they solved, with the need of backup power plants, they gradually sylenced the critics. You are simply too naive to understand the truth. 2014-07-15 1:05 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: You are too naive. Don´t subestimate human stupidity. Stupidity is infinite, it goes beyond what can produce this list. Once a cheap and abundant source of clean power is discovered, chances are that will be not well received by the eco-elite. It is more, it will be considered as a disaster since it permit prosperity and a setback in the final objective of depopulating the planet. The shale gas and other forms of cheap energy, are opposed for that reason. And cheap and clean electric energy will be oppossed as well as soon as it is avalable for whatever excuses. It is not a question of tecnology. It is not even a question of contamination. It is not a question of global warming folks. You are not progressive enough. It is a question of hating human beings. I´t´s not me, that is in world of some prominent ecologists. some of them collaborators of Obama. Let me check to find the references. 2014-07-14 23:34 GMT+02:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/14/2014 1:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: An all electric plane may never arrive, but through materials science, using materials like graphenes, like superconducting materials, that day may arrive soon. On the other hand, it might be easier to make magnetic confinement fusion reactions for aircraft, That's a pipe dream. It's doubtful that fusion reactors will ever be practical. We can't even get one to work in the laboratory after 40yrs of trying. commercially, yet never ever power a city via fusion. in the same sense that 'petrol' is used rarely, for powering the house. Most cars are still internal combustion, rather than electric. It all comes down to affordability, aka money. Cars can be transitioned to electric power pretty easily. I just bought a Chevy Volt and over the first thousand miles we've burned less than 7gal of gas. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Selecting your future branch
Computationalism is necessarily consistent, but may not be complete except in nearly infinite domains. Richard On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John Clark is NOT a comp believer. This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and step 2. I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those steps were This might explains your difficulty. but I do know that If one starts with any contradictory concept, such as comp for example, Computationalism is contradictory? What is the contradiction? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 14 July 2014 02:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But from the above I'm led to wonder whether you've actually read the MGA, so I repeat them here for convenient reference: Hi Brent - did you see my response to this? David -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should
you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail
that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or
hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or
not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in
particular (knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that
there is milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear
what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he
*believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there
is orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in
the fridge.
What is the difference?
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic
and in its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe
the machine k will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your
approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but*
with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see
it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers.
Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to
a believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
like the strong atheists I met from time to time (like John Clark to
give the nearest example). But as John Clark illustrates very well,
they need a high dose of irrationalism, and as my works has
illustrated, changing the vocabulary does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware
that this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste
time in vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use
of some term, we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but
because it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see
the set {0, 1, 2, ...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt
that it makes sense, as it explains a lot of other things in which
I already tend to believe (like the non existence of a bigger
prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the real numbers,
etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.
This would also include political science, arts, gender
studies, french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and
make what doesn't build bridges or bake bread, something to be
learned as a podcast?Sauce for the goose, sauce for
the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature.
I've run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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
Re: Atheist
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there
is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what
is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is
orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the
fridge.
What is the difference?
It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality.
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in
its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k
will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers. Iuse
belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a
believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god.
like the strong atheists
I've never met such kind of atheist.
I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example).
He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... And I quite agree that using
that word for first cause type of explanation is bound to be misunderstood.
God has too much history to be used in the sense you use it.
Quentin
But as John Clark illustrates very well, they need a high dose of
irrationalism, and as my works has illustrated, changing the vocabulary
does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware that
this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste time in
vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use of some term,
we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers, the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
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
Re: Atheist
This illustrated video might be of interest:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151781219163852
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com:
Why do you need to see God to believe in God?
Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you
believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ?
Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that
you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating.
That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not
believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ?
Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical
definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular
(knowing p) - (believing p).
If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is
milk in the fridge.
The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe
there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it.
Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what
is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god,
I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is
orange juice in the fridge,
I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the
fridge.
What is the difference?
It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality.
and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in
its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k
will stop on the input j.
that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to
insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own
mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it.
I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers.
Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc.
You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of
course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a
believer.
I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers,
That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god.
like the strong atheists
I've never met such kind of atheist.
I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example).
He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... And I quite agree that using
that word for first cause type of explanation is bound to be misunderstood.
God has too much history to be used in the sense you use it.
Quentin
But as John Clark illustrates very well, they need a high dose of
irrationalism, and as my works has illustrated, changing the vocabulary
does not help.
In interdisciplinary work, my strategy consists in using the terms on
which each each discipline has the greatest consensus over. I am aware that
this cannot satisfy everybody, but then in science we don't waste time in
vocabulary discussion. If something is unclear about the use of some term,
we just ask to remind the current used definition.
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
Quentin
Bruno
In general you believe something, not because you see it, but because
it fits well with your background knowledge. I can't see the set {0, 1, 2,
...}, nor really define it, yet I hardly doubt that it makes sense, as it
explains a lot of other things in which I already tend to believe (like
the
non existence of a bigger prime, or the existence of universal numbers,
the
real numbers, etc.).
Bruno
Quentin
On 14-Jul-2014, at 2:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/13/2014 3:47 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Sure: Do you believe in a theist god?
I'd like to.
*So we can keep using the word theology and keep some academic
departments that have no subject.*
This would also include political science, arts, gender studies,
french literature. Are you willing to go that far, and make what doesn't
build bridges or bake bread, something to be learned as a podcast? Sauce
for the goose, sauce for the gander. Dump them all. Right?
I can point to art, people with genders, and french literature. I've
run a political campaign. But I've never seen a god.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:42, Richard Ruquist wrote: Computationalism is necessarily consistent, I am not sure we can know that, at least in any reasonably justifiable way. but may not be complete except in nearly infinite domains. It is incomplete with respect to arithmetical truth, and all geographical and historical (including the futures) truth, but it has to be complete, amazingly enough, on the physical truth, or if you prefer on the core non-geographical truth. Those are the same for all machine (and even a lot of non-machine) observer and is supposed to give the measure defined (or not) on the computations seen from the 1p view. I could add nuances, but that would be quickly very technical. complete can take different senses, even in mathematical logic alone, and it is harder to define with respect to reality or god or everything or whatever. Bruno Richard On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John Clark is NOT a comp believer. This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and step 2. I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those steps were This might explains your difficulty. but I do know that If one starts with any contradictory concept, such as comp for example, Computationalism is contradictory? What is the contradiction? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
What do you two say about this (year old) Science 2.0 article, in relation to the mathematical description of reality? The writer is or was a physicist at CERN. I have heard, Lord Rees, UK's astronomer royal, say the same thing. http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/physics_resurrection-105440 -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 11:29 am Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:42, Richard Ruquist wrote: Computationalism is necessarily consistent, I am not sure we can know that, at least in any reasonably justifiable way. but may not be complete except in nearly infinite domains. It is incomplete with respect to arithmetical truth, and all geographical and historical (including the futures) truth, but it has to be complete, amazingly enough, on the physical truth, or if you prefer on the core non-geographical truth. Those are the same for all machine (and even a lot of non-machine) observer and is supposed to give the measure defined (or not) on the computations seen from the 1p view. I could add nuances, but that would be quickly very technical. complete can take different senses, even in mathematical logic alone, and it is harder to define with respect to reality or god or everything or whatever. Bruno Richard On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 Jul 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: John Clark is NOT a comp believer. This contradicts the fact that you are OK with step 0, and step 1, and step 2. I'm not surprised. I've long ago forgotten what those steps were This might explains your difficulty. but I do know that If one starts with any contradictory concept, such as comp for example, Computationalism is contradictory? What is the contradiction? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand (today) - nor the relations between them ALL. We include SOME into our 'model of the world' as of yesterday without knowing if we are right. In such sense even a (sane-minded) adilt can be an 'atheist'. John M -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- 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
Re: Atheist
You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the bible. Read Plotinus, forget the bible, unless you find some passage you like and which inspire you, but that is private, don't make that public. I refer to the generality about 'atheists' in the passage. I emphasize that I am no atheist in such a sense who IMO requires 'a god to deny' (my vocabulary includes the term as 'denying' instead of 'defending'). I simply exclude those facets which are beyond our reach at present. In speaking about Everything I think of an infinite complexity of components we cannot even understand
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I can think of few things more disgusting or economically ridiculous that 18 square miles of stagnant salt water algae ponds in the desert. Actually there are pilot installations already operating A kiddie pool filled with algae is one thing, 18 square miles of stinking pond scum for each and every 747 in the air is quite another. Do you seriously expect China and India and Pakistan are going to renounce coal and embrace this idiotic idea for all their future energy needs? If you're REALLY serious about stopping global warming (and environmentalists are not) then you're going to have to convince them to do exactly that even though we in the west embraced coal big time when we were at their stage of economic development. So you're going to tell them that even though we used coal they shouldn't and instead they should turn to pond scum; perhaps you should just send a Email, I fear if you told them that face to face they might lynch you. Believe me or not I am not trying to make friends in the environmental community. That's good because when you start building your titanic scum ponds and the huge distillation refineries they will need in the pristine desert environmentalists are going to scream bloody murder and declare you public enemy number one. Of course environmentalists are going to loudly complain no matter what you build so you might as well build something that actually has the potential of solving the energy problem, like a LFTR. Either way you're destined to become a villain, but in one you you're a villain that made something that improved the quality of life for the entire human race and in the other your a villain that created a economic and aesthetic boondoggle. This is the hottest and driest areas of desert It's so dry that even saltwater is hard to find and so hot that what little water there is evaporates quickly. evidently the largest oil company in the world has come to a very different conclusion as to the potential profit and market for algae biofuels than you have. Yes, over the years all the big oil companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars (that is to say pocket change) into biofuel and wind and tidal power and photovoltaics, so now they get to say they are green companies. One place where big oil has conspicuously NOT invested in, not even token amounts, is nuclear power. Instead oil companies have actually contributed money to antinuclear power groups like the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Why would they do this? Because nuclear has the potential to make fossil fuels obsolite and biofuel does not. Robert O. Anderson started the Atlantic Richfield oil company and is the man behind the Alaskan oil pipeline, I found out this about him and the rabid antinuclear group Friends of the Earth on page 173 of F. William Engdahl's book A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order: *Anderson and his Atlantic Richfield Co. funneled millions of dollars through their Atlantic Richfield Foundation into select organizations to target nuclear energy. One of the prime beneficiaries of Anderson’s largess was a group called Friends of the Earth which was organized in this time [1970] with a $200,000 grant from Anderson. One of the earliest targets of Anderson’s Friends of the Earth was to finance an assault on German nuclear industry, through such anti-nuclear actions as the anti-Brockdorf demonstrations in 1976, led by Friends of the Earth leader Holger Strohm.* 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. I agree 100%. This makes me only anticlerical, though. Not against religion. (Nor religious communities, nor even religious state/ country, as religion can be taught through example. But it cannot be installed by force, nor even by votes. In fact religion like science can develop through practice, research, and exemplary behaviors (yet never named as such). A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing) the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money from those under its control - the tithes to the church are they really that different from protection money to the local gang boss. I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime operate is quite numerous. Totally agree. But the culprit is not the religion, nor money, nor the trade union, etc. the culprit is in the humans, who for special short term interest pervert the original thing. A bit like in a cancer, the culprit is not the blood cells which feed the tumor, but the cancerous cell which perverts the sanguine
Re: Selecting your future branch
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Computationalism is contradictory? No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but comp is. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Computationalism is contradictory? No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but comp is. What difference do you se between comp and computationalism? Comp is used as an abbreviation of computationalism, or CTM (computationalist theory of the mind). it is basically the assumption that the brain is computer emulable. That is detailed in the step 0 of the UD Argument. You agreed on step 0, so that is enough to say that either you believe in comp, or that you find it enough plasuible to start reasoning assuming it, like in the UDA. I can understand that you don't believe in the *consequences* of comp given that you stop at the step 3 (without anyone understanding why though). To claim that comp is different from computationalism is ... weird. Tell me the difference. I doubt you will find anyone, except that I provide a weaker version than usual (through the existence of a substitution level, without putting any bound on it), and more precise, by defining computer with Church thesis. Got the feeling you never have read any papers I wrote. You might have judged before studying. You lost me completely in invoking a difference between comp and computationalism. (and it does contradict your agreement with step one, which by definition makes you understand what comp is). Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Atheist
Why I have to claim that? I claim that any monistic (scientific) theory that predict infinite many universes predict also infinite many minds with infinite many degrees of knowledge and mastering over their realities and the realities that they may create, that, assuming monistic materialism, can contain also other subordinate minds. Because we do not know our position in the hierarchy etc etc etc etc 2014-07-17 18:16 GMT+02:00, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You cannot now claim, baring evidence, that we can change reality, even here on planet Earth, in a cogent way. It's like somebody falling off Mt. Evidence, in which we can have an opinion about our dilemma, but reversing gravity or dreaming up a parachute to use during our fall is not part of the world we all must live in. Give 10,000 years of future technology, and human survival, maybe then. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Atheist 2014-07-17 10:31 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:00, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The latest theories of everithing admit absolutely everithing. Which one? What do you mean by absolutely everything? they are no longer materialistic. Either they are no-theories or they allow any interpretation anyone may like about the know and unknow reality. I really don't know what theories you refer too. Any theory of everithing that implies infinite many unverses in compatible with everithing. Gods, miracles, psicquism, telequinesia, telepaty etc starting from the. monistic materialism, some configurations of matter produce minds, thererfore under these theories are infinite many variations of minds, not potentially. They are logical predictions of these theories. These minds under monistic materialism are considered as matter that can reshape matter in a complex way. Some of these minds can create second level realities in which they may act as gods, either making use of extraordinary knowledge of reality in relation with other less advanced minds, for which they may appear as gods. or alternatively they can simulate virtual realities in which accoding with monistic materialism can simulate minds inside these second level simulated realities. These superior minds are free to change the realities that they have under partial control (in the first case) or under total control (in the second). So they can perform miracles and so on and so on. We don´t know what is our level as minds in the multiverse, therefore everithing is theoretically possible even under this monistic hypothesis. Everithing goes. In certain sense materialism has given up without being conscious of it. That is because its foundation is metaphysical and metaphysics has experimented a regression to the stone age, or at least to the level previous to the greek phylosophy. That has begun since theology has been banished from academy, and replaced by a social sort of authorianism. It is normal for those wanting power to take over on the fundamental theories. It is bad and sad, but natural and usual. That's why we must be vigilant, and fight for a coming back to reason and observation in *all* fields, not just on God and health. Bruno 2014-07-09 22:12 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: I apologize for taking a new title for this over-discussed topic. Somebody (sounds like Bruno, the fonts look like Brent) wrote: ...let us do theology seriously instead of referring to fairy tales. You confirm what I said to John Clark. *Atheist* defend the God of the
Re: Atheist
On 17 Jul 2014, at 17:09, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-17 17:04 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 16 Jul 2014, at 19:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-16 19:22 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 15 Jul 2014, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-15 22:10 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Jul 2014, at 17:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-14 17:13 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 14 Jul 2014, at 12:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-14 12:09 GMT+02:00 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com: Why do you need to see God to believe in God? Why should you believe if you can know ? If you can't, why should you believe instead of not believing or go eating an hamburger ? Seeing might make you know *that* you see, but it does not entail that you know *what* you see, as you might be dreaming or hallucinating. That wasn't what I was implying... I see not point to believe or not believe... Why *shoud* I believe anyway ? Just to clear things up, I use the common part of all analytical definition of belief theory and knowledge theory, and in particular (knowing p) - (believing p). If you know that there is milk in the fridge, you believe that there is milk in the fridge. The key difference is that the reciprocal is false. If you believe there is milk in the fridge , you can still not know it. Well I can accept such language in mathematics where you make clear what is meant, not in every day use when someone says he *believes* in god, I use believe in the same mundane sense that I believe that there is orange juice in the fridge, I believe in *god* is not like I believe there is orange juice in the fridge. What is the difference? It imply faith, dogma. It imply an ontology about the world, the reality. Only by humans who use authorianism. But we agree at the start that they are not doing science. I use the term god and theology in the sense of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology I use atheism in the narrower sense defined in the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism And frankly most people I know and claim to be atheist uses it in the narrower sense. In fact, on the rubric agnosticism, my use of the vocabulary matches the one by William L Rowe (that I did not read): According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas atheist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism and later like in I believe in the axiom of elementary arithmetic and in its first order logical consequence, or in I don't believe the machine k will stop on the input j. that's not what he meant... That's what I don't like in your approach to insist using everyday word in everyday language *but* with your own mathematical meaning. It's misleading you should see it. I use belief in the doxastic sense of the analytical philosophers. Iuse belief in the sense of Theaetetus, Gerson, etc. You use those words in a misleading way... You do what you want of course... but you're clearly totally misunderstood when you talk to a believer. I am probably misunderstood by the blind-faith type of believers, That means 99% of the persons who say openly they believe in god. Then why the tea pot argument, and why qualifying, and re- appropriating the 'agnostic as coward atheist, like some atheists wrote in some books? I will look for one. If you believe that all atheists are not strong atheists, then you believe that all atheists are agnostic, and the term atheism lost a lot of its meaning. Here too, most people, including many atheists around me, do agree that atheism is []~g, and agnosticism is ~[]g. We are taken back in an old vocabulary issue (which is a non stopping thread even on wikipedia). like the strong atheists I've never met such kind of atheist. Onfray wrote a treatise of atheology, which was a success, and he wrote (I remember, but don't find my exemplary for now) that agnosticism is coward atheism (that is people who would pretend ~[]g, for being polite, but who would think in their heart that []~g), and if you have been to ULB, and did not meet a strong atheist (using the narrower sense described in the wiki, and justified in the whole rubric) then you are incredibly lucky. I will not cite name here. I met from time to time (like John Clark to give the nearest example). He surely doesn't believe in abrahamic god... From what I understood, he *believes* in the non existence of the abrahamic god. He *believes* it is a contradictory notion. Actually John Clark asserted more than once that he believes that notion like God (not just the abramanic one), nor free will could make *any* sense. And I quite
Re: Selecting your future branch
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What difference do you se between comp and computationalism? Why ask me? You're the one who felt that computationalism didn't adequately convey the idea you had and so you needed to invent a new word, a word used on this list and no place else. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
Whom do you anticipate performing the emulation? Comp is used as an abbreviation of computationalism, or CTM (computationalist theory of the mind). it is basically the assumption that the brain is computer emulable. That is detailed in the step 0 of the UD Argument. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 1:00 pm Subject: Re: Selecting your future branch On 17 Jul 2014, at 18:37, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Computationalism is contradictory? No. Computationalism is not contradictory, but comp is. What difference do you se between comp and computationalism? Comp is used as an abbreviation of computationalism, or CTM (computationalist theory of the mind). it is basically the assumption that the brain is computer emulable. That is detailed in the step 0 of the UD Argument. You agreed on step 0, so that is enough to say that either you believe in comp, or that you find it enough plasuible to start reasoning assuming it, like in the UDA. I can understand that you don't believe in the *consequences* of comp given that you stop at the step 3 (without anyone understanding why though). To claim that comp is different from computationalism is ... weird. Tell me the difference. I doubt you will find anyone, except that I provide a weaker version than usual (through the existence of a substitution level, without putting any bound on it), and more precise, by defining computer with Church thesis. Got the feeling you never have read any papers I wrote. You might have judged before studying. You lost me completely in invoking a difference between comp and computationalism. (and it does contradict your agreement with step one, which by definition makes you understand what comp is). Bruno 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Gödel of the Gaps
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:25:07 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2014, at 01:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jul 2014, at 15:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: So much of our attention in logic and math is focused on using processes to turn specific inputs into even more specific binary outputs. Very little attention is paid to what inputs and outputs are or to the understanding of what truth is in theoretical terms. Come on! ? The possibility of inputs is assumed from the start, since no program can exist without being ‘input’ into some kind of material substrate which has been selected or engineered for that purpose. In which theory? What theory details the ontology of inputs? Arithmetic. The subset of true sigma_1 sentences emulate the UD, that is the activity of all programs on all inputs. That only says that activity and inputs exist, but not what they are or what laws define them. You can’t program a device to be programmable if it isn’t already. Overlooking this is part of the gap between mathematics and reality which is overlooked by all forms of simulation theory and emergentism. You are quick. Correct from the 1p machine's view on their own 1p. You do confuse []p and []p p. So you are saying that programmability is universal outside of 1p views? At least in the same sense that 23 is prime outside 1p views. Then programmability becomes another axiom that computationalism needs not to require an explanation. Like infinite computational resources in a dimensionless pool? You can see it that way. Without some initial connection between sensitive agents which are concretely real and non-theoretical, there can be no storage or processing of information. Before we can input any definitions of logical functions, we have to find something which behaves logically and responds reliably to our manipulations of it. The implications of binary logic, of making distinctions between true/go and false/stop are more far reaching than we might assume. I suggest that if a machine’s operations can be boiled down to true and false bits, then it can have no capacity to exercise intentionality. It has no freedom of action because freedom is a creative act, and creativity in turn entails questioning what is true and what is not. The creative impulse can drive us to attack the truth until it cracks and reveals how it is also false. Creativity also entails redeeming what has been seen as false so that it reveals a new truth. These capabilities and appreciation of them are well beyond the functional description of what a machine would do. Machine logic is, by contrast, the death of choice. To compute is to automate and reduce sense into an abstract sense-of-motion. Leibniz called his early computer a “Stepped Reckoner”, and that it very apt. The word reckon derives from etymological roots that are shared with ‘reg’, as in regal, ruler, and moving straight ahead. It is a straightener or comb of physically embodied rules. A computer functionalizes and conditions reality into rules, step by step, in a mindless imitation of mind. A program or a script is a frozen record of sense-making in retrospect. It is built of propositions defined in isolation rather than sensations which share the common history of all sensation. The computing machine itself does not exist in the natural world, but rather is distilled from the world’s most mechanistic tendencies. All that does not fit into true or false is discarded. Although Gödel is famous for discovering the incompleteness of formal systems, that discovery itself exists within a formal context. The ideal machine, for example, which cannot prove anything that is false, subscribes to the view that truth and falsehood are categories which are true rather than truth and falsehood being possible qualities within a continuum of sense making. There is a Platonic metaphysics at work here, which conjures a block universe of forms which are eternally true and good. In fact, a casual inspection of our own experience reveals no such clear-cut categories, and the goodness and truth of the situations we encounter are often inseparable from their opposite. We seek sensory experiences for the sake of appreciating them directly, rather than only for their truth or functional benefits. Truth is only one of the qualities of sense which matters. The way that a computer processes information is fundamentally different than the way that conscious thought works. Where a consistent machine cannot give a formal proof of its own consistency, a person can be certain of their own certainty without proof. That doesn’t always mean that the person’s feeling turns out to match what they or others will understand to be true later on, but unlike a
RE: Atheist
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:25 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Atheist Salman Rushdie wrote: religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for example tune into just about any international news broadcast and you will probably see at least one story about religious violence somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media will call it sectarian violence. As for me I think there is a point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie. John K Clark I would describe it as a societal paradigm. this unspoken rule that all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right as well as the left. I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you lose dignity and eventually life. Well sure. life is more pleasant when people have a live and let live attitude. As you point out respect needs mutuality. Respecting an institution that does not respect anyone that does not adopt their dogma is a one way flow of respect that leads to a distorted situation. Religion - for the most part - does not respect anything that is not in accordance with its dogma, therefore it should not expect to be respected. Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the power structure itself); I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ... Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being negative theologies. But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees. The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role. Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can lie. In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation. I agree all human institutions become captured eventually by small classes of people who rig the system - any system -- to favor their own. Once the cockroaches manage to worm their way into power within any institution it is almost impossible to rid the institution of their influence. religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much (or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently the emperor as well). When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover. All insitutions become means for enforcing an uneven playing field for the benefit of a favored elite class. You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it many of the same characteristics and practices. I agree 100%. This makes me only anticlerical, though. Not against religion. (Nor religious communities, nor even religious state/country, as
