Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > > > there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would > appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to > work OK. > Yes, but to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I don't know and

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word "God" (and not some >> other word) >> > > > Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you did not > reply. > If the "ONE" is supposed to mean the reason there is something

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lol, why is somebody, that prides themselves spamming, in the driver's >> seat of posing questions now? >> > > You should have put a "on" befor

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 16 October 2014 18:05, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour >> then zombies are impossible. >> > > What do you mean by a side effect? D

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea of weak emergence. Weak emergence of what, precisely? And in what way could this emergent something be distinguishable from the physical processes constituting it? David -- You received t

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think it's a matter of semantics. I'm sure Graziano experiences what I > experience, given my use of the word "experience", but due to his > understanding of what underpins this experience he chooses to say it > doesn't really exist. It's as

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

Bruno ended his post with: *You did not answer my argument that you are not that much agnostic when it comes to "is there anything more than (human, if you want) numbers?* *By using the expression "human math", it means you do believe in some non human math. What is it, and why do you believe in t

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 17 October 2014 08:43, John Clark wrote: > If the physical world didn't exist and there wasn't 4 of anything and > never has been, would 2+2=4 have any meaning? And even if it did would it > matter, who would be around to understand that meaning? You have always > just assumed that mathematics

Re: Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

"Watch this space". On 16 October 2014 20:39, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I have no idea what to make of this claim. It is an astounding claim for > such a large company to make…. Also kind of funny how their stock > concurrently went down

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 October 2014 17:00, Richard Ruquist wrote: > I suggest that believing and not believing in anything is consistent with > MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one world, you > will fail to believe in it in some other world. > That's equivalent to extending the meaning of

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> there is no logical reason or empirical evidence to think that the >> halting oracle exists in the physical world or even in Plato's abstract >> Platonia. >> > > > Time implement the halting oracle. There is a result by Schoenfield to > th

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

> On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:59 pm, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> > >> If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then >> zombies are impossible. > > What do you mean by a side effect? Do you mean something that would

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

> On 17 Oct 2014, at 3:58 am, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impos

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 17:20, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Educate yourself by reading the excellent book by Lawrence M Krauss "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing". > It assumes still enough physicalism so t

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:44, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the Christians or Muslims mean by it. I don't care what Christians and Muslims mean by it but I ask myself who would INSIST o

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then zombies are impossible. What do you mean by a side effect? Do you mean something that w

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 16 Oct 2014, at 13:46, David Nyman wrote: On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: If Churchland logic is applied in the case of comp, it leads to the the idea that not only the first person is eliminated, but also all references to the gluons, quarks, electron, bosons, fermions,

Re: Fwd: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman > wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible. But how is the statement "there is no subjective i

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 10/16/2014 12:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The key point is that atheist don't believe in God, but believe that God deos not exist. But to have such a belief you need to believe that you have the right notion of God, and this is what they share with the christian: the same conception of God, e

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 10/16/2014 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:28, meekerdb wrote: On 10/15/2014 7:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb > wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existenc

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 10/16/2014 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Oct 2014, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what "Santa Claus" refers to and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus. A curious inferen

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

On 14 Oct 2014, at 04:24, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal wrote: > Not all information is computable. If (a_i) = 001000111010111110001001000110110001110111101000... with a_i = 1 if the ith programs (without input) stop, and 0 if not. That the halting ora

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lol, why is somebody, that prides themselves spamming, in the driver's > seat of posing questions now? > You should have put a "on" before "spamming" and put a "be" rather than a comma between "spamming

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Hi Telmo, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King < > stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > >> Hi Telmo, >> >>You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, >> wouldn't it require that you yourself had

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Educate yourself by reading the excellent book by Lawrence M Krauss "A >> Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing". >> > > > It assumes still enough physicalism so that he put still some magic in > the brain. > Af

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy > >> >> > For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you met >> a god that told you to write down his message. If your god insists in the >> text that "he/she/it is infallible",

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:44 AM, LizR wrote: > Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a > necessity if you lived on Airstrip One. > Yes but without doublethink how could we have religion? And how could a logician say "Atheism, as I know it, is a slight variant of chris

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Hi Telmo, > >You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, > wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?" > >That is what I thought at first as well a

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > explain me why you defend the idea that God means only what the > Christians or Muslims mean by it. > I don't care what Christians and Muslims mean by it but I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word "God" (and not some other word) fo

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR wrote: > Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a > necessity if you lived on Airstrip One. > Right. If I remember correctly, peculiar machine is inaccurate but not necessarily inconsistent. So you have to doublethink in consisten

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Hi Telmo, You wrote: "If I understand the ideas in Mitra's paper correctly, wouldn't it require that you yourself had forgotten about the discussion?" That is what I thought at first as well and concluded that it was just a misremembering or delusion. But I could not shake how "well constru

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Ok, very good Bruno. Like Shrodingers cat not being a cat, but a particle state. However, there have being papers by L. Suskind, some years back sort of indicating an embedded identity, with a BB. So there must be some confusion on my part. I can dig up some links to

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then > zombies are impossible. > What do you mean by a side effect? Do you mean something that would necessarily be "physically incoherent" (according to Graziano, and correc

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Stephen Paul King < stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote: > Hi Telmo, > > One event involved an email exchange that I has with two people. We > where discussing theories of emergent space-time. Nothing really > consequential. It didn't go anywhere as on of the perso

Fwd: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman > wrote: > On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible. >> > > But how is the statement "there is no subjective impression" consistent > with the view that zombies are imposs

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal wrote: If Churchland logic is applied in the case of comp, it leads to the the > idea that not only the first person is eliminated, but also all references > to the gluons, quarks, electron, bosons, fermions, waves, probability, > taxes, etc. All we have is

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible. > But how is the statement "there is no subjective impression" consistent with the view that zombies are impossible? Surely the very definition of a zombie is something that p

Re: on theology

On 16 Oct 2014, at 08:38, meekerdb wrote: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/10/15/iron2/ Which makes my point. Only atheists equate theology with something related to some sacred books necessarily. You might read Plato, or 'Proclus theology', or Spinoza, or Einstein, or Gödel, etc. Brun

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 16 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes wrote: I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really comprehended it. Then I suggest a standard dictionary or to google/wiki the term, where you'll find that Bruno did not

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 15 Oct 2014, at 21:42, John Mikes wrote: I read Bruno's ID about theology some times - never really comprehended it. I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of the World' no matter on what theory. About the "GOD" concept did ANYBODY EVER communicated a

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:20, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >your dislike of religions hides a defense of a religion. Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

RE: Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

I have no idea what to make of this claim. It is an astounding claim for such a large company to make.. Also kind of funny how their stock concurrently went down on the day of the press release Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

The key point is that atheist don't believe in God, but believe that God deos not exist. But to have such a belief you need to believe that you have the right notion of God, and this is what they share with the christian: the same conception of God, even if it is to assert its non existence

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 06:00, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:28 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/15/2014 7:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Clau

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:40, LizR wrote: I don't believe that's what Bruno means Thanks God! Bruno (which if I'm wrong means I DO believe that's what he means...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe f

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:32, LizR wrote: Is this a fair comment, Bruno? No. See my answer to Brent. Tell me if you see the point. I have never said that atheists believe in God, only that they share the same concept of God than the (fundamentalist) christians. I only say that atheists *beh

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 05:28, meekerdb wrote: On 10/15/2014 7:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what "Santa Claus" refers

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what "Santa Claus" refers to and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus. A curious inference for a logician. Brent, are you trying

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 16 Oct 2014, at 01:29, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: >The stupidity prize you made up is clearly yours to claim, Oh I've said plenty of stupid thinks in my time, but I don't think I can compete with Bruno's "Atheism, as I know it, is a slight

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at the origin of the physical universe, >> Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is n

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 15 Oct 2014, at 13:23, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Aha! Now what of Boltzmann Brains and how this topic is undervalued by the intellects here. The UD is more general than the Boltzman brain. It contains the web of all Boltzmann brain manifestation. There is no actual real "bra

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 14 Oct 2014, at 17:15, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: John, Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the awful suffering you have accurately, cited? Marx said that religion is an opiate for the people, so what do you offer as a pain reliever? Aspirin (quinine