on theology

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/10/15/iron2/ -- 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread LizR
Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a necessity if you lived on Airstrip One. On 16 October 2014 18:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:28 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I works with house and Brent

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Oct 2014, at 17:21, David Nyman wrote: On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only way to keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact. I seem to be motivated to comment at some length on

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 01:29, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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?

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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 meeke...@verizon.net 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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.cleardot[1].gif..) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 06:00, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/15/2014 7:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Oct 2014, at 18:20, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 00:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com 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

Re: on theology

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
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.

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

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

2014-10-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@davidnyman.com'); wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible. But how is the statement

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

2014-10-16 Thread Telmo Menezes
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 persons

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
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: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Telmo Menezes
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 and

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

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

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

2014-10-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Telmo, On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
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 and in the

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 14 Oct 2014, at 04:24, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

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

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
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 meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Bruno seems to think that if you fail to

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

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
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,

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

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@davidnyman.com'); wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: I guess he would say, as Dennett

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 13:46, David Nyman wrote: On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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,

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

2014-10-16 Thread meekerdb
On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:44, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2014, at 17:20, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 17 Oct 2014, at 3:58 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: I guess he would say, as

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

2014-10-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:59 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 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

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread LizR
On 16 October 2014 17:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 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

Re: Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project

2014-10-16 Thread LizR
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 on the

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-16 Thread LizR
On 17 October 2014 08:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread John Mikes
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

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-10-16 Thread David Nyman
On 16 October 2014 18:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then zombies are impossible. What do

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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