date:20190602

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:14:29 AM UTC+2, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> About every century there is a tendency for more sociopathic disordered or 
> malignant narcissists, such as t'Rump *-- see below for more, to assume 
> power. Last century this occurred with the rise of communism in Russia and 
> fascism in western Europe. The century before beginning with the end of the 
> 18th century had Jacobins having fun chopping heads in Paris which 
> culminated in Napoleon. There have been about every century a flare up of 
> these, and the 17th century saw all sorts of collective insanity with the 
> 30 Years War, the Huguenot war, the English Civil War and so forth. Based 
> on the general time table, we are coming due for the next grand episode of 
> chaos. And just as the Grateful Dead song *Hell in a Bucket* puts it the 
> snakes come marching in --- and sure enough here they come. We may be 
> heading into a doozie this time, as we have the nuclear explosive power to 
> unleash several thousand WWII's. It looks to me that the United States as 
> the leader in the world is now the leader in the coming next mass insanity.
>

I hear you Lawrence and appreciate your clarity. Conservative to far right 
discourses completely eclipse the larger historical backdrop: we are a 
people dependent and hooked to waging war for thousands of years. And we 
almost cleaned/sobered up in the latter half of the century. We approached 
civility even if we couldn't get things like income disparities under 
control. Folks are justifiably angry with progressive junk democrats are 
peddling because they weren't effective enough, they didn't cater to middle 
and lower influence strata of society enough, which you probably know. The 
US as leader of mass insanity, and it's being copied world wide AND these 
leaders are meeting. Lol on the great meetings of noob selfish money- and 
power grubbers, that think they are stronger together! Egoists stronger 
together! They should rob themselves leave us alone and we prosecute. Win 
win for everybody lol.

>
> Look it up, but there is an interview by Barbara Walters of Donald t'Rump 
> where the camera makes views of his office walls. These wall are covered 
> with portraits of himself. Donald t'Rump sees himself as the most brilliant 
> of people, when a professor at his Alma mater called him "the dumbest 
> goddammed student he ever knew."  Danald t'Rump is way past the point of 
> the Dunning Kruger effect. He is also clearly narcissistic and has also 
> been investigated by SNY Attorney General for laundering money going back 
> decades. He is a man who serves the criminal world by laundering its money 
> through illicit real estate transactions.
>

Those things reek to the high heavens. Mueller put out the proof: evidence 
of sweeping and systematic manipulation of the election and despite 
immunity, no evidence that they didn't obstruct. Immunity or not, that's 
criminal in my book. And while drowned in the perpetual scandal noise they 
all do the same thing: enrich themselves by hollowing out checks and 
balances. They don't want to be checked. So my read is to check them and 
their discourse. 

>
> For decades now anything liberal has been repeatedly labelled as almost 
> satanic. The messages of this have been thumping people for decades and now 
> we are at a point where if you do have some liberality of mind you now find 
> yourself contemplating leaving the country. Of course the problem is this 
> is infectious and a number of other nations are into this. Also there is 
> the rise of fascist parties, and in the US we are seeing the rise of far 
> extremists such as neo-Nazis. I see lots of people who have drunk the 
> koolaid of this shit, and it is growing in popularity. On the other hand 
> maybe I should just give this a shrug. I really question whether humanity 
> is going to exist past a half century or so. So whiskey tango foxtrot, 
> maybe if we are all going to die why not let the psychopaths and their 
> idiot followers just blow it all up, rather than going out in a whimper?
>

I can relate and would offer you to consider engaging them as democratic 
equals. Idea: If they mess with us, leave or go hard. Let them spam their 
own thread full of their gospels. The religious right wing seriousness 
thread of non-smugness for the good boys too smart to vote along their 
self-interest, who like marching in rows and going to church like the 
obedient, kind, trustworthy people they are. They should do it. 

To Spunkboy: Why you right guys pussying about copy pasting raging like 
noobs? Bring it on Spud and Co! Make a thread with all the evil crimes 
pretentious progressive elite smug snobs like myself are guilty of, too 
dumb to see, and let's see what insights you can offer to science, theories 
of everything, philosophy, belief, aesthetics*Topics of this list*. 
Show us the damned truth already!  I expect from you folk hundreds of pages 
of posts of your

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

2019-06-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell

As a minor of mine in college was philosophy I have read some of these 
ancient texts. I have even read Aristotle's *Physics*, which is all wrong 
really. So of what use are these texts, or really philosophy in general? It 
is interesting to see how these ancient thinkers were groping in the dark. 
At least they were trying, while the later Christians just sat around and 
prayed about things. I find looking at errors in thought to be interesting, 
for it can well be that we are making now similar category errors with 
things. It may in some ways be that philosophy serves that role in general; 
it can help inform us where we are wrong.

LC

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> > The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that 
>> you have not even try to read them
>
>
> Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient 
> literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a 
> 2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field 
> of study I am personally very interested in.
>
> *> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your 
>> pejorative sense.*
>
>
> Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03 
> *10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd 
> done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to 
> be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine 
> which books are worth your time and which books are not?
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b8defbd8-b416-4d75-9aaf-3d2dd8c6d80f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell

About every century there is a tendency for more sociopathic disordered or 
malignant narcissists, such as t'Rump *-- see below for more, to assume 
power. Last century this occurred with the rise of communism in Russia and 
fascism in western Europe. The century before beginning with the end of the 
18th century had Jacobins having fun chopping heads in Paris which 
culminated in Napoleon. There have been about every century a flare up of 
these, and the 17th century saw all sorts of collective insanity with the 
30 Years War, the Huguenot war, the English Civil War and so forth. Based 
on the general time table, we are coming due for the next grand episode of 
chaos. And just as the Grateful Dead song *Hell in a Bucket* puts it the 
snakes come marching in --- and sure enough here they come. We may be 
heading into a doozie this time, as we have the nuclear explosive power to 
unleash several thousand WWII's. It looks to me that the United States as 
the leader in the world is now the leader in the coming next mass insanity.

Look it up, but there is an interview by Barbara Walters of Donald t'Rump 
where the camera makes views of his office walls. These wall are covered 
with portraits of himself. Donald t'Rump sees himself as the most brilliant 
of people, when a professor at his Alma mater called him "the dumbest 
goddammed student he ever knew."  Danald t'Rump is way past the point of 
the Dunning Kruger effect. He is also clearly narcissistic and has also 
been investigated by SNY Attorney General for laundering money going back 
decades. He is a man who serves the criminal world by laundering its money 
through illicit real estate transactions.

For decades now anything liberal has been repeatedly labelled as almost 
satanic. The messages of this have been thumping people for decades and now 
we are at a point where if you do have some liberality of mind you now find 
yourself contemplating leaving the country. Of course the problem is this 
is infectious and a number of other nations are into this. Also there is 
the rise of fascist parties, and in the US we are seeing the rise of far 
extremists such as neo-Nazis. I see lots of people who have drunk the 
koolaid of this shit, and it is growing in popularity. On the other hand 
maybe I should just give this a shrug. I really question whether humanity 
is going to exist past a half century or so. So whiskey tango foxtrot, 
maybe if we are all going to die why not let the psychopaths and their 
idiot followers just blow it all up, rather than going out in a whimper?

LC 

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:12:17 PM UTC-5, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:53:36 PM UTC+2, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Because B lies all the more to try to get elected? 
>>
>>
> I'll bite the conspiracy discourse bait today by phrasing as follows: 
> There are lying corrupt fucks on every side and if you don't identify with 
> simplistic politics and its boring ideological labels, then why post at 
> all? To advertise your innocence to strangers? Post your name, address, and 
> your credit card details with security number please. You'll understand why 
> a few lines down.
>
> Fun and games aside: Who's party/ideology will more likely bring results 
> to working class wages, pensions, medical bills, work accidents, workers 
> rights, and a tomorrow with less toxic shit piling up where you live? Which 
> party history/profile, with all the upper class corrupt bullshit and 
> propaganda of all of them fits the bill, at least to a tiny bare minimum?
>
> Which side is more likely to stupidly and expensively try to educate 
> people, diminish student debts for those trying to set better track for 
> their home zone, instead of snubbing them and pretending they don't exist? 
>
> So surprise, I guess you want to drag me into a flame war: credit card 
> details to me privately NOW or no show. Why? Because your vote has 
> consequences: you voted to fuck education, so you guys gotta pay up front! 
> BooyakahYeah bitches! Plus I copyrighted my cursing to make up for this 
> lesson that you're not paying for! Gazingblingbling: That's a double in yo 
> faces!
>
> These answers are not pretty (except my cursing, which is of course classy 
> and copyrighted as fuck), definitely far from any ideals we have the luxury 
> to discuss out here... but it is what it is, folks. The maverick 
> billionaire with cartoon hair will keep mavericking your net take with his 
> billionaire cronies, probably on your death beds through some dumb liberal 
> black trans doctors with terminator dildos... and guess what? We'll still 
> have to pay more! PGC
>  
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit

Re: Trump Supporters?

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:23 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A
> 
>
> Humor is the final defense.
>

That is great! Thank you Lawrence.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2%3DzM224TG4C5-HeScYC26%2B90kpwvKut%3D6rFMY%2B37U6OA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?



On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 11:47:24 PM UTC+2, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Darwin bless us all!
>
>
Lol, not you. He'd say you're voting against your own survival, work, meds, 
and benefits. He'd call you too stupid to bless. PGC 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5d3b9fb-6cab-4965-bd19-64bc48a7a598%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Funny that! I identify as being Both.  Basically, what I hate from the now, 
socialist-communists in my former Party, is the presumption on their own part 
of self-righteousness. It's become a readily, identifiable earmark. (J' Accuse 
Liberale') because I used to be one of you, and grew up with the preponderance 
of self righteousness, focused upon religious Christians. They world has now 
changed, and the creepy-smugness, and sense of superiority, is held by 
progressives, worldwide, nowadays!  It's now the pretentious superior 
progressives that have earned this Traveling Trophy. No, I don't consider Libs 
burning in hell for rejecting Mr. God, or Bibles! Me no care, as long as one 
can help matters, yes, materially speaking. Plainly put, the Jesus folk are 
less insufferable, than the Great Enlightened. More trustworthy too.  
Darwin bless us all!

-Original Message-
From: howardmarks 
To: spudboy100 via Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2019 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

 I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions. There 
are lots of con-artists, blowhards, cultured and/or intellectual people that 
have neither of those prejudicial labels.  I don't identify as either...
 Cheers! HowardM

 On 6/2/2019 11:53 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Because B lies all the more to try to get elected? 

 -Original Message-
 From: Philip Thrift 
 To: Everything List 
 Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 3:01 pm
 Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

  When America is presented a choice: 
  A. con-artist, blowhard fascist B. cultured, intellectual liberal 
  A always has a chance of winning. 
  @philipthrift 
 On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
 We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this technological 
marvel called the media, which now  includes the internet. Joseph Goebbels, 
propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie repeated often enough 
assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has becomes a crap-fest of 
nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes outright lies. With the 
massive dollars behind this industry liberality based on evidence, facts, and 
logic is simply drowned out in the huge decibel volume against it. Donald 
t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and 
hustler. 
  LC

 On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote: 
   [Philip Benjamin]   Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined 
by America haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist,  Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, 
Humanist PAGANS or WAMP-the-Ingrate, who hate the very foundations and founders 
of this Republic. Over 62 million  adults, bona fide American citizens, surely 
KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It  was a 
question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. of Justice 
has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into the politico-deep 
state- media usurpation of the American government at all levels from the 
City/County and State to the Non-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign States 
of this Constitutional Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex 
(http://constitution.org/sr/ lexrex.htm). See Lex Rex of Samuel Rutherford 
(Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the “Prince of  
Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is an extension of 
various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all institutions of 
Freedom in place after the  historical and historic First Great Awakening. No 
other people EVER in the annals of history did or could have ever come up with 
any such  ideas. The Magna Carta (of “We the Nobles”), the Mayflower Compact 
and the Puritan Mission Statement to American Indians come close. Ignorance 
coupled with willful disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the 
WAMP-erial campuses is a sure path to victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive 
PAGANISM  of the types of Nordic pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian 
pagan Mussolini etc., or of the type of Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/ americas-dangerous-historical- ignorance/  
  Compare it wit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ ignorance-of-history-is-no- 
joke/  Philip Benjamin ~~ From: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of John Clark
 Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
 To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity  On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM 
Bruno Marchal  wrote:    

 >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
 "The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent  knowing history in advance and 
being able to control  its course”. 
      > The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement  of that kind are 
parabola and should never been taken literally.   
   That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try  to

Re: Trump Supporters?

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 6:53:36 PM UTC+2, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Because B lies all the more to try to get elected? 
>
>
I'll bite the conspiracy discourse bait today by phrasing as follows: There 
are lying corrupt fucks on every side and if you don't identify with 
simplistic politics and its boring ideological labels, then why post at 
all? To advertise your innocence to strangers? Post your name, address, and 
your credit card details with security number please. You'll understand why 
a few lines down.

Fun and games aside: Who's party/ideology will more likely bring results to 
working class wages, pensions, medical bills, work accidents, workers 
rights, and a tomorrow with less toxic shit piling up where you live? Which 
party history/profile, with all the upper class corrupt bullshit and 
propaganda of all of them fits the bill, at least to a tiny bare minimum?

Which side is more likely to stupidly and expensively try to educate 
people, diminish student debts for those trying to set better track for 
their home zone, instead of snubbing them and pretending they don't exist? 

So surprise, I guess you want to drag me into a flame war: credit card 
details to me privately NOW or no show. Why? Because your vote has 
consequences: you voted to fuck education, so you guys gotta pay up front! 
BooyakahYeah bitches! Plus I copyrighted my cursing to make up for this 
lesson that you're not paying for! Gazingblingbling: That's a double in yo 
faces!

These answers are not pretty (except my cursing, which is of course classy 
and copyrighted as fuck), definitely far from any ideals we have the luxury 
to discuss out here... but it is what it is, folks. The maverick 
billionaire with cartoon hair will keep mavericking your net take with his 
billionaire cronies, probably on your death beds through some dumb liberal 
black trans doctors with terminator dildos... and guess what? We'll still 
have to pay more! PGC

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b6492cf-263d-409f-81a0-74619893c456%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread Lawrence Crowell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LTRwZb35A

Humor is the final defense.

LC

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 11:52:31 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> ?? as opposed to those wonderful attorneys that the democratic party 
> produces for it's leaders, who never take donations from billionaires, 
> ever, and have the genuine interests of the US middle class at heart? You 
> betcha!  Would you like me to supply the link to Open Secrets, the 
> non-partisan site that goes right to the money trail? Say no more!  
> opensecrets.org
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 2:43 pm
> Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?
>
> We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this 
> technological marvel called the media, which now includes the internet. 
> Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie 
> repeated often enough assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has 
> becomes a crap-fest of nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes 
> outright lies. With the massive dollars behind this industry liberality 
> based on evidence, facts, and logic is simply drowned out in the huge 
> decibel volume against it. Donald t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels 
> did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and hustler. 
>
> LC
>
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
>
> [*Philip Benjamin*]  
> Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by America 
> haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Humanist 
> PAGANS or *WAMP-the-Ingrate*, who hate the very foundations and founders 
> of this Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, 
> surely KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It 
> was a question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. 
> of Justice has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into 
> the *politico*-*deep state- media* usurpation of the American government 
> at all levels from the City/County and State to the *Non-sovereign 
> Federation of the Sovereign States* of this Constitutional Republic of 
> Lex Rex and not Rex Lex (http://constitution.org/sr/ lexrex.htm 
> ). See *Lex Rex* of Samuel 
> Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the 
> “Prince of Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is 
> an extension of various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all 
> institutions of Freedom in place after the historical and historic *First 
> Great Awakening*. No other people EVER in the annals of history did or 
> could have ever come up with any such ideas. *The Magna Carta* (*of “We 
> the Nobles*”), the *Mayflower Compact* and the Puritan *Mission Statement 
> to American Indians* come close. Ignorance coupled with willful 
> disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial campuses is 
> a sure path to victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the 
> types of Nordic pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan 
> Mussolini etc., or of the type of Celtic pagan French anarchists. 
> https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/ 
> americas-dangerous-historical- ignorance/ 
>  
>   
> Compare it wit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ ignorance-of-history-is-no- 
> joke/  
> *Philip Benjamin*
> *~~*
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups. com  *On 
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups. com
> *Subject:* Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
>  
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>  
>
> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> *"The son of **God is **omniscient* *and* *omnipotent**  knowing history 
> in advance and being able to control its course**”.*
>
>  
> *> **The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind 
> are parabola and should never been taken literally.*
>
>  
> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to 
> explain away his many many lies.
>  
>
> > *Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met 
> a christian who believe in the anything as naive. *
>
>  
> You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
> C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i- 
> t-y, although I have not personally met them.
>  
>
> *> **You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You 
> might change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your 
> mind.*
>
>  
> I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a 
> book written by someone who knows even less

Re: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread howardmarks

I think the labels "fascist" or "liberal" of A. and B. are distortions. 
There are lots of con-artists, blowhards, cultured and/or intellectual 
people that have neither of those prejudicial labels.  I don't 
identify as either...

Cheers! HowardM

On 6/2/2019 11:53 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Because B lies all the more to try to get elected?

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

When America is presented a choice:

A. con-artist, blowhard fascist
B. cultured, intellectual liberal

A always has a chance of winning.

@philipthrift

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this
technological marvel called the media, which now includes the
internet. Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the third
Reich, said that a lie repeated often enough assumes a life as a
"sort of truth." The media has becomes a crap-fest of nonsense
that pumps out half-truths and sometimes outright lies. With the
massive dollars behind this industry liberality based on evidence,
facts, and logic is simply drowned out in the huge decibel volume
against it. Donald t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels did, and
t'Rump is a pure grifter and hustler.

LC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:

[*Philip Benjamin*]
Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by
America haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist,
Progressive, Liberal, Humanist PAGANS or */WAMP-the-Ingrate/*,
who hate the very foundations and founders of this Republic.
Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely
KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!!
It was a question of now or never. The truth will be out if
the present Dept. of Justice has the guts to go ahead with an
impartial investigation into the /politico/-/deep state-
media/ usurpation of the American government at all levels
from the City/County and State to the */Non-sovereign
Federation of the Sovereign States/*of this Constitutional
Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex
(http://constitution.org/sr/ lexrex.htm
).See /Lex Rex/ of
Samuel Rutherford (Presbyterian Minister). Also its high
recommendation by the “Prince of Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist
Minister). American Constitution is an extension of various
Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all
institutions of Freedom in place after the historical and
historic *First Great Awakening*. No other people EVER in the
annals of history did or could have ever come up with any such
ideas. *The Magna Carta* (/of “We the Nobles/”), the
*Mayflower Compact* and the Puritan */Mission Statement to
American Indians/* come close. Ignorance coupled with willful
disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial
campuses is a sure path to victory for
Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM of the types of Nordic
pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan Mussolini
etc., or of the type of Celtic pagan French anarchists.
https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/ americas-dangerous-historical-
ignorance/

Compare it wit https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
ignorance-of-history-is-no- joke/

*Philip Benjamin*
*~~*
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
 *On Behalf Of *John Clark
*Sent:* Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal
 wrote:

>> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
/"The son of //God is
//omniscientandomnipotent//knowing history in
advance and being able to control its course//”./

/> //The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement
of that kind are parabola and should never been taken
literally./

That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to
try to explain away his many many lies.

> /Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have
still never met a christian who believe in the anything as
naive. /

You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a
Christian who didn't believe something exactly that naive. I
concede there are a few that have abandoned

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

2019-06-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 6/2/2019 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have 
never found any evidence for.


You refer to ontological existence and phenomenological existence all 
the time.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb9dc458-9d6e-b4ec-c555-f0ac76c1584e%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List





On 6/2/2019 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
“circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.

To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to get 
the things making the circle into a reality.

The attitude of a scholastic: I will make reality out of axioms.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06ed3e3b-d814-9268-41d2-80ebb2a23abb%40verizon.net.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 6/2/2019 12:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed this 
by ostentation.

Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
can't believe a proposition by ostentation.

Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
definition makes sense.

Ostensive definitions are semantic.

OK.

But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires an 
act of fait in some undefinable reality.



You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not believed 
anything about it's overall shape.

Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality (called 
God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, but propose 
theories and means to make sense of them.


You seem to be in a bubble of rationalism.  Everything is about axioms 
and assumptions and words.  Ostensive definitions point outside that 
bubble.  They are fuzzy, but they are not assumptions...they are based 
on, consist of, evidence.




When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, shows 
the consequences and the means to test the theory.

Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
matter exists,


A straw man.  Nothing I wrote referred to /*primitive*/ matter.

Brent


and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, because there are 
evidence and reason why the brain has not been prepared/“programmed”, through 
evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.


Bruno










Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have a 
conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 19th 
century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to just mock it.

I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the vocabulary. 
For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not God, but 
“consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse physics and 
metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of metaphysical 
brainwashing.

If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you can 
show it to us.

Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?

Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* and 
X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical reality is 
primitive.





As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a matter 
of faith…

Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable




except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.

There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically the 
difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating neutral 
or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying “yes” to the 
doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some aspect of your 
first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an hypothesis. It is 
the difference between jumping from a cliff with an elastic, and just assuming 
the elastic is good enough without jumping.





The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics is 
the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an evidence 
that reality is psychological.

You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So you are merely 
inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to criticize it and pretend you are 
above it.

?

Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.

Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous circle.


We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe that 
it cannot be recovered from other principle.

Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.

No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively.  
It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.


I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept 
that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in

Re: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Because B lies all the more to try to get elected? 

-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 3:01 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

When America is presented a choice:
A. con-artist, blowhard fascistB. cultured, intellectual liberal
A always has a chance of winning.
@philipthrift
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 1:43:56 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this technological 
marvel called the media, which now includes the internet. Joseph Goebbels, 
propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie repeated often enough 
assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has becomes a crap-fest of 
nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes outright lies. With the 
massive dollars behind this industry liberality based on evidence, facts, and 
logic is simply drowned out in the huge decibel volume against it. Donald 
t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and 
hustler.
LC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
[Philip Benjamin] Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by 
America haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, 
Humanist PAGANS orWAMP-the-Ingrate, who hate the very foundations and founders 
of this Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely 
KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It was a 
question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. of Justice 
has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into thepolitico-deep 
state- media usurpation of the American government at all levels from the 
City/County and State to theNon-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign Statesof 
this Constitutional Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex 
(http://constitution.org/sr/ lexrex.htm). SeeLex Rex of Samuel Rutherford 
(Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the “Prince of 
Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is an extension of 
various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all institutions of 
Freedom in place after the historical and historic First Great Awakening. No 
other people EVER in the annals of history did or could have ever come up with 
any such ideas.The Magna Carta (of “We the Nobles”), the Mayflower Compact and 
the PuritanMission Statement to American Indians come close. Ignorance coupled 
with willful disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial 
campuses is a sure path to victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM 
of the types of Nordic pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan 
Mussolini etc., or of the type of Celtic pagan French 
anarchists.https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/ americas-dangerous-historical- 
ignorance/   Compare it withttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/ 
ignorance-of-history-is-no- joke/Philip Benjamin~~From: 
everyth...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno 
Marchal  wrote: 

>>From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
"The son ofGod is omniscient and omnipotent  knowing history in advance and 
being able to control its course”.
 >The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
parabola and should never been taken literally.
 That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
away his many many lies. 
>Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
>christian who believe in the anything as naive.
 You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i- t-y, although I have not personally met them. 
>You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might change 
>your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.
 I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a book 
written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than I 
do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use judgement 
and be selective.  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66c235ef-c6ab-48e3-a5fd-34fb814dfd43%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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: Trump Supporters?

2019-06-02 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

?? as opposed to those wonderful attorneys that the democratic party produces 
for it's leaders, who never take donations from billionaires, ever, and have 
the genuine interests of the US middle class at heart? You betcha!  Would you 
like me to supply the link to Open Secrets, the non-partisan site that goes 
right to the money trail? Say no more!  opensecrets.org    

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2019 2:43 pm
Subject: Re: Trump Supporters?

We are weavers in the web that we wove. We are victims of this technological 
marvel called the media, which now includes the internet. Joseph Goebbels, 
propaganda minister for the third Reich, said that a lie repeated often enough 
assumes a life as a "sort of truth." The media has becomes a crap-fest of 
nonsense that pumps out half-truths and sometimes outright lies. With the 
massive dollars behind this industry liberality based on evidence, facts, and 
logic is simply drowned out in the huge decibel volume against it. Donald 
t'Rump knows this as much as Goebbels did, and t'Rump is a pure grifter and 
hustler.
LC

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 9:59:21 AM UTC-5, medinuclear wrote:
[Philip Benjamin] Trump supporters? That is a phrase inappositely coined by 
America haters—i.e. the Fascist, Marxist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, 
Humanist PAGANS orWAMP-the-Ingrate, who hate the very foundations and founders 
of this Republic. Over 62 million adults, bona fide American citizens, surely 
KNEW that this was the last chance for America to be America!! It was a 
question of now or never. The truth will be out if the present Dept. of Justice 
has the guts to go ahead with an impartial investigation into thepolitico-deep 
state- media usurpation of the American government at all levels from the 
City/County and State to theNon-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign Statesof 
this Constitutional Republic of Lex Rex and not Rex Lex 
(http://constitution.org/sr/ lexrex.htm). SeeLex Rex of Samuel Rutherford 
(Presbyterian Minister). Also its high recommendation by the “Prince of 
Preacher” Spurgeon (Baptist Minister). American Constitution is an extension of 
various Church Constitutions. The Colonies already had all institutions of 
Freedom in place after the historical and historic First Great Awakening. No 
other people EVER in the annals of history did or could have ever come up with 
any such ideas.The Magna Carta (of “We the Nobles”), the Mayflower Compact and 
the PuritanMission Statement to American Indians come close. Ignorance coupled 
with willful disrespect for one’s heritage as facilitated on the WAMP-erial 
campuses is a sure path to victory for Socialist-Marxist-Progressive PAGANISM 
of the types of Nordic pagan Hitler, Slavic pagan Stalin, Caucasian pagan 
Mussolini etc., or of the type of Celtic pagan French 
anarchists.https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/ americas-dangerous-historical- 
ignorance/   Compare it withttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/ 
ignorance-of-history-is-no- joke/Philip Benjamin~~From: 
everyth...@googlegroups. com On Behalf Of John 
Clark
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 8:11 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups. com
Subject: Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno 
Marchal  wrote: 

>>From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
"The son ofGod is omniscient and omnipotent  knowing history in advance and 
being able to control its course”.
 >The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
parabola and should never been taken literally.
 That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
away his many many lies. 
>Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
>christian who believe in the anything as naive.
 You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i- t-y, although I have not personally met them. 
>You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might change 
>your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.
 I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a book 
written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than I 
do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use judgement 
and be selective.  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 
toeveryth...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ 
msgid/everything-list/ CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G% 
2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ% 40mail.gmail.com.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-06-02 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

How is he coherent with you if he is aware of non-computable phenomenon, 
while you are oblivious ?

On Saturday, 1 June 2019 11:11:50 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
>
>
> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result 
> staring the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/23d9580f-d5e4-482b-9460-91edc7fbb5b9%40googlegroups.com.

Drawing a face with nothing to go on but audio

>From looking and listening to millions of Youtube videos a new AI program
has learned how to draw the face of a speaker from just a few seconds of
audio:

Speech2Face: Learning the Face Behind a Voice


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1sjoE_D2HUy7g2hjfG2OGxjeaYOkR1Ub3%3D9DiNEtymEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you
> have not even try to read them

Well of course I haven't read them! Unless your field of study is ancient
literature and primitive cultures only a fool would take the time to read a
2000 year old book, and the history of ancient wrong ideas is not a field
of study I am personally very interested in.

*> That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is “religion” in your
> pejorative sense.*

Yeah yeah I know, I believe you may have mentioned that before, about 6.03
*10^23 times. But instead of repeating that old stale insult I wish you'd
done something original, like answering my question; you can not claim to
be able to read every book ever written, so how do you rationally determine
which books are worth your time and which books are not?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M0FAZKdeMXoj2NPk5gBqdz6kyndUOXkoq5uv4%3Dg%2BmZA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing


> On 2 Jun 2019, at 15:05, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 3:43:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Jun 2019, at 11:26, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 3:11:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
>>> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
>>> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
>> 
>> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
>> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
>> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result 
>> staring the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
>> 
>> We have NOT MAT v NOT MEC,
>> 
>> Equivalently, we have 
>> 
>> MEC -> NOT MAT,
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> MAT -> NOT MEC
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Materialism = (Quantum)Mechanism+Experientialism 
>> 
>> (or just Experiential Mechanism)
> 
> 
> Gödel’s theorem imposes the nuances between all neoplatonist modes of the 
> self:
> 
>  p (truth, “god")
> []p (proof, the world of ideas, the Noùs)
> []p & p (first person experience, the soul)
> 
> []p & <>t (material sharable experiment, first person plural realities)
> []p & <>t & p (material sensible first person experience)
> 
> So you don’t need to add experimentalism, nor materialism, as they are 
> explained from the modes of the digital machine self.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> All logical languages need a substrate (just as all programs need a computer) 
> to be real.

You assume a primitive physical reality. The test does not confirms this up to 
now. If the theory of matter that is in the mind of all universal numbers in 
arithmetic (something that anyone can verify) appears different from the 
physics that we infer from observation, then we could say that there is some 
physical evidence for a primary physical reality, but that has not yet been 
shown.

Bruno 




> 
>> Husserl Revisited: The Forgotten Distinction Between Psychology and 
>> Phenomenology 
>> Jerry L. Jennings 
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Jennings/publication/232418268_Husserl_Revisited_The_Forgotten_Distinction_Between_Psychology_and_Phenomenology/links/568d706408aeaa1481ae545d/Husserl-Revisited-The-Forgotten-Distinction-Between-Psychology-and-Phenomenology.pdf?origin=publication_detail
>>  
>> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/980da58f-fcf5-4fe9-998b-283192df7af2%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/39B90D68-1AED-4341-B20D-9802EDA31E95%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 15:19, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
> 
> OK.
> And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> But still, to run programs, including ones that play bridge, poker, chess,  
> one goes to a computer store and buys a computer to run them in.

Yes, if the goal consists in running a program relatively you environment, but 
the existence of the environment is only explained, when we assume Mechanism, 
by the fact that elementary arithmetic run all programs, and that we are 
distributed in them. It is explained by the non trivial statistics on all 
computations that we get when we take incompleteness and computer science into 
account.

> One doesn't go into Best Buy and buy arithmetic and carry it out the door.

Of course. 

The problem is to explain where the physical computer appearance come from, and 
why there is no more white rabbits. At first sight arithmetic predicts too 
much, but then when we do the math, the too much becomes the solution, a bit 
like in quantum mechanics, it is because the wave describe all the path taken 
by the particles, that we get the destructive interference explain why some 
parts is more common than other.

Mechanism does not oppose to physics, only to physicalism. To use mechanism to 
make physical prediction is like to use string theory to taste a pizza. It 
makes no practical sense.

Physics is usually neutral on after death (unlike many physicalist). With 
Mechanism, we can show how much such question are complicated, but also that we 
have tools to measure that complexit, and get a tentative picture of the 
possible everything, and test it with Nature.

Bruno

> 
> @philipthrift 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74F844ED-609D-46EC-82E9-4E44D9774C2A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less

2019-06-02 Thread Philip Thrift



On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
> and tuned into games people could play.
>
>
> OK.
> And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
But still, to run programs, including ones that play bridge, poker, chess,  
one goes to a computer store and buys a computer to run them in. One 
doesn't go into Best Buy and buy arithmetic and carry it out the door.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ebc15537-99c1-4185-badb-8cac34d25dda%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-06-02 Thread Philip Thrift



On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 3:43:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Jun 2019, at 11:26, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 3:11:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger 
>> Penrose writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
>> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
>>
>>
>> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
>> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
>> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result 
>> staring the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
>>
>> We have NOT MAT v NOT MEC,
>>
>> Equivalently, we have 
>>
>> MEC -> NOT MAT,
>>
>> and
>>
>> MAT -> NOT MEC
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>>
>
>  Materialism = (Quantum)Mechanism+Experientialism 
>
> (or just *Experiential Mechanism*)
>
>
>
> Gödel’s theorem imposes the nuances between all neoplatonist modes of the 
> self:
>
>  p (truth, “god")
> []p (proof, the world of ideas, the Noùs)
> []p & p (first person experience, the soul)
>
> []p & <>t (material sharable experiment, first person plural realities)
> []p & <>t & p (material sensible first person experience)
>
> So you don’t need to add experimentalism, nor materialism, as they are 
> explained from the modes of the digital machine self.
>
> Bruno
>


All logical languages need a substrate (just as all programs need a 
computer) to be real.

*Husserl Revisited: The Forgotten Distinction Between Psychology and 
> Phenomenology *
> Jerry L. Jennings 
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Jennings/publication/232418268_Husserl_Revisited_The_Forgotten_Distinction_Between_Psychology_and_Phenomenology/links/568d706408aeaa1481ae545d/Husserl-Revisited-The-Forgotten-Distinction-Between-Psychology-and-Phenomenology.pdf?origin=publication_detail
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/980da58f-fcf5-4fe9-998b-283192df7af2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Constructive thinking vs dismissive thinking

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 2:38:04 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:33, PGC > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
>> the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
>> able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
>> the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.
>>
>
> You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; 
> hallmarks of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 
>
>
> I proclaim nothing of that kind. I just try to answer question. Let 
> discuss on idea and not people.
>
> I am not sure what you are skeptical about.
>

The entire enterprise.

See: 

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
> > No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined 
> ostensively. 
>
> A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, 
> that we are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity 
> of them. 
>
>
>
> > It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. 
>
> But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your 
> hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a 
> theory, but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with 
> possible facts. 
>

No need for faith in realities means that personal mysticism is up to each 
one of us and cannot be weaponized by folks like you, who may choose to do 
so to promote personal positions and credibility. Nobody needs that to 
proceed with science or metaphysics. One can assume some purposefully 
undefined pluralism and be done with hierarchical follies, their fascisms, 
sidestepping problems of the one and the many, including the deification of 
some lonesome subject who would think through existence, give it conditions 
and arbitrary hierarchies with heavy ethical burdens that may be 
conceptually unsolvable anyway, as well as perform the gullible pacifying 
Christian things, like accounting for the subject's origins and losing 
ourselves in defending unclear notions like consciousness and souls.

Purists and fanatics will always try to sell us the "truth thing" via some 
dialectical strategy of those bad other guys, or mistakes of the world, 
filled with physicalist fanatics for example, and will always emerge as 
messiahs insulting every intelligence in existence. And this doesn't cut it 
as metaphysics anymore. It's the conspiracy trick. Rhetorical flourish. 
Concrete metaphysics/philosophy will never be obtained by weighing the 
inadequacy of some supposed enemy or ideal, your physicalists for example 
against the inadequacy of the arithmetical realist and all the shit he 
can't explain => such metaphysics just concedes its inadequacy. Bad build 
quality. Even with infinite posts, Bruno. Purists will fail to account 
credibly for too many things and guys like me will always find the dirty 
secrets, your prostitutes, zombies, fridges in the sky, rhetorical 
trickery... and we'll call them out when you play preacher of science, 
truth, probity, and arbiter of morals and inquiry for others. 

You may never get the perfect singular thing by correcting a generality 
like some supposed physicalism with another unclear generality like some 
supposed arithmetical realism. And if you think you can, you'll need an 
extraordinary amount of convincing evidence beyond speculative hunches and 
generalized logical fits and possible validities at abstract propositional 
levels. All of Bruce's, Brent's, all phycisists', AND all scientists' 
Christmas wishes, in every branch have to be fulfilled, addressed, and 
optimized. Particularly with ontological claims this expansive: the burden 
of proof must remain equally vast. You have not achieved this, nor 
demonstrated its tractability, therefore "mechanism" is insufficient and 
unconvincing for now. 

And guess what: not assuming some reality assumes your ability to explore 
and share your own mysticism. It values that to such an extent that it 
should be a general duty of citizenship but specifically not to impose a 
nativism or purism in the way others perceive the world and the commons. 
More genuine modesty and respect than "mechanism" on its infinite 
ontological police trip. A pluralism of diversity, aiming towards the 
benevolent avoidance of corruption and crime with a more or less pronounced 
emphasis of the value of the separation of powers and independent inquiry. 
And such metaphysics can have practical application because the environment 
is unclear and unspecified! 

Besides jazz and the pursuit of sexiness, we green buildings, walls, and

Re: Quote by French Mathematician Charles Hermite

Tomas,

Let me add this. Gödel’s theorem does not add any doubt on arithmetic. On the 
contrary it free arithmetic from reductionist theories of Arithmetic. 

Rich theories like PA or ZF proves their own second incompleteness theorem: 
they prove that if they are consistent then they cannot rove that their are 
consistent, making “consistency” already a bit like consciousness (indeed 
conscious reasoner comes up often with the idea that a conscious entity cannot 
prove its consciousness to another entity). 

IF PA was inconsistent, it would of course proves its consistency, for no 
avail, bacuse it would not have any model and be senseless. So Gödel’s theorem 
is more like giving more trust in the mathematical theories, because it shows 
that somehow, the mathematical theories and the ‘rich) machine are rather well 
aware of their limitation, and that explain also why personal semantic (rich 
model encompassing ourselves) requires some act of faith. We are not conscious 
of this, because the brain, for survival propose, makes such act of faith 
instinctive. If the lamb doubt its experience of the wolf, its chance of 
surviving will decline. That explains also why it is hard for most people to 
doubt on some matter, because we are all brain wired, so to speak,  to not 
doubt too much.

With Mechanism, Gödel’s theorem apply to us, as far as we are consistent/sound. 
That is beauty of it; it illustrates that reason can discover its own 
limitation, and why we need some faith to believe in any reality (equivalent 
with self-consistency).

By machine theology, I always mean something very specific: the G* logic 
discovered by Solovay. It is the true part of the logic of machine (and other 
entities) provability/consistency. Solovay knew about G, which concerns the 
provable part of G*. So, science has discovered that for all (enough rich) 
machine, there is a surrational part in between the rational and the irrational 
(false and/or refutable).

Reason explain the reason why reality is larger than what reason can justify, 
and this happens even when we limited ourself to arithmetic.

Gödel’s theorem can be see as the Hubble of mathematics: it shows that it is 
*very* big, and that there is an infinity of surprises awaiting us.

Bruno

> On 1 Jun 2019, at 11:27, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 10:06:31 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 22:27, Tomas Pales > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Existence is just the principle of logical consistency or identity.
> 
> Almost. Peano arithmetic is consistent with the proposition that Peano 
> arithmetic is inconsistent. Consistency is shown rather cheap, and far away 
> from Truth, which is the key notion, but of course not a very obvious one. 
> 
> 
> If PA is consistent, it exists. If PA is not consistent, it doesn't exist. 
> But since PA is subject to Godel's second incompleteness theorem, we may 
> never know, right?
>  
> 
> Here I disagree. 17 is very concrete. It the successor of 16, which is very 
> concrete, etc. With mechanism, 0, 1, 2, 3, … are taken as the most concrete 
> “really existing” object. The moon, and yourself are extremely abstract type, 
> having only phenomenological existence.
> 
> This is what I mean by "abstract" and "concrete":
> 
> abstract: has instances/examples (is a property)
> 
> concrete: has no instances/examples (is not a property)
> 
> Number 17 has instances/examples in any collection of 17 objects (is a 
> property of any collection of 17 objects). Therefore number 17 is an abstract 
> object.
> 
> Our moon has no instances/examples (is not a property of any object, just as 
> Bruno Marchal is not a property of any object). Therefore our moon is a 
> concrete object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2470590b-373e-4595-970c-40409ee19907%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ae74e7-66d0-47f9-baa2-230001d10843%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Constructive thinking vs dismissive thinking


> On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:33, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
> the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
> able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
> the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.
> 
> You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; hallmarks 
> of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 

I proclaim nothing of that kind. I just try to answer question. Let discuss on 
idea and not people.

I am not sure what you are skeptical about. Is it the mechanist hypothesis. I 
am skeptical too, that is why I have been able to show that it is testable, and 
I do not confuse its current day confirmation (the facts that it explain 
consciousness in a way consistent with one of the major theory about matter) as 
a proof that mechanism would be true.

In science we never claim truth, but propose theories and means of testing them.

Bruno






> 
> If there ever was a Swiss journalist, then it would appear that he wasn't 
> doing his job as an investigative journalist.
> 
> If he had done his job and you indeed are in possession of a digital physics, 
> a metaphysics, a theology, a verifiable solution to mind-body problem beyond 
> opinion/belief, or any scientific discourse that merits a prize then it's 
> never to late to claim it. 
> 
> Present your evidence to the parties in question, proceed, and/or fight. PGC
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/401f28d6-831d-4aac-971a-d10048620066%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A6EBFFEC-E89C-4080-A6D5-CD7E4D085206%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Constructive thinking vs dismissive thinking

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 1:40:01 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>
>
>
> BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
> the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
> able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
> the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.
>

You continue to hide from skeptical inquiry, questions, and facts; 
hallmarks of science, while proclaiming to be their champion. 

If there ever was a Swiss journalist, then it would appear that he wasn't 
doing his job as an investigative journalist.

If he had done his job and you indeed are in possession of a digital 
physics, a metaphysics, a theology, a verifiable solution to mind-body 
problem beyond opinion/belief, or any scientific discourse that merits a 
prize then it's never to late to claim it. 

Present your evidence to the parties in question, proceed, and/or fight. PGC

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/401f28d6-831d-4aac-971a-d10048620066%40googlegroups.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

> On 2 Jun 2019, at 13:43, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal Wrote:
>  
> >> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even 
> >> less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read 
> >> every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.
>  
> > You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. 
> 
> Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value than 
> others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book, will 
> be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does not 
> need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad. 

It is only with the advent of Quantum Mechanics that physicists begin to grasp 
the problem of relating first person description and third  person theory. Ot 
out Everett’s wording, the importance of the difference between the subjective 
and some possible objective knowledge.

But that is just because the theological paradigm has been unchallenged since a 
long time. Before that, people (I mean the intellectuals) were totally aware of 
that problem, and indeed platonism was already a reaction toward the belief 
that realty is fundamentally, or ontological material. 

The fact that you compare Plotinus ir Proclus to a Caveman shows that you have 
not even try to read them, and that add evidence that you seem unable to doubt 
your material hypothesis. That is dogmatic thinking I’m afraid. It is 
“religion” in your pejorative sense. Doing metaphysics or theology with the 
scientific attitude consists first in doubting all possible theories, and 
providing some test to evaluate them. There is no other method. Deciding that 
metaphysics *cannot* be done in this way, is the usual means by dogmatic people 
to conserve the metaphysics of their time, and make it unchallengeable. It 
keeps up the obscurantist statu quo.

Bruno 

> 
> > That is hardly rational.
> 
> You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you 
> rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is 
> time that could have been spent reading some other book. 

> 
>  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RrB9jJ_8QuzPqS%2BqtMmTQ%2BPUQCwpRH7MCtGsyUesBWw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B290C9AC-2EC6-4428-8A69-B0963C22B701%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

Bruno Marchal Wrote:


> >> I see little point in reading a book written by someone who knows even
>> less about how the world really works than I do. Life is too short to read
>> every book ever written so one must use judgement and be selective.
>
>

*> You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. *


Yes, it takes very little study to conclude some books are of more value
than others and reading a 2500 year old book, or even a 1500 year old book,
will be of little or no help in solving modern physics mysteries. One does
not need to eat the entire egg to know it is bad.

*> That is hardly rational.*


You can not claim to have read every book ever written, so how do you
rationally determine which books are worth your time? And remember this is
time that could have been spent reading some other book.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0RrB9jJ_8QuzPqS%2BqtMmTQ%2BPUQCwpRH7MCtGsyUesBWw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Constructive thinking vs dismissive thinking

> On 30 May 2019, at 14:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List =
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>>
wrote:
> =20
> Why don't you have a Nobel prize if your theory is the best ?

Why is cannabis still schedule one?

Why is theology still not back at the academy of science?

Take the human factor into account.

The lies on cannabis are known by
virtually all experts in the field since day one of prohibition, but the
lies continue. They are recent, though, so you can imagine it will take
time for reason to come back in theology, where the brainwashing has
already lasted for 1500 years.

Also, there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics, and then neither Gödel,
nor any logician have ever got the Field Medal, (the math “Nobel Prize),
but they are those having contributed to all what I try to explain here.

BTW, I already got the prize of the best French-talking PhD thesis in
the year 1998, but none of the journalists who interviewed me has been
able to publish their paper, except the one from Switzerland. Eventually
the prize lead to a campaign of defamation instead of promotion.

Discovering something is not enough. There are many other parameters,
and in the foundational sciences, we are still not cured from the
argument of authority, both in Church and in some (not all) Academies.
That will take time, if ever.

Bruno

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/40AF0D60-6DC5-4D04-9C6B-4B178F796C55%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Quote by French Mathematician Charles Hermite


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 11:27, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 10:06:31 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 22:27, Tomas Pales > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Existence is just the principle of logical consistency or identity.
> 
> Almost. Peano arithmetic is consistent with the proposition that Peano 
> arithmetic is inconsistent. Consistency is shown rather cheap, and far away 
> from Truth, which is the key notion, but of course not a very obvious one. 
> 
> 
> If PA is consistent, it exists. If PA is not consistent, it doesn't exist.

If PA is consistent, a Model of PA exists. Most people believe that PA is 
consistent, because they have learned the standard model (N, 0, +, x) at school.







> But since PA is subject to Godel's second incompleteness theorem, we may 
> never know, right?

Even PA knows it. What Gödel’s show is that not theory/machine can prove its 
own consistency.

If PA would inconsistent, it would still exist. Inconsistent people, machine 
and numbers exists already in the model of RA (which is much weaker than PA).


>  
> 
> Here I disagree. 17 is very concrete. It the successor of 16, which is very 
> concrete, etc. With mechanism, 0, 1, 2, 3, … are taken as the most concrete 
> “really existing” object. The moon, and yourself are extremely abstract type, 
> having only phenomenological existence.
> 
> This is what I mean by "abstract" and "concrete":
> 
> abstract: has instances/examples (is a property)
> 
> concrete: has no instances/examples (is not a property)
> 
> Number 17 has instances/examples in any collection of 17 objects (is a 
> property of any collection of 17 objects). Therefore number 17 is an abstract 
> object.
> 
> Our moon has no instances/examples (is not a property of any object, just as 
> Bruno Marchal is not a property of any object). Therefore our moon is a 
> concrete object.

I can accept such definition. Then 0, 1, 2, … are concrete. Prime becomes a 
property and is abstract in that setting, but then computers are even more 
abstract and physical computer still even more, and the moon can be said to 
instantiate the theory of the moon, unless you postulate that there is “really” 
a moon out there, which is incoherent with the mechanist hypothesis, where the 
numbers (or Turing equivalent). (If you are aware that mechanism and 
materialism oppose each other logically (see my papers if not, it is still 
rather ignored).

Bruno



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2470590b-373e-4595-970c-40409ee19907%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/30ae74e7-66d0-47f9-baa2-230001d10843%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4AE65D92-D9E3-4AE9-B686-6D58397BB194%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less


> On 31 May 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 4:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>> 
>>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>>> ghosts) that make up nature.
>> 
>> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
>> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
>> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
>> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
>> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
>> 
>> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
>> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
>> a stage play to "realize" the characters.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
>> interesting alternative.
>> 
>> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
>> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
>> are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
>> facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
>> logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
>> accommodated in a purely physical ontology
> 
> Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I notice 
> that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic has true 
> propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could create a 
> hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would be another 
> formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are the natural 
> numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized in order to serve 
> as a model?
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> One way I can see to proceed materially is to assume that physical ITTMs can 
> be produced
> 
> Infinite-Time Turing Machines
> Joel David Hamkins, Andy Lewis
> https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9808093 
> 
> or something like that where literally infinite-in-length proofs can be 
> "written".
> 
> 
> Or better, some sort of Löbian Theorem Prover which does complete in finite 
> time with finite resources.
> 
> Parametric Bounded Löb’s Theorem and RobustCooperation of Bounded Agents
> Andrew Critch
> https://intelligence.org/files/ParametricBoundedLobsTheorem.pdf
> 
> Löb’s theorem and Gödel’s theorem make predictions about the behavior of
> self-reflective systems with unbounded computational resources with which to
> write and evaluate proofs. However, in the real world, self-reflective systems
> will have limited memory and processing speed, so in this paper we introduce
> an effective version of Löb’s theorem theorem which is applicable given such
> bounded resources. These results have powerful implications for the game
> theory of bounded agents who are able to write proofs about themselves and
> one another, including the capacity to out-perform classical Nash equilibria.


Interesting. Löb’s result are even more fundamental for the … fundamental 
studies, but I don’t claim it is only its main application.

Bruno 



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8676a27-a2b2-45a3-a3d6-5cbc6fc5b3e7%40googlegroups.com
>  
>

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:02:57 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
> > No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined 
> ostensively. 
>
> A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, 
> that we are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity 
> of them. 
>
>
>
> > It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles. 
>
> But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your 
> hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a 
> theory, but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with 
> possible facts. 
>

No need for faith in realities means that personal mysticism is up to each 
one of us and cannot be weaponized by folks like you, who may choose to do 
so to promote personal positions and credibility. Nobody needs that to 
proceed with science or metaphysics. One can assume some purposefully 
undefined pluralism and be done with hierarchical follies, their fascisms, 
sidestepping problems of the one and the many, including the deification of 
some lonesome subject who would think through existence, give it conditions 
and arbitrary hierarchies with heavy ethical burdens that may be 
conceptually unsolvable anyway, as well as perform the gullible pacifying 
Christian things, like accounting for the subject's origins and losing 
ourselves in defending unclear notions like consciousness and souls.

Purists and fanatics will always try to sell us the "truth thing" via some 
dialectical strategy of those bad other guys, or mistakes of the world, 
filled with physicalist fanatics for example, and will always emerge as 
messiahs insulting every intelligence in existence. And this doesn't cut it 
as metaphysics anymore. It's the conspiracy trick. Rhetorical flourish. 
Concrete metaphysics/philosophy will never be obtained by weighing the 
inadequacy of some supposed enemy or ideal, your physicalists for example 
against the inadequacy of the arithmetical realist and all the shit he 
can't explain => such metaphysics just concedes its inadequacy. Bad build 
quality. Even with infinite posts, Bruno. Purists will fail to account 
credibly for too many things and guys like me will always find the dirty 
secrets, your prostitutes, zombies, fridges in the sky, rhetorical 
trickery... and we'll call them out when you play preacher of science, 
truth, probity, and arbiter of morals and inquiry for others. 

You'll never get the perfect singular thing by correcting a generality like 
some supposed physicalism with another unclear generality like some 
supposed arithmetical realism. And if you think you can, you'll need an 
extraordinary amount of convincing evidence beyond speculative hunches and 
generalized logical fits and possible validities. All of Bruce's, Brent's, 
and all phycisists' Christmas wishes have to be fulfilled and optimized. 
You have not achieved this, therefore "mechanism" is insufficient and 
unconvincing for now. 

And guess what: not assuming some reality assumes your ability to explore 
and share your own mysticism. It values that to such an extent that it 
should be a general duty of citizenship but specifically not to impose a 
nativism or purism in the way others perceive the world and the commons. 
More genuine modesty and respect than "mechanism" on its infinite 
ontological police trip. A pluralism of diversity, aiming towards the 
benevolent avoidance of corruption and crime with a more or less pronounced 
emphasis of the value of the separation of powers and independent inquiry. 
And such metaphysics can have practical application because the environment 
is unclear and unspecified! 

Besides jazz and the pursuit of sexiness, we green buildings, walls, and 
roofs. We do biodiversity studies and try to preserve systemic plurality, 
not for some ideological trip, but because plurality of species in an area 
prevents desertification. Survival in style, open for optimization. Similar 
in politics and education: we don't need monoculture, puristic hierarchical 
thinking. That's corporations and spy industry running on cynical 
metaphysics of advertising and power, which places science in hiding. It's 
well-organized abuse even if all those folks have good hearts. And without 
some purist perfectionism we can still make deals with their agents, treat 
them with respect the way we treat ourselves, collaborate on a level where 
we get the most for common futures as far as we can see, confront them on 
what we believe to be the central issues, and work to limit our usual 
tendencies towards self-destruction in short term gain. With all the crazy 
shit out there, I also see more and more folks relating to these notions.

And that's infinitely better for than whining about perfect ontologies and 
their/our credibility. Doing it: everybody thinking,

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less


> On 31 May 2019, at 15:37, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>> 
>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>> in extracting it from the bug.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>> ghosts) that make up nature.
> 
> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken and 
> tuned into games people could play.

OK.
And all games, like all programs, are played (run) in arithmetic. 



> 
> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make a 
> stage play to "realize" the characters.

Yes, but that makes not them real. Sherlock Holmes is fictional by definition.



> 
> 
> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
> interesting alternative.
> 
> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf
> 
> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there are 
> logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical facts 
> of the world.

Assuming there is an ontological world, which is precisely what I have never 
found any evidence for. 



> The aim of this paper is to clarify what logical/mathematical facts actually 
> are and how these facts can be accommodated in a purely physical ontology

That is logically impossible when we assume mechanism.



> 
> 
> 
> No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being material and 
> some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to wiggle out of that.


Yes, if one believe in things like an ontological Matter, dualism is 
unavoidable, and that is per se already a good reason to doubt that an 
ontological material reality make any sense. But with mechanism, we need to 
assume arithmetic (just to recover Turing’s definition of computation), and 
then it can be shown that we cannot add any more axioms (that what we need to 
have digital universal machine), all the rest has to be deduced from 
arithmetic/computer-science, at the machine’s phenomenological level. It works, 
until now.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ECD3E889-9FE1-4B46-A9A0-22A93F2826BA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Consciousness in 5 grams or less


> On 31 May 2019, at 23:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/2019 6:37 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 5:25:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 May 2019, at 14:32, Philip Thrift > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:18:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You told me that consciousness is material. Please extract it from the bug, 
>>> and send me 5g of pure consciousness extract. 
>>> 
>>> I have few doubt that insect and arthropodes have some first person 
>>> (conscious) experience, so if consciousness is material, you should succeed 
>>> in extracting it from the bug.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not a dualist, so there is no X is material and Y is immaterial (like 
>>> ghosts) that make up nature.
>> 
>> But a game of bridge is something immaterial, not be confused with its 
>> implementation. I don’t believe in ghost, but I believe in a tun or 
>> immaterial things. Using fictionalism to dismiss the existence of immaterial 
>> thing, like numbers, will make eventually the whole physical reality, and 
>> mathematical reality into fiction, making the term devoid of meaning.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A game a bridge - I suppose as something literally defined with words and 
>> symbols in a book on bridge - can be seen as some sort of algorithm or 
>> (dynamic) mathematical structure even. There are probably fictional board 
>> games in fantasy literature - like Game of Thrones - which could be taken 
>> and tuned into games people could play.
>> 
>> But these are not immaterial from the fictionalist standpoint, just as one 
>> can take the fictional Sherlock Homes in a Arthur Conan Doyle text and make 
>> a stage play to "realize" the characters.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't like fictionalism, and you won't like this either, but it is an 
>> interesting alternative.
>> 
>> ttp://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/szabo-math_in_physical-v2.pdf
>> 
>> If physicalism is true, everything is physical. In other words, everything 
>> supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. Accordingly, if there 
>> are logical/mathematical facts, they must be necessitated by the physical 
>> facts of the world. The aim of this paper is to clarify what 
>> logical/mathematical facts actually are and how these facts can be 
>> accommodated in a purely physical ontology
> 
> Interesting explication of the materialist view of mathematics.  I notice 
> that he didn't directly consider Goedel's idea that arithmetic has true 
> propositions that can't be proven.  I can see that he could create a 
> hierarchy of  formal systems in which the natural numbers would be another 
> formal system which the semantics of PA refer to.  But are the natural 
> numbers a formal system...or do they have to be formalized in order to serve 
> as a model?

By Gödel’s 1930 theorem (the completeness theorem, not the incompleteness 
theorem): all consistant theories have a model, in fact all essentially 
undecidable theories (like RA; PA, ZF, …) have an infinity of non-isomorphic 
models. 

Two equivalent version of the completeness theorem (for first order theories) 
are:

A theory is consistent iff it has a model.

A theory proves a proposition p iff p is true in all the models of the theory.

By incompleteness, no (enough rich, essentially undecidable) theories can 
define its own model, or its one semantic (the model of a theory is the same as 
a semantic of a theory).

The fact that, for all effective theory there are true proposition in the 
(standard) model of arithmetic that is not provable in that theory is not 
really an idea by Gödel, but a theorem in mathematics, by Gödel.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> No matter how one obscures things, to see things as some being material and 
>> some being immaterial is dualism. There is no way to wiggle out of that.
>> 
>> @philipthrift
>> -- 
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6478ac38-9796-4511-950a-e042885613af%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a6538239-fabf-6853-a868-d5bac6f98211%40verizon.net
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 09:37, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:08 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 31 May 2019, at 20:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
>> On 5/31/2019 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Theology has asked all problems which led to science.
>> 
>> Nonsense.  The earliest known science was from the school of Thales of 
>> Miletus.  Thales rejected all explanation in terms of spirits, demons, and 
>> gods.  This was already contrary to the theology of the time.
> 
> Contrary to popular religion and myth, but that is what Plato and especially 
> the followers will “cure”, even “Aristotle”. That is the origin of science, 
> including for a millenium theology. 
> 
> You do talk a lot of unmitigated nonsense, Bruno.

Which one?

Bruno


> 
> Bruce
>  
> 
> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQZq6R6Sg475K7w29PteB6TNBZGDArgQD%3DRsTmPTNU4Fg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4DCE9EFD-79ED-4448-A851-05C1BF02BEFE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 11:26, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 3:11:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 31 May 2019, at 14:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> But you just said in another post that you are familiar with Roger Penrose 
>> writing about non-computational phenomena. How do you reconcile 
>> non-computational phenomena with computationalism ?
> 
> Despite his non valid use of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Penrose is 
> coherent with my reasoning. He believes in primitive matter and reject 
> mechanism. I keep mechanism and reject materialism. My simpler result staring 
> the whole thing is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible.
> 
> We have NOT MAT v NOT MEC,
> 
> Equivalently, we have 
> 
> MEC -> NOT MAT,
> 
> and
> 
> MAT -> NOT MEC
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
>  Materialism = (Quantum)Mechanism+Experientialism 
> 
> (or just Experiential Mechanism)


Gödel’s theorem imposes the nuances between all neoplatonist modes of the self:

 p (truth, “god")
[]p (proof, the world of ideas, the Noùs)
[]p & p (first person experience, the soul)

[]p & <>t (material sharable experiment, first person plural realities)
[]p & <>t & p (material sensible first person experience)

So you don’t need to add experimentalism, nor materialism, as they are 
explained from the modes of the digital machine self.

Bruno





> 
> 
> Husserl Revisited: The Forgotten Distinction Between Psychology and 
> Phenomenology 
> Jerry L. Jennings 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Jennings/publication/232418268_Husserl_Revisited_The_Forgotten_Distinction_Between_Psychology_and_Phenomenology/links/568d706408aeaa1481ae545d/Husserl-Revisited-The-Forgotten-Distinction-Between-Psychology-and-Phenomenology.pdf?origin=publication_detail
> 
> Husserl condemned the philosophy which equates experience with physical 
> events. Basically, the forgotten distinction between phenomenology and 
> psychology is that the former analyzes the essential character of various 
> types of conscious acts, whereas the latter studies the empirical contents of 
> actual subjective experiences corresponding to
> actual existent environmental events.
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6aafab6d-cacc-44cb-8009-7da0d324d95d%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09570947-A82C-48B3-9524-0EF6916635AA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
 this by ostentation.
>>> 
>>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
>>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>> 
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
> 
> Ostensive definitions are semantic.  You point down where you're standing and 
> say "Earth"...that's how children learn words.  And having defined Earth as 
> that which we stand on we have not believed anything about it's overall shape.

I answered this, then send the mail to quickly. I add some more comment below. 


> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
 omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
 correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have 
 a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 
 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to 
 just mock it.
 
 I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
 vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
 God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
 physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
 metaphysical brainwashing.
 
 If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
 can show it to us.
>>> 
>>> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
>> 
>> Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
>> and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
>> reality is primitive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
>>> matter of faith…
>> 
>> Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
>> faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.
>> 
>> There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
>> the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating 
>> neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying 
>> “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some 
>> aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an 
>> hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an 
>> elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics 
 is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an 
 evidence that reality is psychological.
>>> 
>>> You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
>>> don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So 
>>> you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to 
>>> criticize it and pretend you are above it.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
> 
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle.


To make this into a theory, you need to explain where that virtuous circle 
comes from. With mechanism, you have the mathematical tools to address the 
“circle” (recursive definition). Probably not its “virtuous” nature.

To say that nothing is primitive will not work: you will need the axioms to get 
the things making the circle into a reality.

Then with mechanism, you can choose any presentation of the sigma_1 
arithmetical reality, be it the elementary axioms of arithmetic, or the 
combinators.




> 
>> 
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>> 
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
>> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
>> recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.
> 
> No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively. 

A definition by ostension, requires the faith that there is a reality, that we 
are not dreaming or in an arithmetical video game, or an infinity of them.



> It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.

But you need an act of faith to believe that there isa reality behind your 
hypothesises principles. You don’t need faith the formally deduce in a theory, 
but you need a faith in a reality to confront the theory with possible facts.




> 
>> 
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 1 Jun 2019, at 17:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/2019 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 No. The early definition of Earth was a flat surface, and people believed 
 this by ostentation.
>>> 
>>> Now you're just twisting words.  Ostensive definition is by pointing.  One 
>>> can't believe a proposition by ostentation.
>> 
>> Semantic play. If you are right, then we cannot believe that ostensive 
>> definition makes sense.
> 
> Ostensive definitions are semantic. 

OK.

But no sound machine can define its semantic. Ostensive definition requires an 
act of fait in some undefinable reality. 


> You point down where you're standing and say "Earth"...that's how children 
> learn words.  And having defined Earth as that which we stand on we have not 
> believed anything about it's overall shape.

Exactly like the god of the (Neo)platonists. They assume some Reality (called 
God) at the origin of everything, and they do not assume much more, but propose 
theories and means to make sense of them.

When a theologian has the scientific attitude, no one could know what is his 
personal opinion on that matter. He only propose principles or theories, shows 
the consequences and the means to test the theory.

Here the materialist often fails, as they talk like if they knew primitive 
matter exists, and never propose anyway to test that idea. It is normal, 
because there are evidence and reason why the brain has not been 
prepared/“programmed”, through evolution, to handle the metaphysical subtleties.


Bruno




> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 Similarly, even Christians have argued that God cannot be omniscient and 
 omnipotent when they discovered that those notion were inconsistent. The 
 correspondence between cantor and a bishop shows that christians can have 
 a conception of God quite similar to the neoplatonician one, still in the 
 19th century. Only atheists defends the fairy tale religion, I guess to 
 just mock it.
 
 I got problems with "atheist scientist” which are shocked by the 
 vocabulary. For a very long period, the terms which shocked them was not 
 God, but “consciousness” or even “mind”. That is because they confuse 
 physics and metaphysics, and that is rather natural after 1500 years of 
 metaphysical brainwashing.
 
 If you have just one evidence for a physically *primitive* reality, you 
 can show it to us.
>>> 
>>> Can you show one evidence for anything being *primitive* reality?
>> 
>> Yes. But you might need to revise some of my papers. If all of S4Grz1, Z1* 
>> and X1* depart from nature, that would be an evidence that the physical 
>> reality is primitive.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As you often say in other contexts, belief in a primitive reality is a 
>>> matter of faith…
>> 
>> Belief in any reality different that the consciousness here and now require 
>> faith. But being primitive or not is theorisable and testable
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> except more cautious scientists call it an hypothesis, not a leap of faith.
>> 
>> There is a subtle difference between faith and hypothesis. It is typically 
>> the difference between reasoning with the mechanist hypothesis (and stating 
>> neutral or mute about the personal belief we can have or not), and saying 
>> “yes” to the doctor in a concrete real life situation. Faith is when some 
>> aspect of your first person experience depends crucially on the truth of an 
>> hypothesis. It is the difference between jumping from a cliff with an 
>> elastic, and just assuming the elastic is good enough without jumping.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 The ostensive physical reality itself is no more an evidence that physics 
 is the fundamental science that the sharable introspection would be an 
 evidence that reality is psychological.
>>> 
>>> You use the word "fundamental" as though it were a sacred benediction.  You 
>>> don't know what is fundamental...or even if anything is fundamental.  So 
>>> you are merely inventing a pseuedo-religion of physicalism in order to 
>>> criticize it and pretend you are above it.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> Fundamental, primitive … means “has to be assumed”.
> 
> Then I would say nothing is primitive.  That's the point of my virtuous 
> circle.
> 
>> 
>> We believe that he principle X is fundamental or primitive if we believe 
>> that it cannot be recovered from other principle.
>> 
>> Physicalism assumes that some physical principle have to be assumed to get a 
>> physical reality, like vitalism assumed that some aspect of life cannot be 
>> recovered, even in principle,  by another science like chemistry or physics.
> 
> No.  Physical things don't have to be assumed, they are defined ostensively.  
> It is only the theorizing that hypothesizes principles.
> 
>> 
>> I guess you agree that vitalism is abandoned, and that most scientist accept 
>> that biology can be reduced to quantum mechanics, even if only in principle.
>> 
>> With

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity


> On 1 Jun 2019, at 15:10, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> From the Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7 page 792:
> "The son of God is omniscient and omnipotent knowing history in advance and 
> being able to control its course”.
> 
> > The Pope Jean-Paul 2 made explicit that all statement of that kind are 
> > parabola and should never been taken literally.
> 
> That's the exact same excuse Trump suporters use when they to try to explain 
> away his many many lies.
>  
> > Of course, that is debated by some catholic, bu I have still never met a 
> > christian who believe in the anything as naive.
> 
> You sure have not met many Christians!  I have never met a Christian who 
> didn't believe something exactly that naive. I concede there are a few that 
> have abandoned the idea of Christianity but not the ASCII sequence 
> C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-i-t-y, although I have not personally met them.

That is possible. Maybe the European christians are more protected from 
irrationalism than the American one, where there is that evangelical permanent 
shows.




>  
> > You might read the book by Jean Trouillard or Paul Valadier. You might 
> > change your mind on this, but perhaps you don’t want to change your mind.
> 
> I don't want to read their books because I see little point in reading a book 
> written by someone who knows even less about how the world really works than 
> I do. Life is too short to read every book ever written so one must use 
> judgement and be selective.

You confirme that you criticise what you have not studied. That is hardly 
rational.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3hVx%3D2Oogeu3gVY6G%2BOVpP7_KNbDe-QJX9t9OQbd_ZBQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AB139B1B-698F-4DA7-BA45-B554733ED556%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity