### Re: Holiday Exercise

```On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 05 Aug 2016, at 15:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 5/08/2016 10:11 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/08/2016 9:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Just tell me if you are OK with question 1. The Helsinki guy is told
that BOTH copies will have a hot drink after the reconstitutions, in both
Moscow and Washington. Do you agree that the Helsinki guy (a believer in
computationalism) will believe that he can expect, in Helsinki, with
probability, or credibility, or plausibility ONE (resp maximal) to have
some hot drink after pushing the button in Helsinki?

>>>
>>> As I said, the H-guy can expect to drink two cups of coffee.
>>>
>>
>> Once again, some amplification of the this answer is perhaps in order. I
>> cannot answer your question with a Yes/No as you wish because the question
>> is basically dishonest -- of the form of "Have you stopped beating your
>> wife yet?". The question contains an implicit assumption that the
>> differentiation takes place.
>>
>
>
> Not at all. Question 1 is neutral on this, but if you prefer I split
> question 1 into two different questions.
>
> Question 1a.
> The H-guy is told that the coffee is offered *in* the reconstitution
> boxes, and that it has the same taste. Put it differently, we ensure that
> the differentiation has not yet occurred.
> And the question 1a is the same, assuming he is a coffee addict, and that
> he wants drink coffee as soon as possible, should he worried, knowing the
> protocol telling the coffee is offered, or can he argue that he is not
> worried, and that if comp is true and everything go well, P("drinking
> coffee") = 1?
>
> Question 1b
> Same question, but now, the coffee is offered after the opening of the
> doors.
>
>
>
>
>
> Since it is this differentiation that is in question, the question is
>> disingenuous: it can only be answered as I have done above.
>>
>
> Oh nice! The Helsinki guy, as a coffee addict, is very please you tell him
> that he will drink two cups of coffee.
>

If this kind of connection can be made, then you play right into the hands
of the people who accuse you or your work to be "anything goes". And I say
this because I believe your work has some merit to it, when you're not
trying to shove it down people's throat a la "WHAT IS YOUR THEOLOGY?" in
setting of a public list.

The kind of pushiness of late, tactics of flooding the list with posts
where you set discussion forcibly, and explicitly demanding your questions
to be answered seem to paint a picture where you abandon your own
convictions: modesty, avoidance of blasphemy, use of linguistic games where
only you can set the frame, argument from authority etc. I liked the old
Bruno from 2015 better who didn't need to resort to these things to make a
point.

Particularly the cheap way of trying to ensnare people into discussing your
research interests. So obvious and so out of character, it makes one wonder
as to your general welfare. Play nice, folks! Take care of yourselves. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Holiday Exercise

```On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 Aug 2016, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 8/3/2016 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Aug 2016, at 20:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>

On 8/2/2016 6:15 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> It's not that it can't, but rather that it doesn't, and if it does
> then that would require some extra physical explanation, a radio link
> between brains or something.
>

That's what I mean by illegitimately appealing to physics while
claiming that physics must be derived from computation of consciousness.

>>>
>>> Are you OK with Clark's answer to question 1?
>>>
>>
>> I've given up following your exchanges with Clark.  They seem to be about
>> semantics.
>>
>
> It is enough to interpret "gibberish" by "I have no more argument".
>
>
You can't fault people for not reading "gibberish" which you continue to
entertain daily, as worthy of replies and full attention of the list for
years. If they are gibberish why the years of daily replies in my inbox?

Exchanges of friendship? I'm not sure friends talk to each other that way
for years, where it remains unclear from both sides if there even is a real
difference in between all the vain orgies of righteous hair splitting. To
prove people stature and erudition? Regardless of the content, the guy
entertaining gibberish, telling people to interpret it as "I have no
argument" for him to consequently "have the real argument" doesn't paint
the best picture. Blatant assumption of superiority in a context of
supposedly rational exchange. Decidedly un-mystical and dogmatic from both
of you. Both are using each other and the list for more self-promotion than
discussion and should count themselves lucky to have each other, as both
obviously fulfill each others' need.

You could thank each other for providing yourselves with raison d'etre.
That would be funny: a photo of you both having a beer instead of all the
disguised rancour.

For those that hope for some political or theological reference/orientation
that comp may provide, look right here: this is merely human same old.
Establishing and keeping a medieval pecking order, enforcing it with old
tactics, fetishizing status and names => THIS is the theory of personal
identity and the "scientific reasoning" it has always produced that Bruno
points toward. Somebody indeed bring us a teleportation device.

If anything the broader tendency here tarnishes possible points from any
side as closer to advertising, forcing opinions with linguistic games etc.
Welcome to the internet. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Holiday Exercise

```On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 02 Aug 2016, at 22:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 8/2/2016 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. The existence of the computations is an elementary
>>> Arithmetic (still less that what is needed to enunciate Church Thesis).
>>>
>>
>> I don't think you can get existence from axioms.  Otherwise I could take
>> "unicorns exist" as an axiom and they would.
>>
>
> You can, and if you derive the physical laws from the existence of
> unicorn, then it might be an interesting theory. But more people believe
> that 2+2 = 4, than in the existence of unicorn, and no interesting results
> have ever been obtained from the existence of unicorn.
>
>

Thank goodness "more people believe" but "no interesting results" is a
matter of taste, definitions, ultimately what you call theology. 5 Million
people think differently and have purchased "The Last Unicorn" by Peter
Beagle. Not bad for a publication of any kind.

It features the character *King Haggard as a withdrawn, misanthropic, and
miserable King who cares for no one, not even his adopted son Prince Lír.
His loneliness and misery is only alleviated by the sight of unicorns. *

That IS interesting in that it features a character who withdraws from the
world, only accepting the parts that fit his personal mysticism of
unicorns. The rest, he rejects, for example if they answer his questions in
a fashion that he dislikes. Of course, one day he lets in the girl/unicorn
that will be his downfall, thinking in his isolated madness that she can be
controlled enough from the distance/defenses of his safe tower. I wonder
why he still let her into the castle in the first place, even if his
loneliness is obvious.

I don't believe in some kind of pissing contest between science,
mathematics, theology, and fiction because I enjoy them all. To the rest of
you: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION SO WE CAN PROCEED. THANKS! WOULD ANYBODY DENY
THE PROGRESS IN MOVING FORWARD? SO WHY NOT JUST DO IT? ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS! 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Holiday Exercise

```In the fictional realm of art, where everything is a lie and the winning
theory is the yummiest, all these things: cleopatra personhood
intertwinedity river of thought are easily fusionated by some guy and girl
playing Joni songs for example:

(Apologies if the copyright cops block this wherever you are, in which
case: ignore this post.)

Not that anybody knows what they're doing or what any of those things
are... but we still dare to guess about those rather large things fusioning
and place the notes accordingly. Even with the probability of making fools
of ourselves... and who cares? We could be the large sort of kind fool, and
what's so terrible about that? PGC

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
> On 7/19/2016 12:28 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> Abandoning the transitivity of identity is difficult in general because
>> it is precisely that transitivity that gives us a reliable notion of the
>> continuity of personhood through time. The things that might seem to
>> violate transitivity in duplication (copies in separate locations, etc,
>> that is, non-psychological differences), also would give violations of
>> transitivity relating copies of the same person at different times and
>> places. We need a principled account of exactly what leads to the violation
>> of transitivity in one case and not in the other.
>>
>
> I think this is looking at the problem the wrong way; it's trying to fit
> the world to a word.  It's not transitivity that gives us a reliable notion
> of the continuity of personhood.  We already had the notion of continuity
> and we invented the concept of transitivity (actually in other contexts)
> and applied it to personhood.  There's no reason we should not recognize
> personhood as having several empirical bases: memories, similarity of
> bodies, continuity of location,...  Personhood is not some logical
> attribute that must have a sharp mathematical definition, as I tried to
> illustrate by the problem of Eve.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Holiday Exercise

```The bickering levels reach a fever pitch and the two teams haven't even
reached consensus concerning their status as teams at all in the first
place. Then there are the heretics that question not only the match but
game theory as well.

But the drug is too hard to resist: to bicker... once more... and preside
over the top of the list, reigning supreme defender of one's own biases
over the biases of all other petty bickerers! Pure power. Pure status for
pure text served straight by valiant knights selflessly dropping knowledge
manna from heavens of surveillance. Sex for people deprived of the same.

In general philosophically naive? Well I guess the fuckin gloves are off
then because now the matter hits the fan. No turning back. Cleanup is for
chumps that are addicted to WHATEVER it was that hit the fan, while we do
require the nuance that Plato didn't have toilet papyrus or a pedophile
fountain handy at all times.

So naive then, huh? What a tangled web those weave calling their children
naive for taking what others post on the internet literally. What? You
believe in posts of the interwebs? And you're calling people naive for
posting them through posting another post in the midst of their posts?
Delicious. We want more!

Therefore bickereth forth brave souls; the savior may actually emerge from
this mess with a point, publish it here as a universal scientific
contribution, and there'll be infinite glory and status for all list
members. And zombie virgins and strawberry ice cream too.

Physicalism, Materialism, Computationalism, Ismismismism... the winner is
who farts and invokes the mythomagical linguistic hallucinatory spell of
freedom from the fundamental law of digital bickering: "I have to go." with
the slick implication that I am too popular for my own shmatter. Too many
friends and too much divine work, better places and stuff, you see? Place
needs more seriousness- no space for weekend nominalists. PGC

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:

> On 15/07/2016 8:31 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Bruce Kellett
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/07/2016 11:03 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Although I think JKC has a point about pronouns, I don't see what it has
>>> to
>>> do with Bruno's theory.  He just proposes this as an illustration of
>>> first-person-indetermancy as implicit in Everett's interpretation of QM.
>>> It has problems with probability, but so does Everett's QM - what does
>>> probability refer to when everything happens.  The question of which JKC
>>> just gets mapped to which world.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. I have made this point before. The first six or seven steps of
>>> Bruno's argument are not really necessary. It is only when he moves the
>>> Universal Dovetailer into platonia in step 8 that anything new actually
>>> happens.
>>>
>> I don't think the argument would pack the same punch without the
>> previous steps. It's easy to dismiss the move to platonia without
>> them. With them it is not so easy -- unless you resort to linguistic
>> tricks like confusing 1p and 3p on purpose.
>>
>
> It is easy to dismiss the move to platonia at any time. Confusing 1p and
> 3p is not relevant here.
>
> He could have started there and argued for the reversal of physics
>>> and computationalism directly. The duplication of persons is just a
>>> distracting irrelevance to the main argument,
>>>
>> The duplication machines are an excellent device to expose materialist
>> self-contraditions (if you do not assume dualism).
>>
>
> Materialism or physicalism? I don't think I am trying to defend the idea
> that matter excludes the mental. Besides, where is the self-contradiction
> in materialism (or physicalism)?
>
> I don't see how
>> these contradictions would be exposed by outright proposing the move
>> to platonia. This feels like an attempt to "put Bruno in his place" by
>> forcing him to defang his argument.
>>
>
> If you propose the UD in platonia and derive physics from computations
> through conscious persons, the "contradictions of materialism", if there
> are such, become irrelevant.
>
> and depends so heavily on a
>>> particular theory of personal identity as to be essentially useless.
>>>
>> Would you mind restating Bruno's theory of personal identity in your
>> own words (so that we can agree that we are on the same page) and the
>> present a conflicting theory? I think this is the way forward.
>> Otherwise it's just subtle ad hominen: "you are ignorant about the
>> topic of personal identity!"
>>
>
> People on this list seem to be very quick to interpret a lack of
> philosophical insight into anything (theories of personal identity here) as
> an ad hominem, whereas it is often a simple statement of fact. Bruno
> himself is always criticizing his critics for a lack of understanding of
> modal logics and computer science. I find the commenters on this list to
> be, in general, philosophically ```

### Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

```What if John does not want to engage with the argument?

Shouldn't it be his right to say "no"?

I'm arriving at the conclusion that his constant replies, negative +
insulting as they are, are actually on par with the weird impatient
expectation by you guys "that he should just answer in the fucking way we
want him to" - a posture that is just as hostile, even in the politeness
trappings you love to waltz around with linguistically.

It takes two to tango and continue with the small, eternal bickering orgy
that you've sucked this list into. Have your UDA threads by all means, but
the automatic assumption that every list member "must go through UDA"
before they've even consented to such a private theological exercise is
plain rude.

The arguments of what was debunked, referring to some huge audience of
"we", who have all swallowed comp hook, line, and sinker is also curious.
Why not address that audience with this burning ambition, or Bruno's peers,
or publications on foundations of science, theology, modal logic etc.?
People are here for ensemble TOE discussion and the platform seems to have
developed into Bruno's advertising/propaganda corner.  And whoever says
"no" is an enemy of science. Whoever does not want to engage with UDA the
way we want is being strange/egoistic. Such assumptions make Bruno's side
seem arrogant and guilty of blaspheme.

Besides being incredibly rude socially, tearing people into "Helsinki,
Moscow" without seeking explicit consent WITH the disclaimer that this
thought experiment supports a worldview where science and theology loose
the usual boundary, that physics reverses into machine psychology, that we
are all assumed to be universal machines... not stating these things
clearly at the start, but then exposing people's personal belief systems to
this list "John is a fundamentalist" -via their replies- is perhaps beyond
people's inner theological stances are a private matter which comp
adherents (meaning Telmo and Bruno) feel they have a right to trample over
by fast-tracking them into the future of science via the thought experiment
too quickly.

But no, we couldn't have the kind of politeness that respects personal
boundaries; just the kind that uses all kinds of politeness markers to
trample on the exact right that the argument proposes to champion: saying
"no" to the comp doctor and any form of his marketing, including UDA. Your
sense for manners and good argumentative form, posture, and patience is
most weird, and it is understandable that some people would feel coerced by
the rushed, selectively packaged aspect of presenting the argument.

I prefer laughing and fart jokes in my discussions on ontology. They ensure
absence of seriousness. Nirvana is already here but it is obviously your
choice to split hairs, so consider being more measured in your responses
for "opening the eyes of the world". Respect people's basic theological
boundaries and control that tendency for the kind of discourse, where when
people have a beer with you, you'l be the types obsessively returning to
your subject even when group discussion moves on with "one more thing about
comp though is that..."

Because of this attitude, the absence of informal discussion (this place
was also used to share jokes in non obsequious fashion), I won't even get
into the theological problems I see with comp. Without the laughter and all
the force you guys enforce via emails with you too, I have come to the
conclusion that you're already at the point where you mistake comp for
reality much too often. And that's further than any scientist should go,
regardless of subject. Especially preaching ignorance and modesty the way
you guys do. This leaves me with little interest to even bring up such
problems here because you are forever decided on these issues. Indeed,
these are the beginning trappings of false religions and no longer the kind
of inquiring open science that interests me.

I decline on the infinite bickering contest. Thank goodness for Brent's and
John Mike's post. They are what hold this whole kindergarten together. PGC

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 , Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> I am sick of
> >> playing the game
> >
> >
> > Yes I know you said that before, but then why do you continue to play it?
>
> Human nature.
>
> >
> >>
> >> what I mean by "this game" is the game of
> >>
> >> arguing about the validity of the UDA (and please spare me from your
> >>
> >> usual jokes where you go to wikipedia looking for meaning of the
> >>
> >> acronym. Yes yes it's super funny).
> >
> >
> > I'll tell you what I'm sick of, I'm not sick of arguing with you, that's
> > fun, but I'm sick of Bruno's acting as if his silly homemade acronyms
> should
> > be well known to ```

### Re: Origin of mathematics

```On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:

Quote:
Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing
outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they
don’t change” (pp. 445-446).

That's a statement of faith/dogma with pretensions of un-transcendental
truth, which is as unclear and esoteric as how they appear to start their
reasoning.

Why isn't is just their hypothetical explanation of how to look at the
world - like Bruno's comp hypothesis?

Everybody can choose their own theology. How/to what degree this bears on
truth is much more subtle.

They seem to confuse this because they first state false dichotomy between
Platonism and some humanism/nominalism implies their system.

Then they reason and conclude, see above, that some humanist magic will is
responsible for discoveries. So they do side with a flavor of nominalism
and, in strong fashion, state abstract truth of their faith. This strongly,
they leave realm of hypothesis + reasoning and do what seems to be closer
to advertising, with self-reinforcing messages. Looks circular without much
consequence, although I haven't read it and rely on the interpretation and
quotes.

How that's different from Bruno's hypothesis? He doesn't state in any paper
or post (to my knowledge) that comp is true.

You seem to be holding them to some standard of axiomatic reasoning when
their thesis is to explain the origin of axiomatic reasoning.

With fuzzy elements, humans, prior existence etc. which is not wrong, but
this doesn't seem to clarify anything, nor do they advance with anything
novel from their proposal of the stated flawed dichotomy. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

```On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

LizR wrote:

On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

LizR wrote:

On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that
Bruno
had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of
uncertainty That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3
is only a small
step in a logical argument. It shows that if our normal everyday
consciousness is the result of computation, then it can be
duplicated (in principle - if you have a problem with matter
duplicators, consider an AI programme) and that this leads to
what looks like uncertainty from one person's perspective.

You only get that impression because in Bruno's treatment of the
case -- the two copies are immediately separated by a large distance
and don't further interact. You might come to a different conclusion
if you let the copies sit down together and have a chat.

That doesn't make any difference to the argument. Will I be the copy
sitting in the chair on the left? is less dramatic than Will I be
transported to Moscow or Washington? and hence, I suspect, might not make
the point so clearly. But otherwise the argument goes through either way.

No, because as I argued elsewhere, the two 'copies' would not agree that
they were the same person.

Separating them geographically was meant to mimic the different
worlds idea from MWI. But I think that is a bit of a cheat.

I don't know where Bruno says he's mimicking the MWI (at this stage) ?
This is a classical result, assuming classical computation (which according
to Max Tegmark is a reasonable assumption for brains).

In the protracted arguments with John Clark, the point was repeated made
that he accepted FPI for MWI, so why not for Step 3.

Discussion or fruitful argument assume mutual respect. The
respect/civility in the exchange is one-sided however, and has remained so
for years. It's not an argument; closer to an experiment of John to see how
often he can get away with airing personal issues clothed in sincerity of
intellectual debate.

This occupies too much bandwidth and is a turn off from where I'm sitting.
I'd much rather see the comp related discussions go to address say Telmo's
request for clarification in Bruno's use of phi_i, or G/G* distinctions, or
pedagogical demonstrations on the* work* arithmetic existentially
*actualizes/gets
done*, clarification on Russell's use of robust, physicalist theories
that don't eliminate consciousness etc.

Good and interesting questions indeed.

I, of course would be delighted if people try to really grasp the phi_i,
the G/G* distinction, and the subtle but key point of the fact that the
arithmetical reality simulates computations, as opposed to merely generates
descriptions of them.

I am bit buzy right now.  Feel free to tell me which one of those point
seems to you the more interesting, or funky.

Funkiest would be arithmetical reality simulates computations aka free
lunch :)

But I've picked up and guess that people seem to miss use of phi_i or
Sigma 1 sentences and such terms.

So, you thought you could offer me a hand and... I take the arm and more: 1
of those point = 3 + infinite possibility of other such terms. PGC-
Zombie hunting armchair ninja of numbers.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

```On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

LizR wrote:

On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

LizR wrote:

On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that
Bruno
had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of
uncertainty That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3
is only a small
step in a logical argument. It shows that if our normal everyday
consciousness is the result of computation, then it can be
duplicated (in principle - if you have a problem with matter
duplicators, consider an AI programme) and that this leads to
what looks like uncertainty from one person's perspective.

You only get that impression because in Bruno's treatment of the
case -- the two copies are immediately separated by a large distance
and don't further interact. You might come to a different conclusion
if you let the copies sit down together and have a chat.

That doesn't make any difference to the argument. Will I be the copy
sitting in the chair on the left? is less dramatic than Will I be
transported to Moscow or Washington? and hence, I suspect, might not make
the point so clearly. But otherwise the argument goes through either way.

No, because as I argued elsewhere, the two 'copies' would not agree that
they were the same person.

Separating them geographically was meant to mimic the different
worlds idea from MWI. But I think that is a bit of a cheat.

I don't know where Bruno says he's mimicking the MWI (at this stage) ?
This is a classical result, assuming classical computation (which according
to Max Tegmark is a reasonable assumption for brains).

In the protracted arguments with John Clark, the point was repeated made
that he accepted FPI for MWI, so why not for Step 3.

Discussion or fruitful argument assume mutual respect. The respect/civility
in the exchange is one-sided however, and has remained so for years. It's
not an argument; closer to an experiment of John to see how often he can
get away with airing personal issues clothed in sincerity of intellectual
debate.

This occupies too much bandwidth and is a turn off from where I'm sitting.
I'd much rather see the comp related discussions go to address say Telmo's
request for clarification in Bruno's use of phi_i, or G/G* distinctions, or
pedagogical demonstrations on the* work* arithmetic existentially
*actualizes/gets
done*, clarification on Russell's use of robust, physicalist theories
that don't eliminate consciousness etc.

I enjoy when the list gets funky in such direction, and even though I am
invested in environmental sector professionally, perhaps some of the
climate change stuff is a bit out of topic. This as pure opinion. Nobody
gets two cents from me as I'd be poor if consistent ;-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

I have always disagreed with this. The movie+broken gates is still a
computation, just a rather simple one. Playing a movie in (eg)
SMPlayer is still running a computation.

And I have never understood how that doesn't void significance of 1p
views.
If this is totally tight, correct, mechanistic 3p view, then you get
corresponding complete absence of meaning on 1p level of person/machine's
discourse.

Happy April fool's to you!

More seriously though, I haven't the foggiest what you mean. Even your

Why would the fact that playing a recording is a computation void
significance of 1p views?

Because it weakens/relativizes the difference between counterfactual
possibility instantiating computation and say the
numbers/sequences/patterns of a movie on my phone.

They're all amenable to numeric description yes, but isn't the difference
the zombie vs. universal machine's 1p views and consciousness? You state
still running implying that the stated difference, brittle vs.
counterfactuals, makes little/no difference. With supervenience of
consciousness as topic, I assumed you meant that to bear on this.

On this you assert:

What it does do is show that the MGA does not derive a logical
contradiction, as Quentin asserts, but is rather an intuition pump.

Which I find to be a large leap from there for above reason.

Of course, I do suspect that an accurate (but not counterfactually
correct) recording of a single computational run is insufficient to
instantiate a conscious entity.

Exactly.

But I don't know so as a proven fact,
and that, I feel, is a weakness in the MGA.

Perhaps you assume functionalism, mechanism and its zombie crew too strong
on 3p level? I don't understand why we have to emphasize yeah, but this
still runs computation. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 8:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you
seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious
entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.

It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious.

Which assumes perhaps too strong a form of functionalism and/or digitalism
that runs into its own contradiction with 1p consciousness?

As pointed out in earlier post: With that move, it is no longer relevant to
distinguish recording from person who has 1p experience, zombie question is
nonsense, no indexical property, there is correct substitution level, all
possible 1p consciousness of all persons supervenes on the recording
(everything digital) *or* none at all since recording has no CC and other
such funky consequences I can't recall. How is this avoided if everything
is one bland sauce of digital?

Thanks for pushing the question though Russell, as my earlier posts were
perhaps less clear on this. I guess you're coming from some ground I can't
parse or have missed reading and you have my apology here if so. But
zombies can be tricky bastards :-)

Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.

There must be something more to it than just complexity or even Turing
universality. Bruno says human-like consciousness requires Lobianity.  But
I think that's asking for more than just awarenss; it's asking for
self-awarness.

Which with comp assumptions/environment includes the properties that come
with that kind of self-awareness, e.g. incompleteness, machine's silence
etc. PGC

If I were building a Mars Rover and gave it the ability to learn from its
experience by reviewing its memory of events and projecting hypothetical
futures, I would be concerned that I had created a sentient being that
would forsee its own end.  So I would be sure to avoid putting its
indefinite survival into its value system.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:50:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

OK, but so you agree that MGA shows that if comp is true, matter is
of no use, unless we admit that a complex experience like a human
dream can supervene on a very simple trivial activity. Then the MGA
intuition pump seems to work well enough, imo.

Bruno

You have just conceded my point. Then the MGA is not a logical proof (as
you have sometimes claimed, and Quentin claimed even more forcefully),
but rather an argument by incredulity, or an intuition pump as Daniel
Dennett puts it. Nothing wrong with that of course, we just need to
know what has actually been achieved.

I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.

Your statement also seems to presuppose an absolute standard of logical
proof and that such would guarantee form of certain knowledge. Whatever
personal standards we may hold for proof, there is some sense in also
interpreting it as form of relating to or communicating with other people
convincingly: 'proving' is trying to convince that one statement follows
from some specified other statements. If those other statements are true,
then the statement in question is also true.

I wish everybody a fine day, communicating with their movies, ensuring that
their movies' living standards, education, careers, finances, health,
social security, retirement plans etc. are in order. Each to their own, but
I'm part of set of people to whom that's just weird and absurd. Sure, maybe
I am weird and absurd. Fine, whatever. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:28:51AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical
supervenience, not that it is true. In the end by being forced to accept
consciousness must supervene on the movie + broken gate... If you believe
it,  then you've abandon computationalism as a theory of the mind as the
movie+broken gates is not a computation... Or you can keep
computationalism
and abandon physical supervenience QED

I have always disagreed with this. The movie+broken gates is still a
computation, just a rather simple one. Playing a movie in (eg)
SMPlayer is still running a computation.

And I have never understood how that doesn't void significance of 1p views.
If this is totally tight, correct, mechanistic 3p view, then you get
corresponding complete absence of meaning on 1p level of person/machine's
discourse.

I played and watched a movie on my phone becomes senseless as the
person/machine is reduced to mere plaything of their beliefs concerning
reality.

Which is fine for say philosophers that want to eliminate 1p view, or
positivists, but it has always struck me as too fast for anybody that has
actually had the experience of playing that movie on their phone.

It appears, we're left with zombieland and the impossibility of me stating
I am not a zombie and this kind of statement not ending up to be
gobbledigook. Sure it's possible, but the artist in me resists: I watched
that movie, and the alternative is kinda ugly.

We loose indexicality, the ability to point towards stuff, which is already
present in hypothetical yes doctor statement of 1 person, which we took
as true. Further, a definite substitution level, given the complete
validity of 3p description, has to be accounted for.

Over the years of seeing you post this kind of statement, I have never
learned of your stance towards machine's interview, eloquence through
silence of machines through Church, Loebian machines, indeed the
self-referential logic and discourse of machines aspects of Bruno's work.
But that's fine today as it is the fool's day, wherein I happily admit to
being one that is corrected by the list... and *that *doesn't make any
sense via above anyway, so I can't loose face even if I wanted to make a
fool of myself now... :-) PGC

As I see it, the argument still relies on an intuition that the
movie+broken gates computation cannot support consciousness. It is an
intuition pump, not a proof, and consequently a weakness of the MGA.

And static vs dynamic is a red herring, because as Bruce quite rightly
points out, a static block Multiverse contains at least one, and by
definition all possible conscious entities.

Cheers
--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

```On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:57 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015  Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Ok... Well now everybody can see you as you really are,

And I'm perfectly satisfied with that because that is who I really am.

What? Chief of equine relations of everything list?

No. You're not *that* good just because you've found out how to employ a
couple of teenage insults/references. You have to offer something better to
counter the increasing lowness of this place. I'm not an authority on the
matter but think that perhaps this once, I can offer better, with tipping
hat to art criticism topic that floated here for a few days some weeks
back:

Setting? Some German theater in the 19th century. Main figure was an
extremely gifted improvising actor, who's random narrative deviations and
improvisations on theater stage, drew the ire of managing powers of
theater, even though the crowds loved these disruptions and found them
hilarious. Naturally: Prohibition of improvisation on stage was decreed
for the sake of art, honor, and decency.

One day, a horse standing around in some scene that had to be acted, was
featured with our actor on stage. It's easy in these situations to bring
one of the more docile, obedient, predictable specimens on stage. Certain
predictions are hard to predict however, such as when the horse has to

Of course, it had to come to what everybody imagines at this point, at
which our hero declared on stage: Animal, shame on you! When everybody
knows perfectly well that on this stage improvisation is forbidden... If I
remember correctly, he was not penalized for breaking the rule to call
attention to the rule being broken, and the officials in question even
laughed, I think.

The End.
---
Perhaps one can bring up toilet stuff, equine relations etc. without all
the hate and still offer substance or a laugh at least. So a definite No!
vote on your application for chief of equine relations of everything list.
Almost entertaining was the post on no fair! Buuuhuuu! He called me a
liar. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

On 3/28/2015 12:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

As I said, conterfactual correctness has very little to do with the
actual conscious moment. That is given simply by the sequence of actual
brain states --

But what is a brain state.  Can a part of the brain be ignored in some
state but not in another?

this sequence does not really calculate anything. Computationalism
ultimately rests on a confusion between a simulation and the calculations
necessary to produce that simulation.

Computationalism is just the idea that conscious thought can be
instantiated by digital device that simulates the brain at some
sufficiently detailed level. If such a simulation is possible then it can
be realized by a program running on a universal Turing machine. But that's
an abstract process in Platonia and is independent of any physics or
material existence.  That's what the MGA purports to show.

Bruno has acknowledged that this is not what the MGA shows. MGA simply
shows that his version of computationalism is incompatible with physical
supervenience. This cannot be seen as surprising since it is explicitly
built into computationalism that physicalism is false. The MGA is,
therefore, largely irrelevant, because it does not prove anything that we

I'm not so sure. Your posts seem to obscure distinctions between
calculation, computation, and computability while assuming physicalism...
which is abandoned by yes doctor and has weakness in the mind-body
department. Even if we assume primitive existence of neural mechanisms we
still have to address at this point the elephant of consciousness/mind
arising and some functional relationship between the two levels. Mechanism
itself is an abstract concept. Why a functional relationship at all? Yes,
we see brains in scans and autopsies, but I have yet to see a pure ideal
function, or as Brent's funky comic suggested number 5 (or whatever it
was) out in the wild. ;-)

That definitions you nail as relevant only to computer scientists, is a
claim that is not holdable in that form either. First because science is
not a majority vote and because say Mostowski's framing of computation as
syntactic, purely formal concept and computability as a semantic, intuitive
concept translates well into linguistics, or tactics and strategy in the
game of chess, with many more examples...

It certainly does not show that consciousness is an abstract process in
Plationia, independent of any physical process.

Yeah, but it doesn't do the opposite either; it merely gives with UD some
initial shape of how mind-body could look like if a physicalist assumption
doesn't hold sway. Interviewing the self-referential machines and studying
their discourse seem up to now to fit with no collapse of wave packet MWI
interpretation under the machines' substitution levels.

That was the initial asssumption, and MGA simply shows that you can't have
both computationalism *and* physicalism -- not that physical supervenience
is false.

I'd like to see physical supervenience without function then or we could
tell the neurologists they have a functional problem, lol. But these absurd
steps would be functional assignments in themselves.

And this is also a subject the list might try as an interesting aside: what
are the strongest arguments for primitive what you see is what you get
physicalism (other than transparent utility and the often posted strengths
and difficulties of comp...but still mind-body based)? Phenomenology of
mind-body is hard for to address without function, abstraction, numbers
etc. What reasons do we have to sweep them under the rug and how legitimate
are they? Is mind-body itself a flawed way to address phenomenon of
consciousness and if so why? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

HmmmI'm not sure where I sit on that. I do feel like some sleight of
hand has been pulled - not intentionally, of course. Perhaps the broken
version might still be conscious, which means that ... eek. That's like
saying Klara's conscious despite being inert, isn't it?

I think it's the thinking about what it all means afterwards part that
ties my brain in knots. I want to just throw my hands up and say well of
course physical supervenience doesn't work! How can a bunch of atoms do
that, anyway? But then they do seem to ...

Then you wouldn't mind explaining appearance of mind/body problem in
physical mechanism terms...Wait! Damned mechanism, function, machine,
computation themselves are comp territory! Damn you comp, digital
mechanist, non-standard idiots! The boogie Clark will eat you alive and
summon zombie horses for you to have recombined intercourse with... ;-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:16 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

PGC - I think you may have skimmed over too much for me to grasp what
you're saying. But maybe not. So  does contradicition arise because you
show that it would also (assuming physical supervenience) arise from
something that isn't computation?

Bruno will kick my butt for vulgarizing his thesis in this improvisatory,
overly short, imprecise manner. I suspect you're still assuming physical
universe without being aware of it.

I'm still not sure where the dreams come in, however. (Or the zombies...)

On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of
Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably
the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system *know* it's
counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass through any of the
what-if states?

The system is what here? It referring to what here? Would you tend to
interpret these as physical or comp objects?

Remember that comp supervenience requires physics to become part of machine
psychology/theology; thus every explanatory potency of a physical universe
is left behind. The association is some sensation [of my joy in space-time
(x,t)] to [type] of relative computational state.

To put it another way, when you have a recording of the conscious
computational states being replayed, what difference could be made by the
presence (or absence) of all the extra bits that *would* deal with
counterfactual correctness if a different computation was being replayed,
but happen in this case not to be used? I can't see how this could make any
physical difference to the states being replayed (unless counterfactual
correctness introduces some nonphysical magic into the system?)

A machine from which we remove some redundant parts resulting in a finite
set of states or executions looses counterfactual correctness: The movie is
not conscious. The universal machine viewing it via types, not tokens, of
possible activities keeps CC intact, with consciousness supervening on
potential activities, and not some brittle, particular branch of the same.

And yes, we can cite all manner of quantum weirdness and state that
consciousness supervenes on physical processes that are not actualized.
This is reasonable since measurements depending on potential observations
that are non-actualized depend on CC. But here, Bruno iirc pointed out that
this would be a case of tokens rather than types. In short Bruno will
definitely kill me for simplifying and shortening as much as I have sense,
consciousness relative to computational state of a universal machine
supervenes on set of possible accessible extensions of these states
distributed on the entirety of the UD. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

PGC wrote:

Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or solved by how

It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion false and
negation to be true, and from this we derive contradiction. If latter is
the case, conclusion must be true.

Only two things are required: law of excluded middle and if statement
implies something false, it must be false. PGC

Of what? MGA? I just described the mechanism, far from just feelings.

I assumed you had read at least a paper: incompatibility of physical
supervenience with comp. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The MGA revisited

```On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

PGC wrote:

Why or how is anybody arguing that problem is generated or
solved by how somebody feels about it?

It's via contradiction/standard reductio: assume conclusion
false and negation to be true, and from this we derive
contradiction. If latter is the case, conclusion must be true.

Only two things are required: law of excluded middle and if
statement implies something false, it must be false. PGC

Of what? MGA? I just described the mechanism, far from just feelings.

I assumed you had read at least a paper: incompatibility of physical
supervenience with comp. PGC

Yes, physical supervenience is incompatible with computationalism.

Yup.

But it remains to be proved that physical supervenience is false and comp
is true.

In what frame then, as it looks as if you're implying some sort of
mega-ontology?

What you suggest goes beyond the scope of demonstrating that you can't keep
both comp and physical supervenience in the same ontological frame.

You're quite the ultimate mystic, Bruce! ;-)

And Liz: yes, what if the movie graph dreams? Of course this is logically
plausible.

But you forget that consciousness cannot supervene on the film due to
computationalism being the only game in town at this point by definition.
If you have something besides physical universes or comp ones, please share
;-)

No computational activity, given this frame, can be associated to the
projection of film, given the terms we're working with. This or the
stroboscope version of the argument imply that if you're going to use comp
with noted precisions, then observer is no longer required (universal
numbers), no real time playing of film, which itself has no computational
role, like some accidental passive supervenience?, and can be discarded.

The absurdity is that if you allow the film to dream counter to the kinds
of objections raised here... that you have to ride with *all possible
dreams* supervening on the activity of the stroboscope and *even no dreams
at all* because the stroboscope itself actualizes no primitive
computational activity and can therefore be discarded.

But if you really want: you can keep all your zombies that are no zombies
and pretend this is not absurd...;-)

And no, this is no proof that comp is true. That's way too strong. Just
the incompatibility and absurdity if you want to keep both or have film
dreaming or whatever. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

```On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying
technique. And then you say oh come on it was only a joke!

Yet bullies never make jokes about themselves, because they are often
humourless sociopaths.

I agree. I think people understand intuitively that making fun of someone
that is at a disadvantage in relation to you is just mean and distasteful.
It is sociopathic to find that sort of thing funny. It's very common with
teenagers, and I think that part of the reason is fear: if you don't join
in on the bullying, you could become the victim yourself. Unfortunately,
some people never develop past that stage.

Ok.

I don't think that this joke is mean in any sense. On the contrary, I
think that environmentalists that can't laugh about it a bit should be
worried that they are becoming too religious.

But why can't somebody just not find it funny period? That was what I was
addressing in part with my humor sectarian post.

Of course, I enjoy sophisticated humor but not as much as I enjoy the
really dumb, low kind because of general accessibility + laughing at the
vanity of high standards itself, which terribly obvious jokes imply.

Because only at this low point, is humor everywhere, and not just
monopoly of some group poking fun at another. Kids can relate to this kind,
strangers in some foreign land, non-specialists, as can old folks out of
the oh so sacred loop of fashions.

And yes, Nazi/harmful literalist can laugh too which most here have no
problem with; but we do have to point out how Chris is not being cool. At
least Chris spoke out against this tendency of the list; with history
showing that conciliatory measures and tone with this type of argument
might not always be good long term strategy for engagement. This I find

Assuming I'm some environmentalist and I don't laugh at this joke a
bit... that means I'm too religious?! Why not turn this around as in: What
if you're too religious at demarcating who is too religious, with some bias
towards a category of environmentalist? Is this as funny as the original? I
still don't see it but I have a record here for being the obtuse guy ;-)
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

```On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:34 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying
technique. And then you say oh come on it was only a joke!

Yet bullies never make jokes about themselves, because they are often
humourless sociopaths.

I agree. I think people understand intuitively that making fun of
someone that is at a disadvantage in relation to you is just mean and
distasteful. It is sociopathic to find that sort of thing funny. It's very
common with teenagers, and I think that part of the reason is fear: if you
don't join in on the bullying, you could become the victim yourself.
Unfortunately, some people never develop past that stage.

Ok.

I don't think that this joke is mean in any sense. On the contrary, I
think that environmentalists that can't laugh about it a bit should be
worried that they are becoming too religious.

But why can't somebody just not find it funny period?

Of course they can!

Hehe, even if they're whores to environmentalist ideals?

That was what I was addressing in part with my humor sectarian post.

Of course, I enjoy sophisticated humor but not as much as I enjoy the
really dumb, low kind because of general accessibility + laughing at the
vanity of high standards itself, which terribly obvious jokes imply.

I don't make this distinction. I think either it's funny or it's not (for
me).

It can be fun. For instance:

*Two men are walking along a street in town. One of them walks into a bar.
The other one doesn't.*
US Linguists had set up this experiment and gauged that this joke, despite
its simplicity, was difficult to comprehend for high number of listeners.

Point being, high level synchronized sophistication on commonly held
specialized domains isn't the only barrier to comprehension. The joke can
be so simple, that many will miss it. In this case, invoking urban setting
with town causes most to associate bar with establishment selling
alcoholic beverages rather than prompt the ambiguity of this semantic
interpretation with long, rigid metal/solid obstruction.

Accessibility is not reducible to fun or not or high level access to
common terms and I think this is funny itself, as it annihilates somehow
smart sophistication in humor = high level + fancy assumptions, in a few
words. This example is not merely puns or word play as it negates the whole
premise of joking by not offering sexy/smart punchline; with an ultra dumb
dude walks into object and the other doesn't. Weird and I love it but
apparently access is limited.

Of course some people pretend to enjoy things that are deemed to be
sophisticated in an attempt to display higher status. But then there's also
humor that arises in some niche of interest, and will only work for people
in this niche. There can be a clicky side to this, but I think there can
also be a healthy side, as a bonding strategy. Live having drinks together.

In the same way, there can be a dark side to lowest common denominator
humor, by killing serious discussion with oversimplification. You should
try following politics in the south of Europe.

Agree to disagree. There is a kind of humor that has low standards/high
accessibility and that is not artificially stupid or fake. See children:
mostly, I find they can spot adults/jokes that are disingenuous or
phoney... even if they just loose attention. They feel when smiles or jokes
are forced and it makes them uneasy.

Because only at this low point, is humor everywhere, and not just
monopoly of some group poking fun at another. Kids can relate to this kind,
strangers in some foreign land, non-specialists, as can old folks out of
the oh so sacred loop of fashions.

And yes, Nazi/harmful literalist can laugh too which most here have no
problem with; but we do have to point out how Chris is not being cool.

I have no problem with nazis laughing. I would much rather have them
laughing than doing other things.

At least Chris spoke out against this tendency of the list; with history
showing that conciliatory measures and tone with this type of argument
might not always be good long term strategy for engagement. This I find

I don't understand what you mean here.

That there have been so many ad hominem remarks, literal ideological
fights, bickering, and blatant admissions of intolerance posted on this
list... that I find it weird why suddenly Chris' reaction is a topic.

Assuming I'm some environmentalist and I don't laugh at this joke a
bit... that means I'm too religious?!

No. What feels a bit religious to me is the attempt to paint those who do
find the joke funny as morally flawed```

### Cosmology from Quantum Potential

```Cosmology from quantum potential
Ahmed Farag Ali http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Ali_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Saurya
Das http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Das_S/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 11 Apr 2014 (v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v1), last
revised 29 Dec 2014 (this version, v3))

It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal
(Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri
equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of
quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as
cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value),
while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid
of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

No Big Bang singularity or obscure dark stuff needed if I understand
correctly, which can be refreshing from time to time. ;-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 08 Feb 2015, at 13:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Bruno, are you familiar with the atheistic (so-called) theologies of Dr.
Eric Steinhart? He's a bright philosopher from William Patterson
University, is the US. He was originally a software engineer and is like
yourself, a math guy. He applies his experience to his philosophy, and
after reading your writings here, as well as Amoeba, his insights seem to
parallel yours.  Also, *Clement Vidal*'s, as well. Every heard of him?
His papers focus on the origins of the universe(s) Platonism,
Computationalism, and Digital Philosophy. It's not exactly like your
work, but it certainly parallels it. Ever heard of him? It sort of informs
this topic I think.

I don't think I know him although the name invke some familiarity. Did he
got the first person indeterminacy, the mathematicalism or arithmeticallism?

The mean to test this. You might sum up the idea, if you have the time,

The problem with many scientists is that they stop doing science when
doing philosophy. It is not a problem, but it can be confusing in that
field.

One of those names at least is familiar to the list because:

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:25 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List

To die for Allah is slay for Allah. The reward for the mujahedeen is
enormous, for to sacrifice ones self, and the opponent of God, is to
granted immediate entry into paradise (Janah) and its rewards are not
unsubstantial. One way to change the Umah's mind (if such is even possible)
would be to make widespread, *Clement Vidal*'s publications, especially,
The Beginning and the End, The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological
Perspective. Part of the book details with afterlife concepts in a rational
sense, as well as much, more. *Vidal* is a colleague of Bruno Marchal at
Free University, Brussels. * Vidal*'s influence may induce those looking
for a heavenly, rewards, for head chopping unbelievers, a good think.

It would also alter our own perspective as well. Make the world a bit more
peaceful, and provide some reassurance for all.

Honk! If you all agree ;-)

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Bruno might comment on his colleague, at university, *Clement Vidal*. The
Evo-Devo approach, etc.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Sent from AOL Mobile
If We remain a sophisticated civilization, we should be able to leave
space exploration for the robots, until such a time and and place where we
uncover something dynamically interesting. But this is for another
generation to decide, and not ours. Which makes things,  seem, our world,
our times, our worries, seem so temporary. On the other hand I am now
reading the work by *Clement Vidal*, of Free University, Brussels, a
colleague, of Bruno Marchal, on the meaning and purpose of intelligence,
life, and cosmology, leading to the far future-a very, different
perspective indeed.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician,*
Clement Vidal*? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get
into the Evo-Devo view?

So that may be part of the reason the name is slowly becoming familiar
although I wouldn't know, as I can't search the list's archives completely,
nor do I receive/want all posts archived in my Inbox, therefore filtering
and/or ignoring a lot. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 02 Feb 2015, at 06:37, Samiya Illias wrote:

On 02-Feb-2015, at 6:12 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 2 February 2015 at 00:15, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

There is a difference between advancing a theory in a spirit of
agnosticism and being convinced you know the truth and that everyone else
is wrong.

Hmm...
Someday, I hope and pray, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps you'll
understand me.

As other observed that's close to the worst authority argument. By
worst I don't make a moral judgment, but it is worst in the sense that it
is not just invalid, but it makes the honest people automatically doubting

I am not presenting an argument above. I'm just saying that this is
something to do with feeling/experiencing/qualia?

Feelings, woo-o-o feeling it,
woo-o-o, feeling again in my arms
Feelings

Feelings, nothing more than feelings
Trying to forget my feelings of love
Teardrops rolling down on my face
Trying to forget my feelings of love

so I cannot explain it nor do I expect anyone who doesn't to understand
it. I know its not valid. That is why I hope Someday...

I hope someday, that if something is not valid, you don't pretend as if it
were valid...

And vice versa, if you are blessed with faith in reason.

Thanks! :)

Reason is the best tool, if not the only tool (at some level)

I agree. Reason is a tool, and perhaps the best tool, which is to be used
to approach reality.

Depends. Sometimes certain feelings, fanatic types, their books taken
literally etc. get in the way.

to survive the unreasonable (arithmetical)  reality, and to maximize
partial relative control.

Unfortunately reason gives the ability to lie and manipulate the others
at different levels.

Both reason and religion have been abused over and over again

Sometimes in the name of Feelings, woo-o-o feeling it, woo-o-o, feeling
again in my arms... Feelings. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Where do I insult your faith?

I should have phrased it as 'my expression of faith' and not 'my faith'. I
do not say that you insult it, I wonder why my admittance of being
convinced makes you feel insulted?

Nobody is insulted. You quote scripture while displaying interest in
scientific thought and you have people's responses. You mistake
disagreement for insult.

I may be right or I may be wrong, but I do believe what I believe. Perhaps
I should begin my replies with 'According to the Quran, based upon my
understanding of it, I think...' but isn't that implicit as you know that

That isn't implicit. If you accept scripture literally as the only source
of truth, then you dismiss all others, including what people post on this
list. If you begin your sentences and quotes with the above phrases, then
you permit possibility of own error, assuming humility and respect for
others' faith. On the surface at least.

Sticking to that attitude you would write and quote less the kind of
comment to Liz that someday, when you're blessed with faith, perhaps
you'll understand me. If people are to accept your personal theology when
reasoning in this area, then doing the same with their theology, instead of
if you were only touched by god the way I have the privilege to be, which
is completely personal, without discernible distance to the subject; then
it would be possible to have reasonable discussion.

And you don't have to believe me, Alhazen and the many sincere scientists
of your faith throughout the ages can manage to express it and practice it
in this way:

*The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if
learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he
reads, and,.. attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as
he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling
into either prejudice or leniency.*

(*Abdelhamid I. Sabra translation *(1989), *The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham.
Books I-II-III: On Direct Vision. English Translation and Commentary. 2
vols*, Studies of the Warburg Institute, vol. 40, London)

In this golden age of science of Islamic world, roughly 8th to 13th century
A.D., stretching from Cordoba to Samarkand, Christian and Jewish scholars
ignoring or banning books, the Caliphs sent their emissaries to find
scientific scripture and funded long distance expeditions to search for,
retrieve, and translate such books.

They also enriched the West with ideas fundamental to our conceptions of
science today (if not up to Bruno's high standards ;-) ) including the
Arabic numerals, that we still use today along with the concept of zero.
Not to speak of how influential Arabic astronomy was.

My point is: had these people merely taken only one book as the source of
truth and not engaged in their sincere search *beyond personal theology* in
shareable, demonstrative, objective science, observation, and critical
thought, that can be shared by all seekers, regardless of their faith, many
developments in our world would have been slowed down. Even the
preservation of ancient Greek literature was enabled by these scholars.
They showed how one can have faith and still aspire to master critical
thought, objective discourse, and doubt. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

That is due to selective literalism, that you can do with any piece of
literature or code of law, and conveniently blame it on the author.

That's the problem with literalism though. It's always selective, when
language is often less clear. Literalism implies one correct way of
interpreting the scripture, when even the companions disagreed on how to
interpret the Prophet stating No one should pray the afternoon prayer
until after they reach Banū Qurayzah. This example can be interpreted in
two ways: 1) Wait for everybody, even if time of offering passes or 2)
Everybody should hurry up and be punctual, no waiting.

Or when Al-Haq is taken to have such a wide range of meanings you describe,
how do we select the proper literal meaning and who could say? If everybody
can select their own meaning in whatever way, then we could never
distinguish abuse of the text from the opposite. The second Caliph of
Islam, `Umar b. al-Khattāb often took a less literal approach for example,
and decided at times that benevolent meaning and rationales behind the text
is more important than the immediate literal level: He allowed Jews into
Jerusalem to worship, he exempted thieves from common capital punishment in
years of famine, and negated punishment of exile when people were found
guilty of fornication.

Taking a non-literal stance allows you to resolve contradictions, because
it gives access to possible larger meanings of the text beyond its
immediate wording. This way, overarching principles of scripture that are
general enough to bear on larger social, political, economic issues can be
brought into discussion.

Also, when new and complex situations arise that have no precedent in
scripture, literalism just remains stuck in the past, mired in
contradictions and ambiguity of interpretation (not due to blaming it on
the author, that is your faith; mine is that language is often this
ambiguous, especially concerning theological subjects because most people
are aware of blasphemy problem, and don't wish to pretend being the voice
of god) while critical distance and doubt allow possibly new and creative
responses to a problem, while not betraying the purpose of the text. This
freedom is immediately lost, when such larger meaning is made literal.

That's why I can relate to the position that literalists have perhaps less
faith. They seem to not trust their God's truth, and have to look for
little sentences in scripture to make their point. A critical theologian,
that allows doubt and goes against scripture when the time is proper, has
more faith here, as he learns and studies the will of god beyond the
letters and admits the possibility that their God is greater than anything
produced by letters; this attitude is open to expanding her/his
understanding of reality and does not get stuck in literal interpretations
that limit his conception of god. This theologian stays true to more
scientific attitude of ignorance in face of the unknown.

Alhazen described his theology: I constantly sought knowledge and truth,
and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and
closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth
and knowledge.

I doubt that Alhazen could have shared with us his scientific
contributions, revealing reality to us the way he did, if he had decided to
just read, recite, and take literally scripture all day, every day. He
sought truth, because he had faith in it; instead of abandoning truth for
scripture, as this would imply less faith perhaps. He was to some degree
schooled in methods and art of doubt, as can be seen in his position on
Ptolemy. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

This theologian stays true to more scientific attitude of ignorance in
face of the unknown.

Alhazen described his theology: I constantly sought knowledge and truth,
and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and
closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth
and knowledge.

That is prescribed by the Quran. It directs us to use our intelligence,

Not if it deviates from scripture. And to my knowledge Alhazen's
contribution to mathematics/physics, and optics in particular were not in
scripture. He searched and found glimpses of god/reality outside of the
scripture.

it directs us to pray for more knowledge,

Can search be a less passive/rigid form of prayer?

and it states that, on that day, the truthful are going to benefit from
their truth.

Respectfully, to me, that's waiting around for god/truth, when perhaps it
is already here. Another reason why strong form of literalism can imply
own Religion, the Christians. Maybe all religions suffer from this as there
is vanity in assuming to know what god wants from us.

Alhazen did use search, being aware of the meaning of prayer, one would
assume. And search points towards a humility and ignorance of god's will,
despite doing our best in matters faith, which is more flexible and thus
allows a broader question of how to approach truth, without presupposing
that we know what it is. And without minimizing the arrogance that walks
with vanity too.

I don't see how your approach is clarified, particularly in addressing the
problem of insulting other people's search by insisting on your particular
interpretation, and the implied argument per authority constructs/certainty
etc. Your approach is thus still obscure to me. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

This theologian stays true to more scientific attitude of ignorance in
face of the unknown.

Alhazen described his theology: I constantly sought knowledge and
truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence
and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for
truth and knowledge.

That is prescribed by the Quran. It directs us to use our intelligence,

Not if it deviates from scripture. And to my knowledge Alhazen's
contribution to mathematics/physics, and optics in particular were not in
scripture. He searched and found glimpses of god/reality outside of the
scripture.

it directs us to pray for more knowledge,

Can search be a less passive/rigid form of prayer?

and it states that, on that day, the truthful are going to benefit from
their truth.

Respectfully, to me, that's waiting around for god/truth, when perhaps it
is already here. Another reason why strong form of literalism can imply
own Religion, the Christians. Maybe all religions suffer from this as there
is vanity in assuming to know what god wants from us.

Alhazen did use search, being aware of the meaning of prayer, one would
assume. And search points towards a humility and ignorance of god's will,
despite doing our best in matters faith, which is more flexible and thus
allows a broader question of how to approach truth, without presupposing
that we know what it is. And without minimizing the arrogance that walks
with vanity too.

That's without is superfluous and should be deleted in the last phrase.
Apologies for potential confusion. PGC

I don't see how your approach is clarified, particularly in addressing the
problem of insulting other people's search by insisting on your particular
interpretation, and the implied argument per authority constructs/certainty
etc. Your approach is thus still obscure to me. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 01-Feb-2015, at 1:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Christians. Maybe all religions suffer from this as there is vanity in
assuming to know what god wants from us.

I believe that Quran is from God, hence I try to follow it. You ask me
questions and I try to answer them. Sometimes, yes, I also volunteer to
share some verse which I find relevant to my perspective of something being
discussed. Is that vanity or just sharing of knowledge?

Good question.

If somebody keeps insisting on literal interpretation, then it's hard to
see how they could volunteer things in innocent, benevolent fashion to
enrich the varied perspectives of respected others. They have a literal
interpretation, so they have an obvious mission, which involves forcing the
others to see what they see. The others would not be respected, hence the
relation of literal interpretation to insult.

1) I do not disrespect you or anyone else, neither in mind nor vocally.

Likewise.

2) So if Bruno is insisting on comp, is he insulting you and others on
this list? I don't think so.

He doesn't insist on comp in the sense that he advocates its literal truth
in a strong sense.

If John Mikes insists on 'I dunno', is he insulting those who have faith?
I don't think so.

If Bruno and John indeed insist in strong literal sense, they would run
into such problem. But Bruno appears aware of this problem and steers clear
of it.

I mention them not to single them out, but to point out that it is okay to
have some convictions or not, yet it is important that one speaks one's own
truth instead of just stating things that would be pleasing to others.
3) If you find my faith insulting to your thoughts, then why do you ask
questions from me?

Where do I insult your faith? If anything, you'll find that in previous
weeks on this list, I have defended the moderate practice of Islam, and
advocated rigor in non-confessional or negative theology, urging people not
to generalize on other people's faith.

You're blaming the messenger in that I pointed out that strong literalism
is hard to reconcile with respect of others, their faith, and the freedom
that you invoke in next quote:

You could simply ignore what I write. There is no compulsion on you or
anyone to read what I write.

It's hard to reconcile because how can we claim such freedom towards
others, when at the same time asserting the truth is in my literal
interpretation; i.e. limiting that same faculty in others? If this comes
to close to your personal theology, I respectfully apologize, and maintain
that it was/is your endeavor and choice to harmonize critical, scientific
thought, with the meaning of theological writing, that brought up this
question in the first place.

It was therefore natural that the question of literal interpretation was
reached and you have my position along with the question: perhaps we
shouldn't take ourselves or some clown called PGC posting informally on
these topics so seriously? After all, these letters are not from Quran, so
how would PGC even have the slightest idea of what he is posting about? ;-)
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 01-Feb-2015, at 1:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe all religions suffer from this as there is vanity in assuming to know
what god wants from us.

I believe that Quran is from God, hence I try to follow it. You ask me
questions and I try to answer them. Sometimes, yes, I also volunteer to
share some verse which I find relevant to my perspective of something being
discussed. Is that vanity or just sharing of knowledge?

Good question.

If somebody keeps insisting on literal interpretation, then it's hard to
see how they could volunteer things in innocent, benevolent fashion to
enrich the varied perspectives of respected others. They have a literal
interpretation, so they have an obvious mission, which involves forcing the
others to see what they see. The others would not be respected, hence the
relation of literal interpretation to insult.

Volunteer is like offering. It marks respect. Advancing literal
interpretation is more like a person screaming their message with a
megaphone (and if literal interpretation, why not force, punish, or
manipulate others to believe, as one assumes oneself to be as correct as
god/truth/reality?). Indeed, the latter kind of person also offers in
some sense, I guess. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 27 Jan 2015, at 15:29, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Hope this video has longer time online than most before being taken down

I am a late reader, and

Citizenfour Edward Sno... This video is no longer available due to a
copyright claim by Haut et Court.

Pfft...

The removal is minor hypocrisy. Having seen the thing when it was on
youtube, and heard how passionate the journalist and the filmmaker were, in
doing their jobs for the guy who gave up his job/life.. to clarify growth
of surveillance apparatus; with obvious implications of how filmmaker and
journalist suffered loss of freedom to travel/communicate/privacy and how
they are willing to suffer anything to get the truth out... it is a bit
weird how unprofessionally the distribution is handled internationally.

I've been hearing about the film for months now, at the same time was
unable to figure out where I could go and see it locally. No proper
distribution deal, one would think, and then the thing is posted online,
which is consistent with labor of passion and love; the truth has to get
out no matter what, which a lot of creative types have to suffer to build
a name in early years... and then suddenly, it is removed, with release
dates scattered chaotically (in France set to March?).

The filmmaker should pick her friends a bit more wisely perhaps when
fighting for academy award, which leaves a weird aftertaste, even if I am
sympathetic to the advocacy, originating from a background that definitely
went overboard with secret police, at which time, big data was not yet an
issue.

Yes, the NDAA seems to sell the soul of the Land of the Free to the devil,
but Prohibition was already a key step.

Indeed the war on drug makes drug having abnormal prices and makes them
sold by targetting the poors, the sicks, the kids, directly on each corner
of all cities.  The juicy benefits are used to corrupt the system to
continue prohibition, and perpetuate the lies, and to invest in distractive
wars, putting oil on the conflicts on the planet.  I can't measure the
degree of dishonesty.  The bank and the middle class is taken in hostage.

Despite this, well thanks to this, there is a very simple algorithm to win
the war on terror: just stopping the war on drug.

It doesn't mention NDAA specifically, but shows how controversial authority
like it can be enforced globally, given increasing efficiency of
intelligence services + big data, in view of increased linking of digital
services used globally: this becomes infallible proof machine.

Thus it appears to matter less and less that somebody actually did/did not
commit a crime, and more that we know his/her mobile phone was close to the
street corner where some crime was committed, around the time in question.

This increases leverage for established authority to interpret some
situation to their advantage as floods of such data are then made available
as justification. How to use such power responsibly when we know how
sometimes, legal experts will bend certain things? Courts are reduced to
secret yes committees here, and internal checks into abuse of the systems
themselves is apparently carried out by colleagues or peers from the field.

The film is worth the time if you like details; but perhaps not if you have
to sign your details to some unknown website. No mistake: it takes sides;
this is advocacy. Not least for the filmmaker and journalists. I'd still
watch it a second time, if only for the chronology/facts of the affair and
to see whether I missed something.

They should have included the scene where the filmmaker reflects on her
travel plans concerning invitation/nomination to academy awards, given that
she is on the terror watch list with 1.2 million others ;-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:03 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

truths and each hurts in its own way; it is therefore of some common
comfort that nothing can escape!

-Chris

Since authorities granted by NDAA in 2012, secret courts, camps etc.
trample on human rights without the slightest shame, we know that the kind
of activity that the following link refers to, logically follows.

Some fresh details for me, even though the broad strokes were familiar.

Hope this video has longer time online than most before being taken down

One may ask under such circumstance: wasn't the freedom that everybody
claims to champion and protect sold by patriot act, NDAA 2012 and these
kinds of actions? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:15 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

One must question whether the motives were really “to defend our freedom”,
when in fact the de facto result has been a serious erosion of individual
liberty. At the very least that is, an ass backwards approach, and it is
quite easy to imagine a whole slew of rather more sinister motives, which
the de facto actions of Western governments seem to be more in line with.

-Chris

Agreed. This reminds me of some minor villain figure in Joseph Conrad's
The Secret Agent, who reasoned something like:

Manoeuvring fanatic idiots to blow up some political target is too
transparent and no longer effective in funneling more money, power, and
weapons into the right hands.

If we focus on sowing blanket fear more effectively, then it doesn't even
matter which side we're on; everybody gets to legitimize moves towards more
security by force. Resources will flow and flood appropriate markets
accordingly, and the relevant industries will strengthen their foothold.

Therefore, we must steer the idiots to attack seemingly senseless targets
to impart a sense that they can strike anywhere, anytime; people will get
lost in the apparent discourses and causal speculation and we get what we
want. The more senseless or confounding the target, the better the
distraction.

Unfortunately, this fictitious villain from novel published in 1907 is not
that far off the mark, if you compare the recent response to say IRA
attacks in London. Fanatics, freedom, prisoner's dilemma, and the laws that
these sprout... how about hearing more about 900 million people in famine
circumstance and watching those numbers for a change? News is crap. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:07 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

I like your use of the word calumny. An endless clash of civilization?
Naw! But we do need to defend ourselves against the jihadi, and be able to
retaliate,

Piling more revenge killing on top of the pyramid of violence is your
solution?

Of course it is reasonable that we defend ourselves in extraordinary
situation, but when the state-of-exception becomes the norm, we have a
problem, if we value rule of law.

Minimizing harm, furthering economic, political, educational developments
that diminish the capacity of parts of the world to become breeding grounds
for radicalism is more effective than the exclusive short term fix of
merely retaliating.

which is something you are totally against and have stated this,
repeatedly. You are not anti-war, merely anti-US wars.

I am anti-war, no matter the war, still believe in self-defense and make up
my own mind as to its efficacy, as merely retaliation as principle,
doesn't convince me as much as it seems to convince you.

If you were a true pacifist, you would logically be anti-war, across the
board. You are not against Islamist attacks in the west, because you
believe they are justified.

This is where you cross the line comrade. Your true war is against middle
America.

Your true war is against middle earth with all its liberals.

As for solutions, you ain't interested, to put it mildly.

We have ample supply of your solutions on the list and as German, I am
automatically skeptical of people offering blanket solutions and
generalizations. There are always those kinds of people and always the
kinds of people that follow them.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:14 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Well, like I mentioned earlier, you always gripe about any US military
action, and say nothing about other nations, and groups, agressions. This
means, like the old Vietnam protestors, you were against the Vietnam war
(making Breshnev smile) but these self same people had zero to say or do,
regarding the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Or, more currently, nothing to say
about Islamic wars and aggressions. So, this incongruence doesn't wash.
This is picking sides, which is something I openly do, and you don't like.
This is know as life.

Oh, you mean like you complaining about your powerlessness and then doing
nothing about the situation that you feel you must rail against? Picking
sides and doing nothing about it other than posting obsessively? I'm not
sure, Life is perhaps a bit more than this.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Yeah, yeah, we can both agree the French and British sucked. If you want to
make them accurately, uncomfortable, mention the Belgian rubber empire in
the 19th century. Their king, a labor reformer at home, over saw the murder
of maybe 8 million people over 20 years, on rubber plantations. Human
history is replete with slaughter. Now that things are a bit more
civilized, it'd be a tragedy for the west to lose out to Islamist
savages-which is what they are, just like we were, not so long ago.

You were savage once that you now condemn? Were you a noble savage or more
straightforward one? We have people of all these nationalities and of
different faiths on this list. If you have a problem with that, take it up
with them instead of creepily promising solutions. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:53 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Trolling?

Applied to your posts that is high praise as some trolls might feel
insulted.

I respect their feelings in a free internet ;-)

You don't provoke or inflame, you're just often off-topic without humor +
repetitive, and you think repeating material that Rush etc. wouldn't even
run with, is somehow going to hammer something home with the few people

And you are the one with the accusations and epithets? I was thinking you
like to do preemptive accusations of trolling, while trolling. As far as
knowing you, I mean if the foo shits, wear it. You fit the pattern, the
language that you choose to use, etc. The Michael Moore mentality, and
method. It is what it is, and further analysis is not necessary. But, its
not about you or I, but it is about surviving the Islamist onslaught that
seems to be gathering.

No, that is not what this list pursues. Inform yourself, and post elsewhere

Also, what does saving us from Islamist onslaught have to do with your
transcendence objective stated in the other post?  You want to help us
survive? Then pay or volunteer to maintain the list, help people in zones
where radicalism you feel so threatened about is a danger; provide them
with food, shelter, education etc. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:02 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Platonist Guitar Cowboy
*Sent:* Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

What? You don't think if I post my position a few more dozen times, that
the problem will not disappear from the global stage?

Dear Internet of grand opinionage,

I am disappointed in you!

I wish you luck on your world changing quest…. There is some possibility
history altering re-framing within billions of minds; good luck on that.

Go easy on me, man! The truth hurts enough, even though you said no single
truth at the end of your last post, so I guess it's ok, if that itself is
true...but wait! Oh no, my paradox is eating me alive... PG(no more time to
complete acronym)

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List

I am uncomfortable with the plaster of evil myself, since what it means
to everyone is too vague. I would define the Jihadis as aggressive, malign,
expansionism.

Malign: Evil in nature/effect.

Aggressive and expansionism: American Football

Did western nations do this until recently? Hell, yes. The point is not to
paper over the aggression done to expand the faith and enable a caliphate.

That would be trivializing evil, and therefore too vague. Right. Point
taken.

Not to empower these aggressors, these new colonials.

That would be evil, and therefore too vague yet again, for example when the
US fought to rid themselves of influence of British empire. Funny how
people never have trouble telling who is who in such situation?

Liberal idiots are the worst though. You have to protect freedom by taking
it away from the whole cultural group; only shaming the whole group and
liberals on this list, will solve the problem. Thankfully, we have this
covered. Generously.

What about remediations for all this, I have a couple of vague ideas on
what may work, circulated here before.

Which you will keep sharing, no matter what is said, thankfully. I guess,
you will then follow that up with your assessment that you are quite
powerless to do something in the first place?

And then no excuses... to Chris today, as if you were presiding over a
court case and were the list's appointed judge, that is quite funny and
kind of sad. I make an effort to be the fool here, but yield to the
tenacity, time, and sheer genius of the professionals. Out of my league
this. PGC Armchair Colonel

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:51 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Just stop defending the indefensible islamists and refrain from making
excuses for them. They are all adults and can speak for themselves. They
believe what the believe, and it is neither my fault, nor even yours. The
world is now slowly waking up to what is occuring, even to this day, the
Japanese. I am sorry that disagreeing with your holy self is considered
trolling. But thats what makes ball games. Deal with it.

What makes the ball game is people sowing fear and reaping aggression on
all sides by committing violent acts for political and economic gain, which
is a threat.

It's perhaps a fine line between recognizing this fact and falling prey to
the PR ploy as recognizing the fact brings our own political lines, which
furthers the ploy's objective, into play.

Brent made a good point: compare violence to potency of other threats. I'd
add cui bono, obligatory grain of salt, and maybe we don't need cartoons to
replace our thinking or humor. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:08 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Platonist Guitar Cowboy
*Sent:* Sunday, January 25, 2015 5:30 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:51 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

Just stop defending the indefensible islamists and refrain from making
excuses for them. They are all adults and can speak for themselves. They
believe what the believe, and it is neither my fault, nor even yours. The
world is now slowly waking up to what is occuring, even to this day, the
Japanese. I am sorry that disagreeing with your holy self is considered
trolling. But thats what makes ball games. Deal with it.

What makes the ball game is people sowing fear and reaping aggression on
all sides by committing violent acts for political and economic gain, which
is a threat.

It's perhaps a fine line between recognizing this fact and falling prey to
the PR ploy as recognizing the fact brings our own political lines, which
furthers the ploy's objective, into play.

Brent made a good point: compare violence to potency of other threats. I'd
add cui bono, obligatory grain of salt, and maybe we don't need cartoons to
replace our thinking or humor. PGC

It would behoove us to at least recognize that the roots of the problems
in the middle east run deeper than offense at a cartoon.

I used cartoon in less than literal sense.

It is a complex mess with deep historical roots going back to the Ottoman
period and on through the period of French and British colonial rule. There
are no easy solutions and the problem is not going away.

What? You don't think if I post my position a few more dozen times, that
the problem will not disappear from the global stage?

Dear Internet of grand opinionage,

I am disappointed in you!

Sincerely,
PGC

In order to manage the situation, as it has become, we need to at the very
least have a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issues and forces
that are driving resurgent medievalism in the middle east (but not only
there… there is a surge of the medievalist mind in the USA, and I imagine
to some degree in Western Europe as well)

Freedom includes by definition the right for everybody else to see/express
things their way. Therefore it is not a simple, clear matter to fight for
freedom of speech, as any form of battle/competition/conflict includes
assumption of restricting/denying/limiting the freedom of the opponent,

Hence the laws against defamation. True to form of factual concreteness
fetishes, we believe that power will take care of a power problem. Power
marks difference/imbalance relative to some value(s), and using some form
of it to eliminate lesser form is dubious but plausible; if done minimizing
harm at maximum of levels.

The truth that western liberal believes 'will establish itself over time'
is problematic in one key sense: *when* *exactly *does the truth of freedom
arrive (kinda sounds like waiting for messiah figure) and should we do
differences, the people being hurt over there, or the laws and prohibition
trampling freedom for security indefinitely; if so what? And why do we need
all these lawyers if everything is clear? ;-) 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/21/2015 3:49 PM, LizR wrote:

On 18 Jan 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/18/2015 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But observation and personal experience never prove anything.

Spoken like a true Platonist - who never sat on a jury.

I've sat on a jury, and since today has an 'R' in it, I'm a Platonist.
How does this relate to what Bruno wrote?

Juries use a different standard of prove than Bruno, one which is more
relevant to the reality we live in.

Brent

Perhaps rig a solar collector to an electric fan as there seem to be
cheaper ways to displace air than all this waving, lately? ;-)

Sorry, not in tune with all the nuances of your discussions with Bruno.
God, truth, one, facts, accuracy, consistency, beauty, ultimate etc. depend
on the theory or theology referenced by the discussion, its elements, legal
and illegal moves for reasoning, relevant questions, and open problems. If
this isn't clear, then we are in possible land grab mode and more
vulnerable to rhetorical tricks, status of speaker, our habits and the
usual laundry list.

This contributes perhaps to our mucky (as in unclear) theological
practice, although I'd always love to hear if the legal system has come up
with standards of proof closer to reality. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/20/2015 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I doubt that these subjects were
simply abandoned in an innocent fashion. The problem is that beliefs
about fundamental reality are at the foundations of political power, and
the powerful know this, even if only intuitively.

Read Craig A. James little book, The Religion Virus for a history of
religion from that standpoint.

Yes, since always. That is why we are mucky to be in a place where
scientists have regained some freedom in some domain, but clearly not in
all (theology and human science are still not done with the scientific
attitude).

We're in a mucky place because a lot of theologians promote mucky
religions. :-)

And of those that aspire to rigor, some eventually reach the problem:
preaching my brand of ignorance seems awfully conceited and
self-centered. Why push/force?

There's a paradox with education here: that we have to learn to tie our
shoes somewhere, to learn that we'll never get it totally right and have no

Robin Williams as psychologist in Good Will Hunting said something along
the lines: I teach this shit. I didn't say I know how to do it. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```Concerning thread: Perhaps I'm wrong and everybody is right.

Perhaps it's also ignoring some perceived set of mentalities that get us
into these kinds of positions in the first place.

Just remember maybe to have a good day whenever we can? And if we can
afford it:

That's enough proof that we can do better than sneering Onion satire.
Freedom of speech also means we can indeed argue taste above that freedom,
without authority.

Vacuous mysticism served neat. Are there better drinks?

Onions have always struck me as a bit vulgar, even if necessary at times,
they force us to cry. This onion was a lemon. Full of seeds and noxious
juice. Bad canteens would scoff at this produce despite the low price (It's
just advertising in the end). 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 3:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/15/2015 2:56 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

You seem to have a problem with Platonism as linguistic label, which I
say because I assume you value critical thought and scientific method on
semantic level. Because believing in Platonism is nonsense if Platonism
is framed as the first tradition in accessible history to value reasonable,
scientific doubt, without resorting to radical theological extremes. In
effect therefore, you state on semantic level I don't believe in
reasonable doubt.

On the contrary I believe in science, which is not just reasonable doubt.
It's a combination of reason and observation.  Plato (429-327BCE)
denigrated observation and promoted mysticism and armchair speculation.

I'm not sure I get your point:

Plato believed in mysticism and BS; it is therefore consistent that he
believed in other BS and therefore his work can be reduced to BS. Thus:

He promoted the idea of an afterlife in which the scales of justice got
balanced.

Is this observation + reasoning to you? I can't parse more than ad hominem.

And his approach tended to shut off the scientific enterprise that started
long before in Ionia with Thales of Miletus (624-547BCE), Anaximander
(611-546BCE), and Democritus (460-370BCE).  I don't know why Bruno thinks
he's a Platonist when his idea of The One was already put forward by
Anaximander who called it aperion:

* In his cosmogony, he held that everything originated from the apeiron
(the “infinite,” “unlimited,” or “indefinite”). Anaximander postulated
eternal motion, along with the apeiron, as the originating cause of the
world. *

Truth is perhaps weirder than infinity, causality, motion etc. Plato and
implications. But this is level of labels.

We can call negative theology, from these more or less plausible points
of origin to present day, what we like and cite whomever we wish, with
whatever birth/death dates they may have had. The question imho is: do we
see the common thread that make these questions appear as a plausible and
consistent whole?

I don't know. I've merely read some of it and can state that I do.
Particularly Gödel's contribution and discovery of computers.

...

Science was stifled for 900yrs by the fall of Rome and a combination of
Platonism and Aristotleanism that were incorporated into Christianity by
Augustine and Aquinas.  Science didn't resume until Galileo.

When I first joined this list I explained that usually described myself as
an agnostic in philosophical discussion because I'm agnostic about the
existence of some gods, but I describe myself as an atheist at cocktail
parties because otherwise I get buttonholed by someone who thinks I'm
uncertain about the God of his Bible.

Those parties don't seem fun but I had you buttonholed as a someone who
isn't intimidated by buttonholing.

Of course one can't be absolutely certain of anything (maybe I'm a brain
in a vat or a computer simulation) but I'm as certain about the
non-existence of the god of Abraham as I am about anything.

Anything is...whatever we need it to mean? I know it's a figure of speech
but isn't this a basic contradiction?

Notice that I capitalize God (as does Bruno) since it's supposed to be
a proper name, name of a person, and that's exactly the kind of god I don't
believe exists.

Brent
I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless
infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is
largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present
enduring.
--- William Archer, 'Theology and War'

When taken too literally, so is any idea. Hence moderate negative
theology or thereabouts on semantic level. Pick the linguistic clothes you
like and clarify when necessary: I like to keep my engine running clean and
try that it's a clean machine. Even when reality god calls for that
cocktails be deemed around ;-) PGC (and some Beatles stuff at the end,
which was a band. You can check out their vital records for dates anywhere
you like)

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/15/2015 7:33 PM, PGC wrote:

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:54:40 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

A fair question.

I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that
violence is a justified response to insult.

No, it just asks what distinguish two superficially similar cases, one in
which a cartoon insulted Islam and one which insulted four other major
religions, which had very different responses.  I'd bet that the people
that created it at The Onion suppose that violence is NOT justified by an
insult.

Hence the word ironically.

If you want to believe that the cartoon was created out of pure innocence
and curiosity of creative staff at the Onion, that is your choice.

This doesn't bar us from questioning content and relate that to current
events with extra grain of salt. I can't consume this pap otherwise, with
sincere apologies to creative at the onion. Not my taste. We should aspire
to better. PGC - Armchair Colonel

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why was nobody murdered because of this cartoon?

```On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/16/2015 10:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:42 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/15/2015 7:33 PM, PGC wrote:

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 8:54:40 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

A fair question.

I'm not so sure about that. The question presupposes ironically that
violence is a justified response to insult.

No, it just asks what distinguish two superficially similar cases, one in
which a cartoon insulted Islam and one which insulted four other major
religions, which had very different responses.  I'd bet that the people
that created it at The Onion suppose that violence is NOT justified by an
insult.

Hence the word ironically.

If you want to believe that the cartoon was created out of pure innocence
and curiosity of creative staff at the Onion, that is your choice.

This doesn't bar us from questioning content and relate that to current
events with extra grain of salt. I can't consume this pap otherwise, with
sincere apologies to creative at the onion. Not my taste. We should aspire
to better. PGC - Armchair Colonel

Then why don't you?

I do. It's my job, mucking around with wires on a wooden box for
entertainment and education. But I make no PR here because that's off topic
commercial interest and thus spam. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/15/2015 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical
reality we find ourselves in now?

No.  I don't believe IN anything.  I entertain hypotheses.

Good. But you don't always talk like that. Sometimes it looks like you
do believe that our origin is physical.

You only think that because I don't believe IN Platonism.

History, in terms of us having accessible records and writing, frames the
Greeks as the first to value critical scientific thought, where nothing can
be hidden from questioning and doubt.

This doesn't confer them some godlike status as they didn't invent doubt or
critical thinking. The use just complies with accessible historical data.

You seem to have a problem with Platonism as linguistic label, which I
say because I assume you value critical thought and scientific method on
semantic level. Because believing in Platonism is nonsense if Platonism
is framed as the first tradition in accessible history to value reasonable,
scientific doubt, without resorting to radical theological extremes. In
effect therefore, you state on semantic level I don't believe in
reasonable doubt.

That's why I guess you're arguing a language problem and not semantic
level. Nevertheless, this use of language, I refer to pushing atheism to
swallow agnosticism the last months, aims to assign all kind of
stereotypes of low sensational kind to group of Platonism believers, as I
can't see an argument or position emerge out of all this posting other than
some fundamental no!. But saying No! to critical thinking and its
historically marked tradition/reference is what it is.

That is, in my view, unscientific use of language, the kind we all seem to
criticize elsewhere: why talk to someone if you have their
beliefs/philosophy cornered and we frame ourselves as being too
sophisticated to entertain the same?

In the end, arguing atheism in this way, we imply that we're somehow
beyond believing propositions, while at the same time commenting how
anything is nonsense when it leaves rationality behind for a nanosecond. We
leave it behind for eternity when reasoning like this though. At least the
mystics can offer some plausible account (not truth, even by their
standards, see Plotinus) as to why they want to talk theology, and why the
act of doing exactly that is problematic.

Why talk and get angered by people as home brewed mascot projections of
labels in our heads, when we can talk to real people and explore their
thinking? What's behind the labels? Sure, we need the labels for reference.
But I'd like to think that good science doesn't believe in those. That's
why all this talk around agnostics are really atheists is dubious: in
assigning to certain ideas fixed literal meaning (God as person or
whatever), the atheist does and goes beyond what the agnostic refuses to
do: to believe strongly, with a certainty and confidence, that should be
alien to scientific practice. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/14/2015 3:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/14/2015 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/14/2015 6:25 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

In Buddhism: Samantabhadra Buddha declares of itself:
I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I
am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am
the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am the
core because I contain all phenomena. I am the seed because I give birth
to everything. I am the cause because all comes from me. I am the trunk
because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am the
foundation because all abides in me. I am called the root because I am
everything.

Various thinkers over time have, apparently through reason, come to a
similar conclusion:

Geometry existed before the creation, it is co-eternal with the mind of
God, Geometry provided god with a model for creation, Geometry is God
himself. -- Kepler

To all of us who hold the Christian belief that God is truth, anything
that is true is a fact about God, and mathematics is a branch of
theology.  -- Hilda Phoebe Hudson

I would say with those who say ‘God is Love’, God is Love.  But deep
down in me I used to say that though God may be Love, God is Truth above
all.  If it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest
description of God, I have come to the conclusion that God is Truth.  Two
years ago I went a step further and said that Truth is God.  You will see
the fine distinction between the two statements, ‘God is Truth’ and ‘Truth
is God’.  I came to that conclusion after a continuous and relentless
search after truth which began fifty years ago. -- Gandhi

And how are all your examples different than God is money or God is
power or God is a bearded dude in the clouds  They are just instances of
a simple formula: I think X is really important and deserving of your

No, they provide (potentially verifiable) answers to the question of
what exists beyond the physical reality and why it exists at all (assuming
it does and is not an illusion of consciousness), particularly those God

Some people say God is love, Bruno says God is unprovable truths.,
Paul Tillich said God is whatever you value most.  But just because
somebody says Unicorns are rhinocereses doesn't mean I have to start
believing unicorns exist, or that that when I say unicorns don't exist I'm
denying the existence of rhinocereses.

Do you believe in a source of reality beyond the apparent physical
reality we find ourselves in now?

No.  I don't believe IN anything.  I entertain hypotheses.

So then you're merely entertaining the hypothesis that no theistic God
exists, rather than being a true atheist who would believe IN no
theistic god exists

I don't believe any theistic God exists - and so I'm an a-theist.

Having no beliefs is agnostic.

No, an agnostic not only doesn't know, but thinks it's impossible to know,
per #5 below.

I don't see how uncertainty implies impossibility. If I'm uncertain it will
rain tomorrow, this doesn't imply impossibility of rain for tomorrow. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/14/2015 4:57 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I don't see how uncertainty implies impossibility. If I'm uncertain it
will rain tomorrow, this doesn't imply impossibility of rain for tomorrow.
PGC

It implies it is impossible to know it will rain tomorrow.

That's the fanatic absolute agnostic though. ;-)

Most agnostics don't go that far and will permit knowledge in relation to
some theory. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to form a thought, go to the
bathroom, make decisions etc.

But you're right. If taken to extreme in that fashion, an agnostic would
have to run away from weather reports screaming: Weird Voodoo Lorenz
nonsense! I won't fall for your powers of predictive seduction; even if
it's just for a week! Then again, how would they *know* that? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Also a fact is, depression has a lot of factors, the thing these studies
point out is that there are more depressive states among heavy cannabis
users.

They do not conclude cannabis is the cause of the depressive state, but
they try to have cannabis as the sole factor differentiating the groups...
so as to show that it is a factor... (cause or consequence of the
depressive state, linked to it; not a mere correlation).

But as I say, I don't care, if you're convince it is perfectly safe, and
no warning should be made on it when legalizing it, and that there is no
problem at that moment to sell it next to chocolate bar... then ok, but
I'll disagree, I'm against prohibition, but I'm not for selling it like
there was nothing to matter about it... it's still a drug, and still
something who massively change your state of mind when you take it...

You're beginning to dream. Nowhere did I say that, nor does anybody
trivialize dangers. Unfortunately, sugar may be more problematic for
society than cannabis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-kirkpatrick-ms-rd-ld/dangers-of-sugar_b_3658061.html

So if we're really pointing towards quantifiable danger, maybe that
chocolate bar and all the sugar we hide in our foods are not that harmless.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 13 Jan 2015, at 20:27, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 12 Jan 2015, at 16:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

But if you don't want to believe it... fine. What I say is that I'm
relieve to be an ex canabis addict, and that over usage didn't help me at
all and certainly if not the cause did enhance the problem... do what you
want with that.

I will: your history is not 3p fact. You pretend it is and base
statements concerning nature of global prohibition on this, for which you
repeatedly deliver no evidence. Mafia does not conclusively include the
diverse and complex mechanisms of how people extract profit from
prohibition. Gangster might, but this is so general it is worthless,
except maybe in pub conversation.

The studies you cite are based on authority of mental health
prohibitionists who have financial interest to control psychoactive study
and debunked correlation: their job security. You appear naive on the
effect of prohibition here.

Old news/propaganda. So yes, you appear to use prohibitionist type
argument and their science. PGC

Actually, the papers you find by google on depression and cannabis are
not that bad: the one i read all conclude that their sample are not big
enough to conclude anything.

Psychiatrist and mental health sector do not consider Cannabis for PTSD as
treatment possibility for example.

If for every 50 studies made on correlation with depression, anxiety,
schizophrenia etc. there was one made on checking for effectivity in PTSD
treatment or for effects of various methods of vaporization... then you can
begin to convince me on this.

Good point.

But the state of affairs with prescription medication system on which
psychiatry rests, wherein we treat with medications far more dangerous than
cannabis routinely, does not convince me that raising these type of
correlation questions to stigmatized conditions (depression, anxiety etc.)
is innocent scientific questioning. This is begging on institutional level,
benefiting more the psychiatrists' publication history and their expensive
treatment models, than anything else.

I agree. I was a bit sarcastic.

If not, then where are the studies on psychiatric benefits of Cannabis and
the medical institutions prescribing them?

There is a lot of power in merely posing the question; even when sample
size is insufficient for conclusion. Who cares, the headline is made? I
do, so I fund efforts to conduct that research. There is red tape
everywhere in this process and such studies do more harm than good. PGC

Yes. I eventually found one saying not just our samples are too small,
but saying despite our samples are too small this suggests that ...,
which is only a propaganda trick: we have no proof but we will still
propagate the rumor.

I respect Quentin personal testimony, though, and it is nice he stopped to
use cannabis if he felt it is not good for him.

Agreed. I've never stated contrary and just urged caution with these
associations, as I'm not sure they merit the status of hard evidence in the
current political climate.

Every few weeks you'll see some study with such association in the

So you support those that do the contrary (PTSD Treatment etc.) PGC

I have myself some problem with cannabis, but this is due to a rare
medical condition, which unfortunately makes all long term muscular
relaxants bad for me (like cannabis, but also alcohol, benzodiazepine, LSD,
basically all relaxant, which seems to always relax the muscles for a long
time, except salvia which lasts only five minutes, thanks God (well, it is
not so much a relaxant, also).

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed```

### Re: Democracy

```On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/13/2015 7:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Really?  On this list?  Where?  I read criticism of the NSA, of Obama,
of U.S. foreign policy everywhere.  There's a whole industry built around

That sort of criticism is innocuous and everyone knows it. The powerful
are not threatened by that sort of stuff. They probably even like it, it
only reinforces the two-party system.

What they are threatened is by people openly discussing experiences with
things that the social norms forbid. This guarantees, especially for
political candidates, that only the most bland social-norm-abiding
candidates will ever make it to power. And thus we are dead-locked into
total conformity.

So in what way are you forced to conform?  Do you want to have sex with
sheep?  Do you want to shoot up heroin?  Do you want print your own money?
Do you want to own a machine gun?  I know email lists where all those
things are discussed.  There is no loss of freedom if you are merely
forbidden to do something you never wanted to do anyway?  Of course
political candidates are bland and social-norm-abiding.  What would you
expect in a democracy?  Are you hoping for Le Pen or Emerson or some new
Hitler?

I'd appreciate a link to sex with sheep list. Not for personal but for
scientific reasons. For example, to find out: Do Le Pen, Emerson, or Hitler
frequent such list? Are there more Christian or Muslims participating? The
distribution of Plato and Aristotle theologies on that list, like is the
sheep immaterial or primitively physical etc. Pressing questions. The world
needs to know. We can't hide from the truth forever. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 12 Jan 2015, at 16:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

But if you don't want to believe it... fine. What I say is that I'm
relieve to be an ex canabis addict, and that over usage didn't help me at
all and certainly if not the cause did enhance the problem... do what you
want with that.

I will: your history is not 3p fact. You pretend it is and base statements
concerning nature of global prohibition on this, for which you repeatedly
deliver no evidence. Mafia does not conclusively include the diverse and
complex mechanisms of how people extract profit from prohibition.
Gangster might, but this is so general it is worthless, except maybe in
pub conversation.

The studies you cite are based on authority of mental health
prohibitionists who have financial interest to control psychoactive study
and debunked correlation: their job security. You appear naive on the
effect of prohibition here.

Old news/propaganda. So yes, you appear to use prohibitionist type
argument and their science. PGC

Actually, the papers you find by google on depression and cannabis are
not that bad: the one i read all conclude that their sample are not big
enough to conclude anything.

Psychiatrist and mental health sector do not consider Cannabis for PTSD as
treatment possibility for example.

If for every 50 studies made on correlation with depression, anxiety,
schizophrenia etc. there was one made on checking for effectivity in PTSD
treatment or for effects of various methods of vaporization... then you can
begin to convince me on this.

But the state of affairs with prescription medication system on which
psychiatry rests, wherein we treat with medications far more dangerous than
cannabis routinely, does not convince me that raising these type of
correlation questions to stigmatized conditions (depression, anxiety etc.)
is innocent scientific questioning. This is begging on institutional level,
benefiting more the psychiatrists' publication history and their expensive
treatment models, than anything else.

If not, then where are the studies on psychiatric benefits of Cannabis and
the medical institutions prescribing them?

There is a lot of power in merely posing the question; even when sample
size is insufficient for conclusion. Who cares, the headline is made? I
do, so I fund efforts to conduct that research. There is red tape
everywhere in this process and such studies do more harm than good. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

2015-01-12 11:49 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:

So I assume you have no argument here.

You don't have any argument here... the drug market is owned by mafias in
our shared real world, that's a fact... try to bypass them, they'll get
back at you... you can laugh all you want, that's how it is...

Sure, that's why this woman fears her life:

The very nature of prohibition creates a blind spot for research exactly on
the point you want to make here: nobody knows the extent, nature, power
distributions, cash flow schemes of entire drug market etc. because it is
illegal. We have estimates from various pov. That is all. Or show the
conclusive study/studies to which your statement pertains.

How the hell do you suppose dealers had drugs in the first place ?

I'm not an expert by any means, but I can speculate.
Some drugs like cocaine or heroin require plants that can only be grown
in specific geographic regions, so it's likely that mafias control those
supply chains. But other drugs can be grown in people's houses, synthesised
by amateur chemists, legally bought with a prescription, geo-arbitrated
(drug laws vary a lot across the world) etc etc.

Yeah, yeah, silk road was provided with drug with chemist apprentice in
their garage... you got better joke ?

It's ok that you don't know certain things, my knowledge has gigantic
gaps too. What I don't understand is why you embarrass yourself without at
least googling a bit.

Yeah and so these lab are not done under mafias controls ? you're joking
surely... it's well known dealers make their own canabis and amphetamine in
their garage and don't respond to anyone else except themselves, the
ndrangheta does not exists, it's a chimera.

Also you use a bully strategy by picking little things I say and trying
to make them sound silly.

Right. Maybe Quentin had too many discussion with... oh, never mind.

On the other side of the street from my home there is a large store
purely dedicated to selling equipment to grow cannabis. In countries like
Mexico, pharmacies will sell you almost anything.

Either you've got infinite bad faith here, or you so naive that it
can't be so... so I'm left with bad faith here.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it's fair to assume bad faith on my
part. I don't think I've made any unreasonable statement.

It's unreasonable to say silk road was a free market.. it was a
controlled mafia market that's all, and if that is an example of free
market... then I don't want to be in !

You provide no evidence or arguments for this. You just keep repeating it.

You provide absolutely nil evidence, that silk road was a free market not
under the influence of the mafias at the base level of the products that
were available on it.. please do.

Law enforcement has indicated over and over in the press how they had to
develop new strategies for Silk Road phenomenon. This implies somewhere
that traditional police work has to change to combat as it is not usual
methods as title implies:

You keep going on tangents when you don't like the outcome of the
debate. We started discussing Silk Road as an example of how a free market
works without force.

Silk road *wasn't* a free market. So, it seems you don't like the
obvious fact, not me who don't like the outcome of a debate.

Do you have any argument to support your assertion that silk road was not
a free market? Or should I just take your word for it?

I have the first argument that nearly 100% of the market of
cocaine/heroine/amphetamine is controlled under various mafias... the
ndrangheta is know to control 80% of the market trade of cocaine in
europe... any dealers who was selling that type of drugs could not have
done so without mafias oversight...

You condemned Cannabis as horrible drug, plus so-called hard substances
are widely being sold via prescription; strong opiates like fentanyl for
various conditions, operations, and weapons... ritalin, and amphetamine for

if you had stole them their market like you said it was, they would have
get back at you and take you the market by the only way it has ever been
done, by forcing you... they are not day dreamer, you piss them off, they
kill you, as simple as that... you can dream all you want, that's the bare
world we live in.

No, I don't read stories of Mafia killing patients or attacking hospitals
using opiates routinely, even though hospitals and illegal pharma are
competing with heroin sale.

Sensational, but rather simplistic. If this satisfies you, fine. I don't
consider most of your statements to be based on credible facts in this
```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

But if you don't want to believe it... fine. What I say is that I'm
relieve to be an ex canabis addict, and that over usage didn't help me at
all and certainly if not the cause did enhance the problem... do what you
want with that.

I will: your history is not 3p fact. You pretend it is and base statements
concerning nature of global prohibition on this, for which you repeatedly
deliver no evidence. Mafia does not conclusively include the diverse and
complex mechanisms of how people extract profit from prohibition.
Gangster might, but this is so general it is worthless, except maybe in
pub conversation.

The studies you cite are based on authority of mental health
prohibitionists who have financial interest to control psychoactive study
and debunked correlation: their job security. You appear naive on the
effect of prohibition here.

Old news/propaganda. So yes, you appear to use prohibitionist type
argument and their science. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:14 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

I share that sentiment; western mass media seems to only care about loss
when it is their loss.

And, in cases, such as this recent act of terrorism, the reflexive Neocon
clash of civilizations call goes out to solve the problem with yet more
boots on the ground; invading yet more lands; haven’t we learned after
bombing Iraq for some twenty five years (if you begin the count from the
war’s first movement in the early nineties… and for thirty if you count the
Iran-Iraq war, in which the US secretly armed and backed Saddam Hussein’s
regime) that the muscular military option has only produced a de facto
state of permanent war with no solution!  Clearly the dismembered former
nation state of Iraq is not better off now than it was before they got a
massive dose of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but also the US, especially
amongst industrialized countries has become changed for the worse; the loss
of individual rights – even the age old right (from medieval times) of
habeas corpus is under attack in this freedom loving country.

But hey it has been good for the MIC profit center –the US has not bombed
Iraq into a magically becoming a “freedom loving western style democracy”,
but a lot of money has been made by a very few people along the decadal
road to failure. Permanent war is good for some business’ bottom lines; big
fortunes have been made… at massive cost to the US economy and crumbling
infrastructure, to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the American CFUs as well. CFU is
an acronym George Bush senior used to use describing your average Joe; it
stands for Cannon Fodder Units.

The world does not need another large scale war in the middle east; there
are powerful forces that want that war however. Now talking – once again as
they always do in times like these -- in Manichean terms about a clash of
civilizations, and lining up support for the next major war. War is

-Chris

Turkish minister Davutoglu said something equivalent to: It's not
acceptable to speak of 'Islamic terror', as we didn't label the attack in
Norway, or Neo-Nazi Attacks in Germany to be 'Christian Terror'. All forms
of extremism, including racism, are dangerous. No matter their origin.
Let's refer to the specific group or individuals.

Yes, he is invested with Turkish interests at border in Syria.

But there is a point in valuing precision when we speak of this and take
no matter their origin to not be literal reading of all people are equal
etc. but rather Why should we perpetuate the way these people marketed
themselves? Are we being payed to run their PR campaign? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Fine, like I said believe what you want to believe, I'll stop the
discussion on that subject here...

What discussion? I thought I am advocating the free sale and use of
windows.

The psychiatrist, of mental health sector which your studies base
themselves on, is the officially sanctioned shaman, operating with
backdrop of prohibition. This doesn't mean the science is correct or false.
But with prohibition and such conflict of interest, there is a problem: we
can't make sense of the science if we are standing directly on it, making
money from it etc.

I'm claiming and arguing ignorance in the face of those facts. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2015-01-12 18:20 GMT+01:00 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ok, then fine, believe what you want to believe and cannabis is as good
as anything...

With your type of reasoning you should conclude alcoholism does not
exist and only prohibitionist pretend it does...

I disagree with such bombastic statement. Alcohol is dangerous, so is
cannabis, so are windows, depending on particularities. But relative to
other poison, cannabis is relatively safe. Also, what is my type of
reasoning and how does this relate to this discussion?

Your type of reasoning is simply denying a lot of studies with correlation
between depression and heavy cannabis usage as being prohibitionist
propaganda...

If such correlation satisfies you, that is your business and not rational
argument in itself. These guys make a few hundred euros per hour minimum
with treatment that isn't effective, and you imply the sector has no
interest in finding more and more conditions to legitimize their position
and security?

as such my bombastic statement is the same... alcoholism does not exist,
it is prohibitionist propaganda...

Still doesn't follow because it is naive concerning conflict of interest in
economic and political terms I have cited.

and you can link all the studies you want, they're all financed and done
with a prohibitionist agenda... any persons who pretend to be an alcoholic
and that alcohol has affected is life is a liar... and should have gone to
a psychiatrist.. am I resuming it well ?

I laid out the numbers and argument above. You continue to not offer
anything more than subjective claims. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Ok, then fine, believe what you want to believe and cannabis is as good as
anything...

If you exaggerate anything you will get extreme results. I don't ask for
distortion or faith. The flaw is obvious, even using such terms of such
study:

Assume materialism and that depression exists as some primitive sort of
human condition. Then, say some person has depression and anxiety, to use
the terms and concepts you set, and they self-medicate with cannabis. The
argument in this setting is: go to a psychiatrist and treat your condition
instead of using dangerous illegal Cannabis.

Such person could argue that visiting psychiatrist for this is:

1) more expensive than their supplier

2) that statistical suicide correlation, chronic depression, frequency of
rupture episodes etc. is not effectively negated with use of prescription
drugs such as SSRI and Benzodiazepines to treat depression and anxiety in
question, via pharma industry and psychiatrists.

3) that there are more deaths through toxicity/overdose of prescription
pharma medication every year than with Cannabis. These drugs are plausibly
be more dangerous.

I don't think it is unreasonable for such a person to conclude that going
to psychiatry to treat their depression, even assuming no controversy with
mental health definitions (which is very optimistic, to say the least), is
a bad deal, dangerous, and waste of money. Why should they subsidize
science of ganster without rational argument? Because of such studies
and white clothes of pharmacist, without testing the propositions and
numbers themselves?

Of course, this is a generalized case and things are not this simple
throughout mental health. But even using the terms of such study and
assuming total legitimacy of mental health sector: it makes no economic or
medical sense from such point of view. I'd agree that for such patient this
makes no rational sense.

With your type of reasoning you should conclude alcoholism does not exist
and only prohibitionist pretend it does...

I disagree with such bombastic statement. Alcohol is dangerous, so is
cannabis, so are windows, depending on particularities. But relative to
other poison, cannabis is relatively safe. Also, what is my type of
reasoning and how does this relate to this discussion? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2015-01-12 19:01 GMT+01:00 Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com:

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

Fine, like I said believe what you want to believe, I'll stop the
discussion on that subject here...

What discussion? I thought I am advocating the free sale and use of
windows.

The psychiatrist, of mental health sector which your studies base
themselves on, is the officially sanctioned shaman, operating with
backdrop of prohibition. This doesn't mean the science is correct or false.
But with prohibition and such conflict of interest, there is a problem: we
can't make sense of the science if we are standing directly on it, making
money from it etc.

I'm claiming and arguing ignorance in the face of those facts. PGC

I think most of the scientist involved in those studies do them in good
faith using correct science (that means they don't play with the studies to
influence the result of it)...

I have worked close to the sector and saw frightening lack of rigor, deep
ideological differences, still today, post psychiatric reform, with some
noble exceptions.

But it's a mess and not even close to this harmonious, which I say as a
musician who loves noise of all sorts :-)

there is now a lot of studies pointing the correlation between heavy
cannabis usage (especially at yound age) and later depressive state... I've
not done the study myself... but I don't throw them out labelling them
prohibitionist propagande.

I don't throw them out. I merely state: how can we know, given that these
studies and the sector enforce prohibition and profit from it? If somebody
wants that treatment, and makes a reasoned decision to go for it + it
works: good for them.

But that doesn't rid us of the problem, nor the complexity on top of it.
I'll read something to death before making up my mind in this area, in
general, even without prohibition because we're putting person into
category with every diagnosis, which is one of the key difficulties the
sector faces post psychiatric reform period.

There are many noble intentions, but I ask whether they can be as effective
as they could, if we continue with authoritative argument of prohibition.
It makes impossible to see what is already unclear.

As I've said, and I'll repeat one more time... I'm for legalizing all
drugs,

Then I would be careful to give psychiatry good faith too easily.

*but* that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any failsafe and especially
concerning cannabis not to present it like a sort of coffee or chocolate
with no danger at all (and that's what propagande that says it has no more
harms than coffee just does)... it's elluding totally how the substance is
used, in what circumstances...

Especially all the evil arthritic women on this planet who use the oil for
their pain and all those lazy kids and stoners who don't want to work a

Of course nobody should trivialize the dangers. But we shouldn't exaggerate
them and build science on that basis either.

You disagree, fine...

you think all those studies are done in badfaith fine...

Only partially. I don't think this is totally clear to anybody. It's
horribly complex. PGC

but you should stop calling me a prohibitionist as I'm not and stated
clearly... saying it, is a lie, but if you like it, fine with me.

But you do support those studies without question. In good faith. I'm not
so sure, as a lot of money and power are at play, which to some are the
most dangerous poisons of all...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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:39 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Platonist Guitar Cowboy
*Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2015 6:30 PM
*Subject:* Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum
theory to dialectics?

In this sidestepping there is a point at which reason is left behind,
which is consistent with incompleteness phenomenon, failure of logicism,
mysticism etc. The move is grounded in the consequence that somebody
asserting existence or non-existence of God has to be able to therefore
know the root and source of all and nothing. The latter is assumed
impossible. Therefore sidestepping and questioning the implications of such
a move in Plotinus' work. PGC

Once Bruno explained to me how he intends the term god when he uses it I
understood his intent. Clearly he is not connoting some biblical deity when
he uses the term. While it may be a continuous source of confusion for him
as others who are unfamiliar with his meaning of god, encounter his usage
of it; it is his prerogative to decide to use that term.

Agreed. Plotinus stated in Enneads that we can merely use some weak
reference, like One. But in line with sidestepping we can choose to be
inconsistent to mark that we don't really know what we are talking about;
e.g. concerning truth, reality, source, one, god, beauty, ultimate,
foundation, root, fountain, pure etc. I don't know Bruno's exact line on
this issue, but Plotinus uses these terms and more to build the forms of
his dialogues, only to demolish them later.

I think this might confuse the western reader to venture ok, but what is
the point?, at which point Plotinus would probably blurt Good point!,
maintaining something like: We don't know what it is. But neo-platonic
thought does postulate that everybody seeks it. Why pretend to be
consistent, when we couldn't know such thing, and have in fact asserted
that we don't? This doesn't negate search or fundamental inquiry, it gives
us the keys to use the vehicle and search, instead of getting in, turning
the key and muttering bitterly I don't believe in vehicles.

This is hyperbole. It's too late for me to write anything sensible today.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

```On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/11/2015 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

We can't criticize religions because the churches, with the help of the
main stream atheist (of your type), does not want us to come back to
reasoning at that level, yet.

All the atheists I know are fine with a search for fundamental reality
with a scientific attitude.  The only thing they don't like about your
program is your insistence on calling something (it's not clear what)
God.  They don't like that because God has a common meaning;

Quantum physics and relativity have many popular interpretations and snappy
analogies. Is this the standard then? Should we rely on these when doing
research for clarity's sake, because it's easier to exchange mails/posts
about, or should we rely on what we judge to be the best interpretations?

it means a supernatural person who created the world and judges human
worth and communicates His commands through priests and mystics and sacred
texts.

Not the neo-platonic interpretation of the concept. God is merely a more
familiar term for unnameable principle or fundamental source of reality,
stripped from its usual personal or theistic connotations.

The root of everything and nothing, if you pardon this neo-platonic
blasphemy, required to form an order or hierarchy that we ultimately cannot
take literally.

The via negativa has been with us long enough to be recognized by Christian
theology, which takes quite a while... :-) Anybody can google it.

Instead of saying yes or no to god with attributes, according to Plotinus,
this implies sidestepping the issue and pursuing the consequences of
asserting negative belief.

In this sidestepping there is a point at which reason is left behind, which
is consistent with incompleteness phenomenon, failure of logicism,
mysticism etc. The move is grounded in the consequence that somebody
asserting existence or non-existence of God has to be able to therefore
know the root and source of all and nothing. The latter is assumed
impossible. Therefore sidestepping and questioning the implications of such
a move in Plotinus' work. PGC

I don't think you believe in this God but you want to poke the eye of
some atheists who rejected your work.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Democracy

```On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:

with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze.

You mean their assertion of that is clear.  It's begging the question to
say it is clear.

It's clear to everybody who has read them beyond some wiki pages, including
you being exposed to Bruno's pov for years. Like any study in any domain.

So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization,

The one is the simplest of all ideas is a facile abstraction.

It is indeed too simple to talk about. Plotinus makes clear that his
talk/writing is to be taken with grain of salt, and merely as if; merely
some linguistic reasoning to encourage what is most important to him:
entering into union with the one. And yes, this kind of point *would* be
philosophy or theology of Plotinus.

or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to
break something, which is the ultimate simple, down further), so simple as
to elude people, try as they might to capture it or make it fit some
personal agenda.

I haven't noticed them having any difficult making it fit their personal
agendas.  It's vague enough to fit anything.

It's not hard to find Plotinus quotes along the semantic lines: negative
spiritual or theological path is a rational consequence of us not being
able to affirm positive attributes (implying exclusion) of the one. Any
thought or spirit directed at anything else than the one is under
enchantment of illusion of appearances. For Plotinus all practical action,
as well as thought associated with it in this world, is therefore dreaming
under enchantment and not fully conscious, not in full contact with the
one. (I could dig up precise reference, treatise/section/chapter +
translation of Enneads if you really cared, but it's Plotnius 101, I think
somewhere around 4,4 and somewhere around 40th Chapter with Chase's
translation)

Therefore to have a personal agenda is delusion at best, in Plotinus'
terms. I agree that mysticism is abused in various ways. But this abuse
highlights possibility of its rational use as well, and the negative
theology of ancient Greece did well here. And Plotinus didn't do and/or
even write much, again a subject of scrutiny for how to write about the
one, without missing the point? Frequent uses of so to speak and as it
were throughout the work are not weaseling in this case, but appropriate
to unspeakable subject matter, a negative theology therefore, and an open
admission of the limitations and strictures of language.

Once wrestled with, the theology stands as one of the simplest and
clearest. But getting there is, due to our cultural biases, a complex
matter. Not because Plotinus message is complex, but mainly because of all
the cultural baggage we habitually bring to the reading.

And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave of
forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc.

Fits with is vague enough to fit with assertion.

It just means a point for consistency, in asserting negative theology as a
whole. Like Plato's cave, we don't get a why-answer for the one's
existence, but we can query negative theology for the types of confusions
in belief/dream that might arise and decide for ourselves whether we get
closer to relating to a reality that these mystical propositions point
towards or not.

Value and precision with negation is asserted in a world of illusion in
platonic tradition. Another common rhetorical device to convey this as
new facts, and therefore a firewall for excessive literal interpretation is
apophasis. This is not used as rhetorical trick, but reflects the as if
status of statements, pertaining to something so beyond our ability to
conceive (while also being under our noses) that it cannot be described in
or analyzed in discrete terms.

That is why questioning dialogue is appropriate to the pedagogical aspect
of relating this kind of content better than detached passive voice and
analytical exposition we have grown used to from western perspective,
sweeping the respective scientists' theologies under the rug in most
papers, from most domains of institutional scientific work, I come across
these days. It follows that our current habits would be arrogant and
excessive in Plotinus' view.

Unless you are the devil.  Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to
stone adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.

Brent
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns
out that God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott

The very idea of people's relation to god = who we should hate,
that it itself cannot be divine. So ```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:26 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

thereby explaining a variety of scientific problems and refuting your
absolute statement on what any god theory can/cannot explain.

Then give bafflegab a rest for just one second and provide one clear
specific example of something the God theory can explain better than (not
science, that would be asking too much) simply saying I don't know. Just
one clear specific example is all I ask.

I know you keep demanding hard evidence. As I outlined numerous times,
this is false problem, too needy on consistency and perhaps theologically
naive. But you always reason like that and judge/berate other for being
different, so no surprise.

It's as humble and scientific as you are patronizing.

You want an example that set theoretic objects might in weak sense bear
relation to god? You can take Lebowski machine's refutation, which is
better than you're, again authoritative bossy, no! above to Plotinus
(again being absolute/radically certain in negation offering no reasoning)
but also communication between Cantor and church.

I will no longer respond to your queries on this because you're not
having real discussion; I am convinced for now you are playing weird/creepy
psychological games and being silly bully about it, with stuff to prove to
themselves.

You confuse this for style, class, appearance beauty queen intellect
science prize exhibition points or politeness or something, which is
your right. You don't need the canned responses; have some faith in
yourself without the bombastic exhibitionism! You can live without spamming
us with your childhood experience and still make precise points. Or you can
keep up the spam. I don't care, although I bet on the latter.  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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/19/2014 8:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

I don't recall Bruno ever csaying if you don't believe in something then
you believe in it.

What he's said is that atheists defend/support/reinforce the same
idea/conception of god that the literalist or fundamentalist abrahamic
religions use.

Atheists can't say there is no God without defining what they mean by
God,

Yeah, they tend to be rational like that.

It's not raining so it never rains. There are no such things as
sophisticated French subtleties like humidity, cloudy with chance of
showers, the isolated drops before a possible light shower and such modal
nonsense, and their definitely, positively, ABSOLUTELY is no such thing as
fog or romantic notions like mist. Rain or Sunshine. Clarity, ok?

Weather unclear or unpredictable, please... I knew that before I was
twelve.

and invariably they choose some variant of an omniscient omnipotent
creator who answers prayers and judges us, rather than any of the myriad of
other conceptions of god.

Maybe it's because they speak the same language and that's what theism
means.

Yes! Or maybe not. More precision and maybe not.

In this way, atheists pretend there is only one acceptable definition and
will usually fight to say that it is only definition, or the one everyone
means,  or believe the one all believers believe in.

That's a perfect case of defending the idea of what God is or can be,
even if it is only to then attack the idea. Honest theistic reasoning would
use logic to say,  okay perhaps God cannot be this, but we have not ruled
out these other possibilities which are as far as we know not
inconsistent,

Other possibilities for *what*?  What is the thing?  What are its
essential properties?

Pure awesomeness. The collection of all awesomeness, everywhere at all
and accountant for possible bogosity.

What is its definition?

Let it be a thing.

Done.

Q.E.D.

They start with a word, a few attributes, and an emotional attitude and
they seek a definition they can attach them to.  Which would be OK, except
they insist that the word God, which already has millenia of baggage,
must apply.  That's my complaint with Bruno.  He explicitly renounces all
that baggage, but he still wants to use the word God.

Because it could be that thing in the lost baggage. I hate losing my
luggage, so I can relate to Bruno, because I don't care about Samsonite but

rather than we have ruled out this definition of god, and it is the only
definition, therefore there is no god

Yes, that's exactly the approach taken by theologians.  First they take a
word God and then they see if they can give it some meaning that makes
them feel good.  But notice that they capitalize it already, implying it is
a person.

No, it's the fresh thing. We don't know what it is, but we know it
sometimes when we see it. And when we think we know that, we become dumb.

Honest theistic reasoning is like faith based evidence.

Brent
The political discourse matters, and explains a good deal. But
there's something beneath it, something we don't want to look in
the face: namely, that in India, as elsewhere in our darkening
world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion
intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating
around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable
language of respect. What is there to respect in any of this,
or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around
the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal
results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill
for them! And when we've done it often enough, the deadening of
affect that results makes it easier to do it again. So India's
problem turns out to be the world's problem. What happened in
India has happened in God's name. The problem's name is God.
--- Salman Rushdie 2002

Well, uhmm that's just like your... religion opinion... man. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
enough,

Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some of
my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things would be even better if
they were just more diphlesadory in a refungent sort of way.

with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist connotations,
including racial overtones, like correcting others for sharing and

Mr. Cowboy, may I make a humble suggestion, before you honor us with
another of your patented stream of consciousness word salads try waiting 5
minutes and then read what you've written aloud to yourself. If you had
done that I don't think you would have hit the send button and sent the
ASCII sequence quoted above to the list.

Humble? You're giving snobby English lessons to people with spell checkers
to distract still avoiding topic. PfffGC

You are right. Eventually all this is distracting talk, to avoid the real
thing, like why he stops in step 3.

What I try to understand, is why he does that. Is it fear of
understanding, or fear of not understanding. is because he has a (blind)
faith in physicalism? (He pretended that this is not the case).

I try to understand why human can be so anti-rational on the fundamental
questions.

I question whether his arguments represent merely the other side of rather
literal Christian cultural coin, where it is o.k. to be patronizing in
using psychological trick like talking down to people about politeness and
cultural etiquette etc. And this is ugly since it presupposes sense of
superiority instead of clash or exchange of ideas/questions of people who
see eye to eye.

A culture that, in what we call the west, is firmly planted on Christian
models of family, politics, work, sexuality, decency etc. He declares that
he is not Christian, and that atheism is not equivalent with or part of the
culture it refers to in negation. It would be somewhat consistent to expect
then, that an atheist rejects and distances themselves from institutions of
family, marriage, ethics, decency, lifestyles etc. derived from Christian
background. But he denies.

And yet he uses the device of publicly shaming, i.e. PGC should feel bad
that he is not versed enough in the dominant culture's high class etiquette
of verbal exchange and therefore be shamed into silence/confession, which
is medieval form of exercising control that many, not only the Christian,
religions used to stop questions and intimidate.

My guess for now is that even merely invoking these questions exposes a
rigid atheist/religious taboo.

Even when there is so much overlap in other area of science and chance to
meet others with fascinating diversity and views on such forum on the
internet, invoking the fundamental questions even with strong atheists,
results in them judging you for breaking one of their commandments, like
any religion that speaks from authority, rather than from question. My
point is, atheism practiced in this view, although fashionable in science
today, is a disguised Trojan horse of Christian values. Like doubting
Thomas, that is inside the brackets of the book. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:36 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

why is there something rather than nothing? is a badly posed
question,

I don't think so, it may or may not have a answer, nobody knows, but
it's a perfectly clear unambiguous question. And if not from nothing
science can at least provide a pretty good road map to explain how
something came from *almost* nothing. And that's not a bad days work.

You miss the point that the current explanation fails to explain three
important things: matter (where does it comes from,

Oh for heaven's sake, read Lawrence  Krauss's book A Universe from
Nothing, or at least read some book on Cosmology written in the last 20
years.

the quantum vacuum explanation assumes a lot

It assumes that nothing at least has the potential to produce something,
what is the alternative? Do you want science to explain how noting could
produce something even if the nothing doesn't even have the potential to
produce something? Don't you think that may be just a tad unreasonable?

And whatever misgivings you may have about science failing to fully
explain some subtlety remember that the God theory can explain absolutely
positively NOTHING, zero zilch nada goose egg.

Whatever misgivings you may have...remember... = Whatever you say...I
will have my canned spam message to place right here

Being our humble scientific role model again?

That's exactly the attitude that many atheist scientists accuse religions
of. Don't doubt, remember my holy message, whatever you say... Wow calling
a guy...

Lebowski caricature in Hollywood flick quote above utters perhaps a
stronger statement:

Yeah, well... that's just like your uhmm.. opinion, man. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:35 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014  Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:

Lebowski caricature in Hollywood flick quote above utters perhaps a
stronger statement:
Yeah, well... that's just like your uhmm.. opinion, man.

Can anybody translate this for me? What on earth this man talking about?

Perhaps it's sort of machine's theological universal refutation statement.

Concerning God theory can explain absolutely positively NOTHING, zero
zilch nada goose egg. it could mean that somebody could believe to be able
to apply and/or learn from Russell's paradox, infinities, collection of all
sets, why ZF has to restrict on axiom of comprehension in relation to this
etc., as these ideas seem to imply existence of the kinds of transcendental
objects/gods/entities that have the potential to escape our understanding.
That person could hold that in a given theory we can indeed work with,
around, away from, or against such concepts; thereby explaining a variety
of scientific problems and refuting your absolute statement on what any
god theory can/cannot explain.

Such a someone, Lebowski in this example, would see your statement on God
theory as excessive and as rigid unscientific belief. Just an opinion
ignoring standard and established scientific search and facts by reference
to certain theories. It would be wishful thinking to them. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)

Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you did

If the ONE is supposed to mean the reason there is something rather than
nothing it might be confusing if it turns out, and it could, that there is
more than one thing responsible for that; it is also possible that the
ONE is equal to zero because nothing is responsible for it.

So you're open to possibility now in this context and trying to make humor
out of it at least. You've been saved by da Jesus of Lebowskiism. You're
welcome.

But if I did agree and thus freed up the word God for what nearly
everybody on the planet already means by it

Appeal to popular use shot down three times in posts last week.

would you also write a post to this list, also in all capital letters,
saying THERE IS NO GOD?  I don't think you could ever bring yourself to
type that because you love the word G-O-D too much.

I don't even see how that follows, other than that it is some empty
personal attack again. For the love of god John...

That is the key things in most neoplatonist theologies: God is not even
a being. It does not exist as an object, nor a phenomenon. With simple
logic, it cannot be omniscient,

Forget omniscient, if Cosmologists are even close to being correct God,

Why? Because they won prizes that make all developments/reasoning in
theology throughout different cultures for centuries exclusively invalid?

the reason there is something rather than nothing, is not even as
intelligent as a worm and has less memory than one

You're the one that is so sure of it, then prove it. You sound more certain
than most Christians. As much as we think we're independent and liberated
from Christian cultural background: our model of marriage/procreation is
centered around it, our concept of justice through prohibition and wrathful
punishment using legal authority exercised by one power, sexuality and the
perpetuated role models, the relation to work, working for merit/value
determined by culture...

Diehard atheist also swims in this soup and I rarely see them advocating
greater liberality and independence from these models. So even in practice,
hardcore atheist is just frightened Christian playing cop with other
fundamental impact on cultural psychology shared through daily mundane way

; and I would maintain that virtually nobody means that when they use the
word God, not even you except when you're arguing on this list about
religion with me.

Popular use justification again with appeal to inappropriate use. Hollywood
flicks and 4 minute scenes treat theology in more mature fashion than this.
PfffGC

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 16 Oct 2014, at 16:39, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.

Right. If I remember correctly, peculiar machine is inaccurate but not
necessarily inconsistent.

Smullyan introduced that term in Forever Undecided (the little bible!)
with a slight different meaning. A reasoner (machine or not) is peculiar
with respect to a proposition p, if he believes p, but also believes that
he does not believe p. A reasoner is peculiar if there is a proposition p
to which he is peculiar about.

Such entities will be inaccurate, but not necessarily inconsistent. So you
are right. The reverse does not follow, note.

Exercise: find or build a peculiar entity.
Solution: just that follish thing that Smullyan dares to do, and fake that
you believe that G* is not talking about some machine or on G, but that G*

That was the funky move I forgot, which places this in good perspective.

G* typically proves t   (correct intepretation: the machine I talk about
is consistent)
G* proves also, like G, the incompleteness theorem: t - ~[]t, and G*
is closed fro the modus ponens, so, G* prove ~[]t.
So G* proves both t and  ~[]t, making G* peculiar on t. And G* is
consistent, it does not prove the false.

Of course G* is *not* peculiar on t. G* is peculiar on t only if
*you* interpret (wrongly) the box of G* as being the provability by G. Of
course the box of G* is the provability by G, or by any correct Löbian
entity.

This shows that any machine confusing science and truth (the box at the G
level and the box at the *-level) will be peculiar on her consistency.

Somehow, I feel a bit more sorted now. I'll be able to sleep better tonight
;-)

I think that we become peculiar if we identify consciousness and
self-consistency, that might be true, but is at the star level. May be
Dennett, the Churchland are peculiar, or a negative version of it.

Interesting. I am so busy on clarifying the []p and []p  p confusion,
that I forget the quite important G/G* confusion, which leads to the queer
reasoner, as Smullyan called them also.

That's a lot of confusion on your shoulders.

So you have to doublethink in consistent ways, to not generate suspicion.

And they're also not conceited ( Believing for all p: Bp - p, or there
doesn't exist p such that: ~p  Bp ), thus believing in their
infallibility. PGC

Of course, with that same queer interpretation of the box (the
provability by G* itself on itself), G* is conceited, as he believes in []p
- p for all p.

That's of course to you and huh? Ah, nice! again to me. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:

I ask myself who would INSIST on using the word God (and not some
other word)

Which one? I have suggested an other word, like the ONE, but you

If the ONE is supposed to mean the reason there is something rather
than nothing it might be confusing if it turns out, and it could, that
there is more than one thing responsible for that; it is also possible that
the ONE is equal to zero because nothing is responsible for it.

So you're open to possibility now in this context and trying to make
humor out of it at least.

Humor? I'm dead serious, a trillion factors may be needed to explain the
universe, or zero factors may explain it because it's just a brute fact,
there is no reason to think that one is more likely than any other number.

You've been saved by da Jesus of Lebowskiism. You're welcome.

I need to find another cowboy who's a Platonist and can play the guitar so
he can translate that from your native language into English because I
don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
enough, with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist
connotations, including racial overtones, like correcting others for
sharing and communicating in your language properly.

You've show that you are a worldly, sophisticated man who gets around a
lot. And you said your spam prayer for the day, as predicted. You lack some
atheist amen to close it though. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
enough,

Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some of
my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things would be even better if
they were just more diphlesadory in a refungent sort of way.

with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist connotations,
including racial overtones, like correcting others for sharing and

Mr. Cowboy, may I make a humble suggestion, before you honor us with
another of your patented stream of consciousness word salads try waiting 5
minutes and then read what you've written aloud to yourself. If you had
done that I don't think you would have hit the send button and sent the
ASCII sequence quoted above to the list.

Humble? You're giving snobby English lessons to people with spell checkers
to distract still avoiding topic. PfffGC

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Sounds like doublethink to mewhich was of course a virtue and a
necessity if you lived on Airstrip One.

Right. If I remember correctly, peculiar machine is inaccurate but not
necessarily inconsistent.

So you have to doublethink in consistent ways, to not generate suspicion.

And they're also not conceited ( Believing for all p: Bp - p, or there
doesn't exist p such that: ~p  Bp ), thus believing in their
infallibility. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014  Platonist Guitar Cowboy

For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you met
a god that told you to write down his message. If your god insists in the
text that he/she/it is infallible, in the literal sense of the term, in
all possible universes, but then follows up that sentence asserting that
4+4 = 5 is true, then

Then one of the following must be true:

1) The story about meeting and talking to God is a crock of shit.

2) You did meet and talk to God but God is just not very bright, after all
if we use Bruno's definition of God then God is as dumb as a box of rocks.
I realize that for nearly everybody God is astronomically smart, in fact
infinitely smart, but if you're desperate to stick the God label on
something, anything, and are more interested in the English word than the
idea behind it then that's what you get.

If you're so certain of your agnosticism [...]

So you're saying that John Mikes shouldn't even be certain that he doesn't
know. OK, but are you certain of that?

Lol, why is somebody, that prides themselves spamming, in the driver's seat
of posing questions now?

John stated that he intentionally spams the list and why he is proud of it.

I have no idea when/if he is doing his spam thing, or spreading stupidity,
for which John also grants himself infinite license on the basis of having
been stupid in the past (that's how we tend to avoid reasoning most cases,
not only in theology, but hopefully in other branches of science as well),
or when he is playing some tasteless game to get further recognition/prizes
attributed to his illustrious name that enjoys world fame in science, or
if... he is being sincere in his question/post.

Via context I can intuit that it's probably not the sincerity thing at this
point. So apologies John, but it's pretty obvious why no bite here for
now. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Lol, why is somebody, that prides themselves spamming, in the driver's
seat of posing questions now?

You should have put a on before spamming and put a be rather than a
comma between spamming and in the driver's seat. And Lol may be
appropriate on a Justin Bieber fan page but here it lacks a certain
gravitas.

I have no idea when/if he is doing his spam thing,

I don't know what the spam thing is but whatever it is if I am doing it
(and apparently you're not sure if I am hence the if) you should know
when. Email has a time stamp on it.

that's how we tend to avoid reasoning most cases,

For maximum insult value you should have said he tends rather than we
tend

not only in theology, but hopefully in other branches of science as well

It is hoped not hopefully.

it's pretty obvious why no bite here for now. PGC

u dn't rite 2 good

John K Clark

PS, it's a bit off topic but I have to ask, just what is a Platonist
Guitar Cowboy?

Can't you at least make the pointless distractions fun or somehow relate
them marginally to the discussion?

There isn't much sense in pursuing the discussion otherwise, but I guess
that's what I get for arguing with proud radical atheist, utterly convinced
of not having found Jesus in their life.

To get back on track with the question of a possible Jesus, and the many
forms in many universes that this figure can take, is no easy task. No
worries: I'm here to help, on topic with generalizations of Jesus- God and
Matter, an example of which can be beheld at the very end of this short
sequence:

Valid existential proof of the existence of Jesus in under five minutes of
video. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

which again confirm my point (you know the one which trigger your

If you don't like my bot-like answer then stop making the exact same
bot-like accusation; I give the stupidity prize to  Atheism, as I know it,
is a slight variant of christianism.

Why? It's the same behavior. What you call bot-like answer is what
literalist Christian fundamentalist refer to as strict duty of prayer:
Mindless iteration of unexamined bullshit daily, which you are keeping up
with.

The stupidity prize you made up is clearly yours to claim, keep, and take
home as long as you keep spamming the list with your personal wishful
thinking prayers: Well known for disliking... phhh! Yeah, you are as
well known, renowned, and famous as Einstein etc...

You can also make a fool of yourself and dig holes in the woods. You'll
appear idiotic/naive to less people statistically speaking. Unless of
course you're into public humiliation/embarrassment stuff, in which case
maybe it's time to come out of the closet, and seek out those kinds of
communities and their forums?

But I bet you can't stop, like the fanatic Christian cannot stop with his
prayer/bot-like mantra babbling. That's a comp prediction btw ;-)

Nobody cares though finally, as passionate as your posts may seem to other
idiot, you still have nothing. So stick to your prayer and dutifully keep
name/fame due to saving the rest of us from ourselves with the great
no-bullshit scientific wisdom approach... that ironically leaves in this
case nothing but bullshit in its wake. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

I read Bruno's ID about* theology* some times - never really comprehended
it.

Then I suggest a standard dictionary or to google/wiki the term, where
you'll find that Bruno did not invent the term, nor did he imbue it with
some special interpretation.

He mostly uses it in the common sense of rational study of concept of
god/nature of truth, which btw is implied by the word Theology and its
etymology itself.

I got the notion that he sorts under such name the ideas of a 'startup of
the World'
no matter on what theory.

Startup of the World?

a basis NOT hearsay, NOT dreaming, or 'postulate for otherwise
ununderstandables'?
(Meaning: within our momentary capabilities of human mental level?)

That is the object of the line of scientific inquiry implied by the term
theology.

For example, say you state after some mystical experience, that you met a
god that told you to write down his message. If your god insists in the
text that he/she/it is infallible, in the literal sense of the term, in
all possible universes, but then follows up that sentence asserting that
4+4 = 5 is true, then theology does its job by telling us that is not
rational, with our usual understanding of rational, and that we might
have to find different ways of approaching the rational study of your text.

If we agree on the scientific framework, we can thus argue about possible
gods, what they say, implications in front of this or that
theoretical/mathematical background, and analyze religious, spiritual
statements, sentences, and propositions; even those concerning some
inconceivable supreme principle.

Is there anything known pointing to the GOD concept besides our
ignorance?

Your question and written text would be something known to us :-) There
are of course, numerous other ones.

I discount God said so to me because the noun is unsecured.

I don't discount much because I am greedy, so instead I ask for the pitch
and ask questions. My average time is about 10 minutes until most give up
on trying to sell. The exception are of course great musicians and their
kind of proposition, to which I can listen to for hours and can wish for
that the preaching may never stop.

Furthermore: I refuse Bruno's hint to the unoiform background to a
Christian God concept in this thread, initiated indeed on Muslim ideas.

If I understand correctly, indeed there are nuances in different
interpretation of Christian God, but I'm not sure these become relevant
here, where we can't even agree on the status or legitimacy of theology
itself.

My position: a so called atheist requires a 'god' to deny.
In my agnostic thoughts I accept lotsof 'things' we cannot?/do not? know
so far.

But how can you know that?

I don't make up my mind to substitute for such unknowable domains using
our so-far acknowledged (poorly understood??) knowledge-base as
explanatory.

Well theology just asks things we can debate: How can you know how far you
do not know? And by what yardstick?

Including math (arithmetics) - a firm staple of our *human* logic and
mentality.

I do not go for arguments EXPLAINING phenomena by (human) math.
Explanation is not procreation. Procreation - in most domains so far - is
beyond us, so I accept it as unknowable.

Maybe, but most parents of teenagers would disagree and might prefer their
offspring to better explain themselves than to procreate, which they seem
quite eager to do.

Let us 'see' some God-related facts (if there are facts to see at all)
without 3p testimony or 1p dreaming/conclusions. So far I did not.

If you're so certain of your agnosticism, to take a theological stance on
what I can parse from your posts, how would you know if you positively had
'seen such fact'? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of
Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what Santa Claus refers to
and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus.  A curious inference for a
logician.

That's just fancy language, wherein semantic of Santa is mapped to
fictitious entity, old, fat, gift giving etc; so you applying belief
predicate to it results in believing untrue fiction.

What's more curious than this is why you choose Santa instead of house

But roughly I'd say yes, to negate some proposition you have to know
semantic it refers to and point to/represent that idea, with all its
possible flaws, and note said negation. And that isn't curious, I'd call it
normal because I can't think of some inversion before I have a grasp on
some usual state of affairs. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:28 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

I works with house and Brent too.  What's curious is that failing to
believe in anything implies that you do believe in it.  I suppose it goes
along with the spirit of everything.  If I can think of it clearly enough
to fail to believe it exists then it must be among the the everything that
exists.

If Bp  ~p, then the machine just reasons inaccurately. Believing in Santa,
even though not real (real enough to be minor source of income for some at
certain times of year...), like children that go through the Santa
performance.

If you believe p while also not believing p, then you are peculiar
reasoner.

Peculiar machine/reasoning: Bp  B~Bp

If I remember this stuff... so grain of salt.

But yes, negation as a whole is kinda weird/curious fundamentally. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

```On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.

Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based when rupture
episodes call for it kind of model.

Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.

I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
discussing...

Labeling people by disorder while being fully invested into not
discriminating against them on institutional level. This leads banana union
republic of €urope to start reasoning for unconditional basic income. Say
if somebody has depressive episodes.

The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
raping, blanketizingly being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.

Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
So one could argue that tolerance is hypocrisy.

Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to
tolerance. That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me
saying

I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
that tolerance preachers are hypocrites.

Hmm, don't you run by your own standards then the risk of preaching
yourself here?

I see this in myself. For example, I am against racism and homophobia. I
am against theses things because I think they are the refuge of mediocre
people, that can find nothing to like about themselves except the color of
their skin or their sexual orientation.

Racism, homophobia etc. are no go because somebody has to get to the bottom
of identity question, and then argue authoritatively or employ violence in
natural consequence to cover that up.

I am also against positive discrimination, so I'm sure many of the
tolerant will brand me as an intolerant.

+ it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.

I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people
believe that just being with music changes your energy in ways that they
can control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
learning and sharing music for ourselves.

Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked
them in the face.

Notice the hypocrisy at play: by being con artists they make a profit. If
they offered something close to the real shamanistic traditions, they would
be arrested.

I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't
tolerate that which won't tolerate. Again, you're idea that genuine
suffering must be somehow involved for one not to be hypocrite is
suspiciously Christian;

Genuine effort must be involved for one to be tolerant. By definition,
tolerance is accepting what you dislike.

So if I drank a lot of Diet Coke, I would become more tolerant. Or I endure
a lot of sadistic games by someone who enjoys them? Nah, I see tolerance
more as benevolent attitude, rather than matrix of positions on stuff.
Stuff changes.

Not being a hypocrite can be achieved without suffering: just by not

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

```On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/13/2014 9:26 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a
very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask where did God
come from? so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for
knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to
Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about why we are here or the
set of unprovable truths, but they respect common usage of language enough
not to call it thinking about God, or theology, as Bruno would have
them do.

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged
unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god: Having been introduced to a
few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few
discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered
non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all
sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality,
god etc. Call it working hypothesis if you're vain enough and want to
distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to.
Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to
conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more
traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a
problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard
should therefore point to some evidence

Exactly what I did.  I pointed to an interview between academic
philosophers of religion who opined that the the problem of evil was the
most convincing argument against the existence of God.  This clearly
assumes that God does NOT refer to some ineffable collection of sets or
foundation of reason or all uncomputable truths.

Yes, to people more literal/naive than conservative catholic theologians in
Europe, who we all know as the grooviest bunch on earth. So what? That's
just bad personal craft. Anyway, who stated this should be subject to some
majority vote a la Brent. My point is simply that with this group of
academics, that use, particularly property of inconceivable with its
limited set of implications, is standard. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 14-Oct-2014, at 12:51 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

Is there something like an internet publicity chapter in the Qu'ran (I
assume there must be some things related to men of fame who value
appearances etc)?

Or a chapter that tells us how to manage living in a world with billions
of people who all have their own personal theologies in front of creation,
and what to do when all the sacred scriptures, that everybody chooses to
believe/disbelieve... what to do when all of these are interpreted, read,
and understood partially differently and partially in agreement at the same
time? Don't flood me with citations: Just give me one for these last 2
points, if you have to. PGC

Holy Quran 109:6
--
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.

Do you follow the book/scripture you preach sincerely?

Does speaking of god's majesty and the sanctity of personal religious
choice, while advertising an exclusive, literal, personal and concrete form
only, constitute a sincere approach to you. Sounds like my interpretation
is the best... I am certain of it... but you can have an opinion, if you
stay away. Is this a genuine choice?

Your religion, as can be seen by all the quotes, makes prescriptions on
others' religion, so no, for me is not my religion, as long as I am
forced to accept that for you is your interpretation of religion, which
pretends to allow mine, but in authoritative manner does not. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

No. Verses were noted down and memorised as revealed.

What if somebody human made a mistake here, like all of us from time to
time?

Towards the end of the prophetic mission, when all the verses had been
revealed, the Heavenly Messenger Gabriel made the order of the Quranic
verses known to the prophet and committed it to his memory, which he
communicated to his companions. The huffaz ( who memorised the Quran)
learnt it in the correct order. Later on, when the written verses were
being compiled during the caliphs' time, the huffaz were consulted on the
order of the verses.

Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran has been transmitted
both orally and in written form.

Maybe some mistakes were made here?

There are millions of people who know the Quran by heart. Furthermore,
once a year, in the month of Ramadhan, the Quran is read in congregational
prayers every night such that the entire Quran is revised in one month. The
person who leads the prayer is a hafiz and there is always another hafiz
right behind him ready to check should he ( the prayer leader) make any
mistake.

Good, that somebody checks something once in awhile I guess...

Because if not, mistakes could be conveyed by large number of generations.

Even if they're all good people and mean well, following their culture's
traditions: many people wrong in consensus does not make them right.
Particularly about nature of some supreme principle/god... or what some say
was written by such.

This practice has been going on across the globe for several centuries.
If you were to read the Quran, you will see that it is not arranged by
topic. The message is repeated across the Quran with similar and different
examples. Monotheism, keeping duty to God, prayer, good deeds and glad
tidings for the hereafter, and clear warnings of Judgement Day and the
consequences of lack of faith and good deeds are repeatedly explained with
examples.

That, particularly consequences of lack of faith doesn't sound like, and
I quote you:

*Holy Quran 109:6--لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِFor you is
your religion, and for me is my religion.*

The fate of nations bygone is also repeated to convey the message, and
various references to natural phenomenon explain by examples as well as are
signs which can be verified by scientific knowledge, across the centuries
depending on the level of scientific knowledge available at the time of
study. The book continues to amaze with its factual accuracy.

Not to some people that read it:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

If I'm supposed to be amazed by factual accuracy, I admit to not be
convinced by either side of such points. But the page states more about the
link between science and the scripture than what I can understand from your
posts.

It helps belief in those verses which cannot be verified and must be taken
on faith.

Perhaps our beliefs have all the help they can get already, which can even
be a problem. Does the scripture treat this problem? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:

I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a
very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask where did God
come from? so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for
knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.

That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to
Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about why we are here or the
set of unprovable truths, but they respect common usage of language enough
not to call it thinking about God, or theology, as Bruno would have
them do.

I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged
unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god: Having been introduced to a
few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few
discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered
non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all
sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality,
god etc. Call it working hypothesis if you're vain enough and want to
distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to.
Same difference.

And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to
conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more
traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a
problem.

Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard should
therefore point to some evidence instead of the constant
whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with
popular use justifications; since when is this equated with serious
evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys don't offer any
alternative, therefore you bore chanting this nonsense again and again,
that not only exhibits consistency with neo-platonist (or Brent's old
Greeks) but with confessional Catholic theologians today, so get over it.
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 12-Oct-2014, at 10:12 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

Would you like specific explanations to the verses you've quoted below?

Not necessary, those quotations speak for themselves and are quite clear.
They need no explanation from you.

If you're trying to make some point, its not clear to me.

So let me understand this, you've read those quotes but have no idea of
what point I was trying to make? So in light of the murders committed
because Salman Rushdie wrote a book, In light of the murders committed
because somebody drew a cartoon of Mohamed, in light of 911 you still don't
understand why unbelievers such as myself might find those Quran quotations
interesting. Is that what you're saying?

Those verses instructing slaughter are on the context of war, not peace.

But this implies In war, be bestial. I'm not sure this is part of what
some supreme being would say.

The examples you cite above are misapplications of the verses. However
that's another debate. Admitting the existence of God and obeying him with
faith and gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us.
We believe each one of us is in pledge for our own deeds, and the
implications of faith are eternal, far beyond the temporal worries and
joys.
Samiya

Among the temporal worries and joys is people telling others how to
interpret god/reality. Something that many holy scriptures across cultures
avoid when assuming that supreme being is inconceivable (how could any one
person or writing claim to be the final voice of such being?).

You can say it's only my personal take repeatedly, but stating and citing
things like Admitting the existence of God and obeying him with faith and
gratitude on a personal level is what should concern each of us. gives
people perhaps the impression that you don't follow your own word and/or
the word of your cited scripture: You are actively suggesting to people
with such citation how to interpret God/reality, while admitting that you
cannot. But how can we obey if God's will is not always clear and most

If these are only personal thoughts like I might have a cup of tea now...
then I don't see why you need a blog or to convince people of one one
interpretation of a text. This, people could see as using your religion/god
to promote your private interests, like internet name/identity/blog.

Is there something like an internet publicity chapter in the Qu'ran (I
assume there must be some things related to men of fame who value
appearances etc)?

Or a chapter that tells us how to manage living in a world with billions of
people who all have their own personal theologies in front of creation, and
what to do when all the sacred scriptures, that everybody chooses to
believe/disbelieve... what to do when all of these are interpreted, read,
and understood partially differently and partially in agreement at the same
time? Don't flood me with citations: Just give me one for these last 2
points, if you have to. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of the
author of the Quran. Rather, you would try to understand why is it so.

And if cows had wings, they could open their own airline. The above is not
an argument.

For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and resistance to
the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.

Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds” .

This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement that
departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more translation
to judge this, especially that in those time, such an assertion apparently
irreligious might only be a poetical assertion on some acceptable axiomatic
of truth.

or 3:149–51

We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire
shall be their home”

Same for this. If you believe that 5+5= 4, we shall put the mess in your
bank account and internet.

Quite terrifying the modern analogy :-)

Well, that's based on your scripture and citations. Is it alright to mock
it as you do? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

```On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

You confirm all the time the theory that atheists are the best defenders
of the christians dogma.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

I feel like I'm being brainwashed by that sentence + the amount of times
you posted it before. To anybody reading: don't take my word for this, just
search the archive. This is spam to me because, and any search will back
this up, John has never had a decent reply to the proposition, that by
entertaining negation of Christian dogma, he is in fact enforcing it. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam

```On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

Not exactly. I prefer that my beliefs be true, or at least as true as I
can get them, but others have a different preference. For the religious the
most important part of a belief isn't it's truth but how good it makes you
feel or how well the belief binds the community together. But there is no
disputing matters of taste.

That's what men with bad taste would say though. People with a sense of it
have no problem backing it up, despite its non-justifiability. That's
called balls, sir. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

```On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

I think this is a quite interesting read:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of
the conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
frictions.

There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
can see where an author is going (what kind of people/world/proposition
does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
truth/implementation: relaxed to radical), given that I put on his red,
blue, grey glasses or whatever.

blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: I'm a
feminist, all men are pigs. Or white people saying that white people are
to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.

What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are
being sneaked into the discourse. So americans really means the red
tribe, gays really means the blue tribe and so on. Then I like the idea
that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's
fake tolerance.

That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
linguistics. For the last few decades, where the blanketness is
significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.

Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water in
the vatican?

You just want to provoke, but ok: Well, it's the quality stuff most
discourse analysis is after. Not the easy he's red and he's blue and their
both hypocrites.

Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but don't
want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which leads
to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would never
dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all but
most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based when rupture
episodes call for it kind of model.

Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in Europe
shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.

The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't
understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I
don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears
to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on
them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
raping, blanketizingly being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.

Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
So one could argue that tolerance is hypocrisy.

Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to tolerance.
That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me saying +
it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.

I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people believe
that just being with music changes your energy in ways that they can
control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
learning and sharing music for ourselves.

Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked
them in the face.

I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't
tolerate that which won't```

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

```On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

'demonstrating
factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.':

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of
Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A
theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or
impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are
numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example.
In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to
support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and
then we see which theory explains best the data.

The point was that in respectful scientific discourse we *can* pick out and
take issue with something at all, which you intuitively did above. I don't
agree with black and white rendering of this particular problem you quote
either.

But exclusively first person interpretation of a text with complex cultural
history, without some distanced perspective, or reference to scientific
discourse or facts in some form... to people unfamiliar with the text gives
us little to no reference points for discussion.

We run increased/higher risk of confusing personal spiritual posture with
shareable scientific facts in reference to some theory, which is already a
given in such discussion.

At least Foundalis provides a reference point we *can discuss* (and
disagree about, no problem) without hitting the wall of fundamental
differences again and again, which itself spells hope of seeing the others'
point and fostering the kind of understanding and tolerance that is more
genuine than Ok, to be culturally/politically correct and polite, I will
believe you.

The latter runs nowhere and confirms the religious' skeptic's stance of
ok, they just want to brainwash me with ideology, instead of having a
discussion where we can see eye to eye. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

I think this is a quite interesting read:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
frictions.

There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
can see where an author is going (what kind of people/world/proposition
does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
truth/implementation: relaxed to radical), given that I put on his red,
blue, grey glasses or whatever.

blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: I'm a
feminist, all men are pigs. Or white people saying that white people are
to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.

What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are being
sneaked into the discourse. So americans really means the red tribe,
gays really means the blue tribe and so on. Then I like the idea that
real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's fake
tolerance.

That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
linguistics. For the last few decades, where the blanketness is
significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.

The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I don't
understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish I
don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it appears
to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources on
them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
raping, blanketizingly being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.

A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our
best, I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will
devour (thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about all kinds
of people.

But there is indeed a lot of empirical evidence for memeplexes in
political affiliation, so I do think the color tribes refer to something.
If you ask a random person their position on gay marriage, you can infer
with a lot of certainty their position on gun ownership and climate change,
even though these three topics are completely unrelated. Of course some
people analyse each issue separately by themselves, but that is quite rare.
Even more rare (perhaps with N=0) to be able to do it free of bias.

Free of bias towards what?

At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people
who cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are
moderate or freaks)

But the entire point of clinging to a category is to be accepted in some
group,

I have no idea, which is why I find such models worth taking too huge grain
of salt to entertain. It might boil down to some Freudian parent trauma, a
desire and whatnot. How would they know?

and a group can only exist in relation to an out-group. The group
atheists exists because religious people exist. If everyone was an
atheist, nobody would use such a label anymore. There is no pro-breathing
group.

and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where they
minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.

I suspect everyone thinks they are doing that...

Then you live in a joyous world without authoritatively forcing influence
and abuse, which people denounce right, left, and center. Good for you.

The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the
former.

True believers think they are sharing joy and reducing harm by spreading
religious truth.

That is falling into theological trap, because clearly a theology
approached by personal reflection/introspection, if it has to have a taste
of consistency, cannot negate others' personal reflection. It is theft;
robbing what you would grant yourself from others by force.

Even the true believers```

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

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause or
purpose for everything?
Also, what do you think of this:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy
with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that
the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are
created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with
God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be speculative
at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe God.
However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be
purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation.
Samiya

Concerning the goal you set yourself, of illustrating factual equivalence
of Qu'ran with scientific perspectives today, here is one, which I don't
share on many levels (a bit condescending at times, but at least he singles
out what seem to be pertinent issues), but that I can understand and relate
to on a few:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

The very idea factual accuracy of Qu'ran is framed to be a major means,
and common meme in arguing for recruitment (propaganda danger),
something, I think we can agree, a transcendental being of any sort,
wouldn't need unless they had psychological issues and needed to see a
doctor or shaman, in which case...:-)

I hope this addresses some of your concerns as most here have little
experience with content. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 8:06 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:30 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

What is your position on teleology? Do you think that there is a cause
or purpose for everything?
Also, what do you think of this:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/08/teleology-purpose-built-universe.html

Does God's existence have a purpose, set by a supergod? If you're happy
with the idea of God not being created for a purpose, then why insist that
the universe is created for a purpose, and why insist that humans are
created for a purpose rather than (as presumably is the case with
God) inventing their own purpose?

--Stathis Papaioannou

Valid question. However, imagining the reason for God would be
speculative at best as nobody knows anything about God, nor can we observe
God. However, the observable universe/multiverse/creation seems to be
purpose-built and the scripture also speaks of a purpose-built creation.
Samiya

Concerning the goal you set yourself, of illustrating factual equivalence
of Qu'ran with scientific perspectives today, here is one, which I don't
share on many levels (a bit condescending at times, but at least he singles
out what seem to be pertinent issues), but that I can understand and relate
to on a few:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

The very idea factual accuracy of Qu'ran is framed to be a major means,
and common meme in arguing for recruitment (propaganda danger),
something, I think we can agree, a transcendental being of any sort,
wouldn't need unless they had psychological issues and needed to see a
doctor or shaman, in which case...:-)

I hope this addresses some of your concerns as most here have little
experience with content. PGC

do not think you wish me to discuss/refute the arguments here.

My wishes are beside the matter.

It's you that claims this kind of correctness in Qu'ran, making it the
basis of your reasoning and exchanges on this list and your blog, if I
recall correctly.

It's not even off-topic in this thread, as scientists apparently care about
religion as this example shows, especially when a claim to facts and valid

That would be ok.

And no, I am not uncomfortable with you refuting arguments. Quite the
contrary, if it is done in a fashion that doesn't invoke faith
authoritatively, a discourse climate that is open to inquiry and critical
examination, without confusing criticism/disagreement with personal attack,
then no problem.

From here at least, we can verify a perspective that contrasts with yours,
which is better than making sense of your claims exclusively, as we are not

That is, if you care in the end about demonstrating factual accuracy in
this sense here, of course. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

'demonstrating
factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.':

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored.

Concerning your link, I'd see that as less on-topic for following simple
reason:

That's interpretation without a critical position against it, and this is
perhaps why there is a disconnect between some of your claims and how some
members, including myself, react.

A positive aspect of science is that, when done correctly, we are not
forced to trust interpretations. That's why it would be more instructive
for me to see you address the points in the Foundalis link, rather than
what you have interpreted and convinced yourself of already.

It creates perspective, that would enrich your points perhaps. As a tool,
science tests ideas and reasoning; and contrasting a perspective that
differs from yours, and you refuting it, would tell me much more than
personal interpretation you link to above. PGC

Samiya

--
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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

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

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:

So, for me personally, the scripture takes precedence.
Samiya

Thank you for being honest. Maybe you might note this on your blog as an
introduction to save peoples' time in their personal searches: I thought
you were trying to show that science and Qu'ran are not as contradictory as
people may think.

But I was wrong, because it appears you are using science as a
scripture, which ultimately takes precedence whenever there appears to be

On a personal note, taking less literal approach to sacred texts, I agree
with some members that religion and science need not fight for dominance.
But many disagree with me on this. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: Nanoscopy

```On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Amazing. Can't help to bet on a substitution level, perhaps ... Wait to
see the DNA or RNA  polymerases in action, if that is possible?

Lol, first thought I had was hmm, substitution level? Damn it! and
thought about the list and had to share. Love the way the technique gets
around diffraction barrier; very elegant smuggling, this.

Yes, DNA, Virus, Embryo, Cancer cell imaging, their reactions to various
influences/toxins high res spatial and temporal techniques to peek into
those worlds/dreams in non-invasive fashion. I think this one is a fish,
but I'm often wrong in fishing matters. 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

```On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

I think this is a quite interesting read:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of the
conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
frictions.

There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people into
categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I can see
where an author is going (what kind of people/world/proposition does this
suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
truth/implementation: relaxed to radical), given that I put on his red,
blue, grey glasses or whatever.

A model has to refer to something. And even then, even when we do our best,
I feel Gödel's incompleteness is such a double edged sword, it will devour
(thankfully), any set of categories in some theory about all kinds of
people.

At the base of things, I see therefore no in- or out-group, but people who
cling to their categories radically (doesn't matter if they are moderate or
freaks) and people who at least aspire to and can point to histories where
they minimize harm + share joy doing so, intuiting Gödel a bit.

The racism/religion bigot stuff are just tasteless, low examples of the
former. Of course there is truth to such assertions, nobody doubts this.
But where such reasoning leads, the self-fulfilling prophecy scenarios that
it sets whole cultures into (Terror as a global threat, when it was just
isolated gangsters years ago; the West brought in the modern weapons to
fertilize tensions centuries old, that had been suppressed by violent
dictatorship recently) is brainwashing ourselves into truth of increasingly
violent spirals of politics.

Cui bono, and what are proposed solutions?

Spud said nothing, which is consistent with the rhetoric that since we
can't achieve cultural, economic advances, we should invest more into
military action. As if this will solve it.

Sure you have to put out fires, but without more freedom to search for
solutions + dumb media sensational feedback loop, that security gained by
temporary military measure will not provide the durable stability to move
forward towards common goals of higher living standard attainment etc., the
implementation of which should be at least as clear, convincing and
accurate as the weapons/people we send to fight. Otherwise, what are they
fighting for, other than downward infinite spiral?

So am I red, blue, grey, or pink or what now? 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Nanoscopy

```Breaking diffraction barrier in fluorescence microscopy:

From Guardian:

In what has become known as nanoscopy, scientists visualise the pathways of
individual molecules inside living cells. They can see how molecules create
synapses between nerve cells in the brain; they can track proteins involved
in Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s diseases as they aggregate;
they follow individual proteins in fertilised eggs as these divide into
embryos.

It was all but obvious that scientists should ever be able to study living
cells in the tiniest molecular detail. In 1873, the microscopist Ernst Abbe
stipulated a physical limit for the maximum resolution of traditional
optical microscopy: it could never become better than 0.2 micrometres.

Eric Betzig, Stefan W Hell and William E Moerner are awarded the Nobel
Prize in Chemistry http://www.theguardian.com/science/chemistry 2014 for
having bypassed this limit. Due to their achievements the optical
microscope can now peer into the nanoworld.

Two separate principles are rewarded. One enables the method *stimulated
emission depletion (STED) microscopy, *developed by Stefan Hell in 2000.
Two laser beams are utilised; one stimulates fluorescent molecules to glow,
another cancels out all fluorescence except for that in a nanometre-sized
volume. Scanning over the sample, nanometre for nanometre, yields an image
with a resolution better than Abbe’s stipulated limit.

Eric Betzig and William Moerner, working separately, laid the foundation
for the second method*, single-molecule microscopy*. The method relies upon
the possibility to turn the fluorescence of individual molecules on and
off. Scientists image the same area multiple times, letting just a few
interspersed molecules glow each time. Superimposing these images yields a
dense super-image resolved at the nanolevel. In 2006 Eric Betzig utilised
this method for the first time.

Today, nanoscopy is used worldwide and new knowledge of greatest benefit to
mankind is produced on a daily basis.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2014/oct/08/nobel-prize-chemistry-2014-announcement-live

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam

```On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/6/2014 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

and in machine, and in the mystics, that is the correct use of the term.
It is very reasonable, and it prevents at the start the confusion between
the serious research and the political/social brainwashing or the popular
superstition.

It continues the confusion that the established religions rely on.

The exact contrary. The established religions continue to support that
confusion, because they fear the questioning.

Somehow I appreciate the catholic church, because it has shown that it
can revised its opinion,

Though it may be 400yrs late.

and even makes into its principle that the interpretation of the bible
is a complex matter, for theologian, historians, scientists to work on, and
to exclude the fairy tale literal interpretations on it. For example it
revised most of its anti-semite statements under Jean-Paul II.  It revised
its statement on Galilee, too (although the Church is wrong on this,
actually, and was correct at the time of Galilee, as the Church asked him
to accept that his idea was only a theory (!).

You sound like an apologists:  The Church not only wanted to Galilee to
say his idea was only a theory, they wanted him to accept that their idea
was THE TRUTH - and they were willing to torture him as their argument.

Note that Al Gazhali, a 10th century muslim who was not much keen on
Neoplatonism, already tried to explain that theology should never
contradict scientific observation and logical conclusions.

Then why is it any more than science?  Why suppose it has a separate
domain?

Any more what than science?

I'm not sure I understand but why would beliefs, observation, and the
beliefs concerning observation of some unspecified entity with comparable
intelligence and self-referential ability to our own; why would these
necessarily have to be in some sort of finalized, clear-cut competition?

They only appear to be in some competition because immaterialist point of
view has been prohibited for centuries. Somebody arguing agnostic position
will look like defender of gods to physicalist and like a scientific
non-believer to anybody choosing more canonical, literal interpretation of
some theology.

And in posing the question, don't you assume some point of reference, from
which such truth can be reasoned, judged, ascertained or related to in some
form? Aren't you perhaps presupposing some truth or god pov enough to ask
the question?

I'm not sure about clean cut domain separation because theology on one
level is personal, between person and their priest/doctor/shaman, the point
being we don't have to cede theology to hacks and thieves as we can take
various 1p povs from the personal level of the people that choose to share
and examine them in objective, interpersonal level from critical distance,
according to any standard or value we choose, taking the reasoning into
shareable scientific framework.

Perhaps the dichotomy itself is flawed as I see no clean way of separating.

And you can't avoid that if you don't use reason in that field.

It is a like the medication. It is not dangerous, but become so quickly

So you think opium and heroin only became dangerous when made illegal?

Or mandatory, with certain medical advice of dubious soundness in the past
centuries making this a real scenario. The ability to stop pain for
pleasure, the benefits and problems pertaining to such ability, should have
always stayed a medical/health/private issue instead of becoming a public
legal one.

Extraordinary potential use and abuse issue from such ability, where due to
the paradox, pleasure superimposed on pain/pain beaten via dosage, there is
no objective public sphere decidability on everybody's safety at all
times; only private health/theological decision to be made which is
tricky, and to which we'll stay naive as long as we presuppose ourselves to
be a bunch of children that dare not to ask the question because we make
each other pee in cups for more and more employment.

In a harm minimization background, the considerable layers of legal
problems, their costs, the social stigma that encourages hiding and
dishonesty... all of that would give way to merely the body mind paradox
of a substance capable of dialing down the hold of substance P for drowsy
euphoria and trickiness around dosage and dependence issues.

It's not heaven and hell, like some legalization position would have us
believe. It is still confronting danger and death, as we do on daily basis;
but confronting those without the medieval legal, economic, social layers
of unnecessary cost, that turn a paradox into globalized mess and waste of
our values and wealth.

In life and in religion, the choice is between logic and war. Between

What is your problem with the consequence of computationalism, ```

### Re: generalizations_of_islam

```On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:10 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/5/2014 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Oct 2014, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

The problem with theories of everything is that they are either too
difficult to test or have been found to conflict with observation.  So
almost all scientists choose to chew on some more modest bite.

No problem. The point is that some theology or theory of everything are
testable.

But it was Plato who planted the idea that empirical testing is a waste.
Our senses deceive us, so we only need ratiocination to discern the Truth.

This would mean doubt entails truth. Right direction, but you drove the car
straight off the cliff instead of choosing more scenic and nuanced route
specified in the literature.

Which is why Plato was easily made to seem a Christian by St. Augustine.

We might say that the history of physics is a sequence of refutation of
Aristotle physics, but only now, we have a refutation of his metaphysics
and theology.
Plato makes still sense, though, and is as much rational.

No, Plato would be a supporter of logicism or Tegmark's everythingism.

Here you presuppose that logicism is free of controversy. I'd say that
Plato's attitude towards knowledge would land him on the Gödel side of
these debates; thus also having more in common with Bruno's take than
Tegmark's.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: FW: generalizations_of_islam

```On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 2 October 2014 16:59, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:31 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you, that's interesting (of course, it should be obvious to anyone
with a few brain cells that facile generalisations are bad... but they
creep in all too easily...)

Which is of course another generalization :-)

Of course, but not a facile one.

My generalizations are always facile because of my certified obtuseness
(slow and too thick upstairs to think or type straight-sense).

As for the rest of the heroes in this thread: politics is all your fault
(yes: yours, you.) for buying culture, no matter which side, or what
historical trivial pursuit nonsense points, which nuances of vocabulary, or
what funny hats/robes they wear or not... that that culture is something to
take literally/seriously. All of us are at fault. I hereby formally insult
everybody, except babies, spiders, teapots, and ferns.

Establishing that, at least Maher has the sense to advocate pot (he should
follow his advice a little, sure...), which when I see the passion with
which bullshit cultural blood encrusted constructions are defended/attacked
here and on the news...

is, along with the opportunity to work and live in peace without being
effed over, the only plausible way out of this school where overzealous
joyless wise ass righteous power hungry priest lawyer politician scientist
nerd children are running around, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons
and the like, convinced with mad certainty that they are running the show
in the only way it can be run.

But no... You couldn't let this be and just quietly self-medicate. You had
to shoot for truth and are surprised by the blood, cost of ammunition, and
ruins. You went so far, you guys even woke the spud, and Alberto kissing
butt for eloquent silences, and soon Steven's CV will be up again. Honk
away all you want.

You conjured this up, so now we have to deal with it. And with we, I mean
erm... probably not me. Mainstream platitudes are such a mainstream
platitude. Better than tributary platitudes though. How about mainstream
profundities? Ye cultural whores...PGCoward

--
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