unsubscribe
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really... Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:26:10 -0700 1Z wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I've never really understood why computationalists insist that a system must be able to handle counterfactuals in order for consciousness to occur, I've explained that several times: computer programmes contain if-then statements. other than that otherwise any physical system could be seen as implementing any computation, which does not seem to me a good reason. In any case, Maudlin shows that the requirement for handling counterfactuals leads to a situation where of two systems with identical physical activity, one is conscious and the other not. If two systems differ counterfactually, they are not physically identical. I don't think I understand this either. Computer programs contain if-then statements which branch the process depending on the data input to the program. But there is no real distinction between data an program. So if you insist that computed intelligence or consciousness depends on counterfactuals in the program that seems to me to be the same as insisting that the computation is implemented in some way that divides it from input data, i.e. it is in an environment. I'm sympathetic to this view. I think intelligence is relative to an environment. But I'm not sure what computationalists think of this; I believe they suppose the environment can be simulated too and so then the whole thing is a closed system and there are no conuterfactual branchings. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: belief, faith, truth
Mr Meeker: That Wyanr idea of a bored god sounds a lot like the book Game of God, which postulates that an infinite god cannot experince finiteness, and so exploded himself into amnesiac particles to experience it and all the trials of evolution. The result is a universe trying to reclaim a unified conciousness. Very fun book. Mr Samish: If you believe in god and lose, you also lose a lifetime of finding your own place in the universe. I suspect that most of us are on this list because we are curious about fundamental questions. Religion is a tool for understanding your place in the universe. It is pasckaged and delivered to a church/mosque/temple near you. But if you swallow what you are offered than you miss out on the eureka of discovery. As an aethiest, I dont require a god not to believe in, but require confidence in my own powers of thought. An aethiest must find his own way, and for many this entails researching lots of questions across disciplines. I've done a lot of traveling and have observed that people are basically the same around the world. Same basic desire to be friendly, helpful, kind. these morals are universal behaviours. Infact, they are a survival strategy. Religion does create morality. It formaly encodes pre existing instincts. Likewise, we all live forever whether or not you believe in heaven. But some of us call it a law of conservation of energy and a law of conservation of social energy. We may not agree on a soul and the name of god, but we do on thermodynamics and continuity of culture. I'm sure we dissapate, but our actions reverberate. I'm very content to be an aethiest. I think I've discovered spiritual truths that would have lied dormant if I had simply believed some ancient doctrine. That's no fun. -Kevin From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED], everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:59:01 -0800 (PST) Norman: just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife: to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by 'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain and senility? Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial life for the introduction in heaven: let us say: the fetal age? or school-years with the mentality of a teenager? Would you love spouse No 1,2,or 3? Would you forget about the biggest blunder you did and regretted all your life? Or would you prefer the eternal brimstone-burning (what a waste in energy) without a painkiller? I did not ask about your math, how many are involved over the millennia? I asked a Muslim lately, what the huris are and what the female inhabitants of heaven get? An agnostic has to define what he does 'not' know, hasn't he? Just as an atheist requires a god 'not' to believe in. We are SOOO smart! Have a good day John M --- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith, in a benign God have gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity. So how can they lose? Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought, you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of the flesh. It's a bad bargain. Brent Meeker The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth. --- H. L. Mencken Stathis Papaioannou wrote: That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, the real God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a few dozen people, or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and may punish you. An analogous situation arises when creationists demand that the Biblical version of events be taught alongside evolutionary theory in schools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths of every religious sect should be taught. - Stathis Papaioannou On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: [Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described above?] I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God and Heaven that
Re: Immortality
Hello- K. S. Ryan wrote: Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos. RW: Better go back and look up the word religion again. KSR: I'm pretty comfortable with the English language, but I looked it up anyway. I stand by my definition. I've never found a spiritual system that did not proffess to tell the truth about existance from the macro to the micro. The role of religion is to explain universal truths, and ask that we act accordingly. Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal principles. Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically practical. Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of belief describing our place in the universe. RW: I think this is an uneducated conclusion. That is if you continue to misusethe term religion in a consistent fashion. KSR: Uneducated? Au contraire! These are carefull observations, and commonly reflected by others. If you study this topic at all, you will have noticed consistant repetitions across many disciplines, i'e anthropology, political science, sociology, demographics... RW: The creation of old-world dogma was for the benefit of the young souls that by virtue of their own mis-expression, demanded a harsh dogma and religious expression to find their way back to god. KSR: No. Harsh dogma is originally a survival strategy. Ethics is the economics of self preservation. Jews and Moslems forbid eating pig because of parasites in the meat. The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would like to be done, is basic self preservation. Years later, original reasons for dogma become obsolete through sanitation or cultural evolution. Simultaneously, over time the prophets' messages ossify into rote ritual. Fundamentalists have lost the meaning behind the message. The wisdom of a prophet's words are in the background, not the surface. It is analogy. But the symbolism used to make the original point gets buried by lost context or archaic metaphores. And so fools cling to what is in their hand, which is the bald statement, bleached of symbolic truth. RW: The spiritual principles that these old school religions as you put it arebasedon are just as valid today as they were then. Similar in concept tosaying: electromagnetism wasjust as valid back then as it is today. KSR: Yes. Spiritual principles are eternal, if they are true in the first place. RW: -Those that cooperate and spontaneously express spiritual law out of love of others KSR: Agreed. Some people, probably most people, are unable to expand their self concept to include much of the world beyond themselves. The message of the prophets is that it is all you. RW: mostof these modern worlders are rebelling against the spiritual in favor of theself in theworld. KSR: Intelligent modern worlders don't rebell against the spiritual in favor of the self (though they will lapse, like anyone). But they may rebel against what doesnt make sense to them. It is hard to sell a 5,000 year old God to someone who knows rudimentary physics. Physicists who understand vast swathes of contemporary physics are sometimes so awed by the scale that they start to believe again in higher power. But it is rarely the same God that they left. -Kevin _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: Immortality
Hello- Religion is a system of beliefs describing our place in the cosmos. Tha basic premise of all religions is that we are best when we act in accordance with universal principles. Prophets describe our place in the cosmos by explaining universal principles. Fundamentalists of all sorts are in conflict with the modern world because universal principles are increasingly scientific, secular, and physically practical. Old school religions are losing market share to the modern world. But the modern world does not offer a unified system of beleif describing our place in the universe. Contemporary truths are not packaged as a whole, as a spiritual intellectual-emotional raison d'etre. Thus, while educated modern worlders may not be convinced by old school religious beliefs, there is not a modern unified system to replace them. Because we are human, we think a lot, and need to know what the individual means to the whole. What is our place in the cosmos? That is the question. And there is turbulance. -Kevin _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
