Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King Yes, we are products of God's will, although not all of those activities (such as sin) are his preferred will. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 10:09:00 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/18/2012 9:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The supreme monad (God) does everything (God causes all to happen) while the monads, being entirely passive, can do nothing except display the changes that God made for them as what is called their individual "perceptions", meaning the universe from their own points of view. Dear Roger, THus we can truthfully say that "we are expressions of God's Will". This is another way of saying that effectively (not actually) each man-monad is a self who (but through God) sees "all" in the phenomenal world from his own point of view. Here "all" is limited or filtered by the capabilities and biases of the man. We are also muddy and corrupt mirrors of Its perfection. "All we have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." The Fall - the original sin - was the separation from God, and thus we acquired the ability to "know" Right from Wrong, or, in reality, fool ourselves into believing that we can. To perceive Valuation (such as numbers) is one result from our fall. God does not see numbers, or any other Particular Thing. It is ALL. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King The supreme monad (God) does everything (God causes all to happen) while the monads, being entirely passive, can do nothing except display the changes that God made for them as what is called their individual "perceptions", meaning the universe from their own points of view. This is another way of saying that effectively (not actually) each man-monad is a self who (but through God) sees "all" in the phenomenal world from his own point of view. Here "all" is limited or filtered by the capabilities and biases of the man. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 11:26:51 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Monads are not rigidly separated. > So change in one mind is reflected in all, > the extent being how capable the others are of reading > the content and their similarity to the subject. Dear Roger, Your defiction is what we get if we ignore the computational resources that are required by a mind. I am taking the resource requirement into account and thus showing that the mind does not 'always" reflect all others. Only God's mind is free of contraint as it is the totality of existence itself. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/17/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14 > Subject: Re: The poverty of computers > > > On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> Not sure I understand your objection, but >> faith, being subjective (hence personal) >> is at least to first order principally in one individual. > Dear Roger, > > There is more to say! > >> At the same time, however, since >> Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some >> spillover from other minds of like thinking. > Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a > concept of "bisimulation" but it seems that the symbolic representation > that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and > anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this "spillover" as the > ability to have multiple expression "of the same thing". We can > represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each > with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such > that something that one does (computes) is "the same as" something that > another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set > of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there > is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there > is a bisimulation between them. > We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is > bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or > all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible > computations ( a "repertoire") that each can perform). If there does > exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a > way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s) > can be implemented on both of them. > >> According to the monadology, also, an >> individual with his "perceptions" >> has a limited ability to see into the >> future. > I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources > available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have > (locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a > trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not > computed yet! > >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 9/16/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> > Am I making any sense at all? > > -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King The two words are commonly confused. Faith is wordless trust, personal and interior. It is in the heart. Beliefs are public expressions of that faith and its object, and a whole lot more, and are thus in words. So it is in the head. For more, see http://lightomega.org/Ind/Pure/Belief_Faith_and_Knowing.html Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 12:15:31 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/16/2012 8:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > My take on the meaning of "knowledge of things unseen" > is knowledge of what is invisible at the moment. Hi Roger, I agree with this definition. It is equivalent to mine. What we must understand is that "at the moment" is something that can be and is different for each and every one of us. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/16/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 > Subject: Re: The poverty of computers > > > On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Stephen P. King > > Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob. > But I wouldn't try faith in Satan. > > > Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you > up to authority, to submission, and submission > is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the > bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, > bending over to Jesus. > > > Hi Roger, > > I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to > make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being > "knowledge of things unseen". If I where the one entity in the universe then > it would not make any sense to confine "knowledge of things not seem" to a > future tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in > the domain defined by the "not seen", but we appear to live in a universe > where I can communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he > can tell me all about that is happening beyond my local reach. > Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we have > to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might be > able to communicate with; "not seen" means not seen to anyone that I can > communicate with, no? =-O > > > > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/15/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 > Subject: Re: The poverty of computers > > > On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, > confidence, etc. > > Faith > > Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. > Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual > apprehension rather than proof. > > > > > > Dear Roger, > > But not just "anything" it is contained to cover only that which is possible > in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that the > bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief > when I am actually crossing it.. > > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/14/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 > Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). > They are exclusively in the fom of words. > For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. > > The personal or private part of religion is called faith. > It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. > Religion trusts its creeds, science tr
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King Monads are not rigidly separated. So change in one mind is reflected in all, the extent being how capable the others are of reading the content and their similarity to the subject. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Not sure I understand your objection, but > faith, being subjective (hence personal) > is at least to first order principally in one individual. Dear Roger, There is more to say! > At the same time, however, since > Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some > spillover from other minds of like thinking. Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a concept of "bisimulation" but it seems that the symbolic representation that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this "spillover" as the ability to have multiple expression "of the same thing". We can represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such that something that one does (computes) is "the same as" something that another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there is a bisimulation between them. We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible computations ( a "repertoire") that each can perform). If there does exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s) can be implemented on both of them. > > According to the monadology, also, an > individual with his "perceptions" > has a limited ability to see into the > future. I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have (locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not computed yet! > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/16/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > Am I making any sense at all? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King The Christian Church, the Bride of Christ, is also called the communion of saints. That means that they are all children of God, and their minds are lead by the Bible and fellow believers. So faith is shared sotospeak. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 11:18:30 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Not sure I understand your objection, but > faith, being subjective (hence personal) > is at least to first order principally in one individual. > > At the same time, however, since > Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some > spillover from other minds of like thinking. > > According to the monadology, also, an > individual with his "perceptions" > has a limited ability to see into the > future. > > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/16/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." Dear Roger, "..faith ... is at least to first order principally in one individual." Please elaborate on this! How do you see this when we have to consider many different individuals and not just one? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, we can be fooled. Satan is the great deceiver. But I don't think that Satan has any real love, beauty or goodness to share. Only fakes. Or only for show. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 15:12:07 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 16 Sep 2012, at 13:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal All love, all truth, all beauty necessarily comes from God (Platonia's All). So if you can feel any of those, there's your experience. Yes. But with comp there is a sense to say that Satan can fail all finite creatures on this, and imitate God, so that we can be deluded, and so we have to be very vigilant with those matter. Art is a serious matter somehow. Platonia owns fatal beauties. Nobody knows in advance, we can only listen to the complains and reduce the harm. It is sad, perhaps, but we can't avoid them. Like math is full of chimera. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 12:47:02 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 15 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Theology was once called the queen of the sciences, but that was just a power rating. Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture. God's teachings, not man's. I guess that it is here that we might disagree the more. Theology, like everything else, should rely only to the experience, and then logic, theories, etc. The experience can be helped by practice, meditation, prayer, plants, walking in woods and mountains, surfing the ocean, looking at Hubble picture, or doing jazz, and some Church can help a lot, when they handle magically the sun light. Humans are known to write a lot of things, so scripture, as inspiring they can be, should never taken literally, nor ever too much seriously. Most religion agree that God is not human conceivable, and that is why we can be deluded in recognizing sign, so that it is better to trust God for teaching Itself to the others, and not intervene too much on that plane. Cautious. If not you are, willingly or unwillingly, imposing your conception of reality to the other. Truth is a goddess which does not need any army to win. Philosophy deals with belief and reason, You mean science? OK. moreorless. Theology deals with faith and scripture. Theology deals with our relation with the big thing. Faith is a universal gift, but scriptures, when taken too much literally, or too much repeated, can kill the original faith that we have all. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King My take on the meaning of "knowledge of things unseen" is knowledge of what is invisible at the moment. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob. But I wouldn't try faith in Satan. Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you up to authority, to submission, and submission is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, bending over to Jesus. Hi Roger, I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being "knowledge of things unseen". If I where the one entity in the universe then it would not make any sense to confine "knowledge of things not seem" to a future tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in the domain defined by the "not seen", but we appear to live in a universe where I can communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he can tell me all about that is happening beyond my local reach. Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we have to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might be able to communicate with; "not seen" means not seen to anyone that I can communicate with, no? =-O Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, confidence, etc. Faith Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Dear Roger, But not just "anything" it is contained to cover only that which is possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief when I am actually crossing it.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King Not sure I understand your objection, but faith, being subjective (hence personal) is at least to first order principally in one individual. At the same time, however, since Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some spillover from other minds of like thinking. According to the monadology, also, an individual with his "perceptions" has a limited ability to see into the future. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob. But I wouldn't try faith in Satan. Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you up to authority, to submission, and submission is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, bending over to Jesus. Hi Roger, I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being "knowledge of things unseen". If I where the one entity in the universe then it would not make any sense to confine "knowledge of things not seem" to a future tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in the domain defined by the "not seen", but we appear to live in a universe where I can communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he can tell me all about that is happening beyond my local reach. Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we have to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might be able to communicate with; "not seen" means not seen to anyone that I can communicate with, no? =-O Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, confidence, etc. Faith Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Dear Roger, But not just "anything" it is contained to cover only that which is possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief when I am actually crossing it.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal All love, all truth, all beauty necessarily comes from God (Platonia's All). So if you can feel any of those, there's your experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/16/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 12:47:02 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 15 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Theology was once called the queen of the sciences, but that was just a power rating. Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture. God's teachings, not man's. I guess that it is here that we might disagree the more. Theology, like everything else, should rely only to the experience, and then logic, theories, etc. The experience can be helped by practice, meditation, prayer, plants, walking in woods and mountains, surfing the ocean, looking at Hubble picture, or doing jazz, and some Church can help a lot, when they handle magically the sun light. Humans are known to write a lot of things, so scripture, as inspiring they can be, should never taken literally, nor ever too much seriously. Most religion agree that God is not human conceivable, and that is why we can be deluded in recognizing sign, so that it is better to trust God for teaching Itself to the others, and not intervene too much on that plane. Cautious. If not you are, willingly or unwillingly, imposing your conception of reality to the other. Truth is a goddess which does not need any army to win. Philosophy deals with belief and reason, You mean science? OK. moreorless. Theology deals with faith and scripture. Theology deals with our relation with the big thing. Faith is a universal gift, but scriptures, when taken too much literally, or too much repeated, can kill the original faith that we have all. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Stephen P. King Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob. But I wouldn't try faith in Satan. Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you up to authority, to submission, and submission is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, bending over to Jesus. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, confidence, etc. Faith Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Dear Roger, But not just "anything" it is contained to cover only that which is possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief when I am actually crossing it.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Religious faith is like trust in your father, but the one in heaven instead. With faith you have everything. Without faith you have nothing. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 11:27:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Fri, Sep 14, 2012? Roger Clough wrote: > Faith is ?o me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and love. Faith is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so; an optimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with hope and love, and a pessimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with despair and hate. Both are idiots. ? John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Theology was once called the queen of the sciences, but that was just a power rating. Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture. God's teachings, not man's. Philosophy deals with belief and reason, moreorless. Theology deals with faith and scripture. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 11:16:57 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Theology is a science. It's a very strange science, it's a science that does not use the scientific method and, not surprisingly, a science that has discovered absolutely positively nothing about the nature of the universe despite working on the problem for thousands of years. However I will admit that theology's rate of success is every bit as good as that other "science", astrology. > Aristotle hypothesis of the existence of a primary universe Face reality and get with the program, Aristotle didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. > Plato's questions are at the origin of science. And neither did Plato. > Aristotle is one of the first very big scientists. To be wrong is the natural > fate of all serious scientists. Yes all the great scientists were wrong about something, but unlike them Aristotle was not just wrong he was also certain; he was so certain that men have more teeth than women he didn't bother to look into his wife's mouth. Even 2500 years ago that was lousy science.? > Again atheism goes hand in hand with the fundamentalist christians and > muslims. [...] I don't buy your religion, John. The taunt that atheism is a religion didn't impress me when I first heard it at the age of 12 and it doesn't impress me today.? > The physical science is a product of a theology. Yes, chemistry is the product of alchemy and astronomy is the product of astrology, but our knowledge has improved over the centuries and we no longer need such crap. > >if you have never seen a physics paper even attempt to do something then its > >probably not very important because they've attempted some pretty wacky > >things.? > ? Which word didn't you understand? ? John K Clark ? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Craig Weinberg To use Russell's discriminations: Faith is knowledge by experience (meaning personal or subjective knowledge) Belief is knowledge by description. Public, objective, shareable, in words (The Bible). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:05 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Friday, September 14, 2012 7:10:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, confidence, etc. Faith Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Can't exactly the same thing be said of belief? be?ief Noun: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qe9BSYnICrAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Friday, September 14, 2012 7:10:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, > confidence, etc. > > Faith > > Noun: > >1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. >2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on >spiritual apprehension rather than proof. > > Can't exactly the same thing be said of belief? be·lief Noun: 1. An *acceptance* that a statement is true or that something exists. 2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or * conviction*. Craig > > Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net > 9/14/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Craig Weinberg > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 > *Subject:* Re: Re: The poverty of computers > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> >> The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). >> They are exclusively in the fom of words. >> For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. >> >> The personal or private part of religion is called faith. >> It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or >> motivation. >> Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. >> >> >> It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion > though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in > words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. > > Craig > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qe9BSYnICrAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > Faith is to me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and > love. > Faith is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing so; an optimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with hope and love, and a pessimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with despair and hate. Both are idiots. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Faith is to me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and love. Religion is not faith. It is a social tradition of men. Men-- you know-- whose lives can be natsy, brutish and short. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 10:58:09 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thu, Sep 13, 2012? Roger Clough wrote: > Theology is based on faith I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is why faith is supposed to be a virtue. > and moral practice. Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another? ? John K Clark ? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Craig Weinberg Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, confidence, etc. Faith Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:58:10 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 Roger Clough >wrote: > > > Theology is based on faith > > > I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is > why faith is supposed to be a virtue. > > I'm actually with you on this JC, although mainly because by faith I think most people really mean hope. Screw hope. To me faith is just about being ok with things even if they don't seem ok right now. It's more of a patience or benefit of the doubt which we can access to get us through days where we don't see how its going to work out. > > and moral practice. >> > > Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another? > When people mistake the subjective for objective, or objective for subjective, the result is often pathological. Craig > > John K Clark > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/owEsWWNCbJYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). > They are exclusively in the fom of words. > For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. > > The personal or private part of religion is called faith. > It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or > motivation. > Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. > > > It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > Theology is based on faith I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is why faith is supposed to be a virtue. > and moral practice. > Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another? John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-13, 08:33:44 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Hi Roger, On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Applying science to religion can be no more successful than applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be experienced if they are of any use at all, and science is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge. It might be true for an experiential part of the spiritual experience, but this one is not supposed to be shared. I can accept somewhat telling me in private he made some experience, but I cannot accept, or will not be convinced, even disbelief anyone making factual religious statement, like saying that mister x or missis y is a nephew or daughter of some divinity and that all they say has to be taken for granted. Poets does not pretend to make assertive statements, but some religious people does, and actually, you have already do it yourself. What am I suppose to think? That was just poetry? I appreciate Alan Watts when he says that a priest makes only a show, and that he should blink sometimes to remind the audience of this. Then theology, (perhaps religion I dunno) can make factual *hypotheses* and reason on the fundamental questions from there. I don't see why not, unless you want to confine religion in the absurdities. With computer science, a machine A, having much stronger arithmetical provability power than a machine B, can study scientifically the theology (the true but non provable by B) of the machine B, and the act of faith, like "yes doctor", and its first person experience, by the machine A, can be used to lift that theology of B on herself, but that is a personal non sharable act made by A. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) > attitude. Why not apply it in theology? It has been, Nice to hear that. its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone "believing" in God cannot have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can only ask question and suggest temporary theories. Not answering about the step3 ---> step4 makes you looking like a devout atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Theology is based on faith and moral practice. In other words, meaning and value, neither of which you will find in facts. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 12:47:12 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Wed, Sep 12, 2012? Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>? makes a bridge between two fields, >>? What two fields?? >? The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, it >is interdisciplinary) and theology. Translation from the original bafflegab: The truth is important. And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing intelligent to say because it has not discovered any facts.? > Plato's questions are at the origin of science. But Plato lived 2500 years ago and we are no longer at the origin of science, it's time to move on. > It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't want to get > informed. ? ? didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy than he did, a lot more. ? > Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the physical > science. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused because I have said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived. Even his reputation as a great logician is overstated, he used some very intricate pure logic and concluded with certainty that women MUST have fewer teeth than men. They don't. Aristotle had a wife, he could have counted her teeth at any time but never bothered to because like most philosophers he already knew the truth, or thought he did. > I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical reality, > still less a paper showing how to test such idea. I have no idea what you mean but I will say this, if you have never seen a physics paper even attempt to do something then its probably not very important because they've attempted some pretty wacky things.? ?ohn K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal Applying science to religion can be no more successful than applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be experienced if they are of any use at all, and science is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) > attitude. Why not apply it in theology? It has been, Nice to hear that. its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone "believing" in God cannot have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can only ask question and suggest temporary theories. Not answering about the step3 ---> step4 makes you looking like a devout atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Try God= universal intelligence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:36:24 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ? > God = truth Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity? > makes a bridge between two fields, What two fields?? > I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale > sense I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth. >? the term "God", and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. >In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that something is true then use the word "true". ? > God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much in public? > Read Plato for learning more on this. I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved from philosophy to science. > Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. > I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the > 3-view on the 1-view There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. ? John K Clark ? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi meekerdb Using religion to prove anything in this world would be like using Mozart to build a bridge. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 15:54:00 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/10/2012 12:45 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: > A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes > come from Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said "I don't know". > Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted > other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which can't explain anything. Or, looked at another way, can explain anything and hence fails to explain at all. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark God is nonphysical, so science (which can only deal with the physical) cannot find him or deal with him in any way. There are facts and values. Science can only deal with facts.Religion can only deals with values. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 12:27:54 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers On Mon, Sep 10, 2012? Roger Clough wrote: ?> If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. ?ohn K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
John C, you have been urged: *"If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist."* *I am not an atheist, an atheist needs a god dy deny, the concept does not fit into my worldview, but that is besode the point. What is more relevant:* years ago on another list I received a similar outburst - more politely than Roger's - and replied: "Wrong position. I do not have to PROVE a negative, if the positive is questionable. Prove the 'existence' of god FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX (no dreams, no ancient teachings, no feelings, no faith, no assumptions/presumptions or questionable written sources (like a Bible?) including such supposition) and THEN I will prove you wrong. End of discussion. The person left the list. John Mikes On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi John Clark > > If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. > If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that > God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/10/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* John Clark > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-09-09, 10:37:05 > *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computers > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2012� Jason Resch wrote: > > >You call yourself an atheist, >> > > I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief > that words should mean something. > > > which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not? >> > > Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason > Resch wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However > I do know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the > universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any > religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician > hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's > good enough to make me a atheist or not. > > > you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones, >> > > That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my > life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones > regardless of where they originated. > > > rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist >> > > I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you > are a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that > the Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further > than you do. > > > In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable, >> unlimited, self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject >> this concept of God? >> > > No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a > being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have > superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray > vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort > of� fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't. > > > I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions. >> > > So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious > franchise is about as idiotic as another. > > > I am showing the common themes: "self-existent" and "cause of existence" >> > > Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as > to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as > saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation > of how it works. > > >> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the >>> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff". >>> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound. >>> >> >> > Logos is not a meaningless term, >> > > Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them > profound; "Logos" can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a > wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when > religion says "in the beginning there was logos" it means "stuff"; but I do > admit that "logos" sounds cooler than "stuff" and is more impressive to the > rubes. > > > and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of >> god, >> > > Yes, the sentence "at the beginning of stuff there was stuff" is not only > meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh > well, you got 2 out of 3. > > > which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below. >> > > If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is > an ashtray then I'm not a atheist either. > > > mathematics is a form of theologh. >> > > OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the > gastrointestinal tract. > > > > Only a fool would s
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you > are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You > haven't a leg to stand on. > A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-09, 10:37:05 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Sat, Sep 8, 2012? Jason Resch wrote: >You call yourself an atheist, I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief that words should mean something. > which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not? Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason Resch wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However I do know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's good enough to make me a atheist or not. > you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones, That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones regardless of where they originated. > rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you are a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that the Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further than you do. > In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable, unlimited, > self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject this concept of > God? No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort of? fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't. > I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions. So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious franchise is about as idiotic as another. > I am showing the common themes: "self-existent" and "cause of existence" Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation of how it works. >> The following sentence has identical informational content: "in the >> beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff". >> Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound. > Logos is not a meaningless term, Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them profound; "Logos" can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when religion says "in the beginning there was logos" it means "stuff"; but I do admit that "logos" sounds cooler than "stuff" and is more impressive to the rubes. > and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of god, Yes, the sentence "at the beginning of stuff there was stuff" is not only meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh well, you got 2 out of 3. > which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below. If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is an ashtray then I'm not a atheist either. > mathematics is a form of theologh. OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the gastrointestinal tract. > > Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition God > > certainly exists. > Ahh, so you are not an atheist after all. In the English language I'm a atheist but In the Jasonresch language I am not, the definition of "God" in that language is whatever it takes to be able to say "I believe in God". The important thing is to be able to chant those 4 words in your mantra, what the words actually mean is of only secondary importance. > This is not re-inventing language to keep the ASCII letters "God", this > concept of God has existed in Hinduism for thousands of years. I might be impressed if only you had bothered to say what "this" is. > I had quotes from religions texts saying that "The infinite truth is the > source of Brahman", So the Brahman has infinite truth because He is omniscient and He is omniscient because He has infinite truth; and a black dog is a dog that is black and a dog that is black is a black dog
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Jason Resch You ask "Is there any word for someone who rejects both theism and deism? " Answer: Perhaps an agnostic ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 16:24:35 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/8/2012 10:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Bruno makes a valid point, that you attack only the weakest, most ill > conceived, notion(s) of God.? It is my habit to attack only the weakest parts of ideas, attacking the strongest parts seems rather counterproductive because they may actually be true.? You call yourself an atheist, which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not? A-theist means not believing a theist god exists; Interesting, I was not aware that this level of distinction existed, but it seems implied in first definition of "theist" here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist?s=t However, the definition for "atheist" in the world English dictionary (lower on the page here:?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t?)? Simply says "A person who does not believe in God or gods". Is there any word for someone who rejects both theism and deism? ? one that's an extremely powerful person who wants to be worshipped and is extremely concerned with how we behave, especially while nude.? An atheist might believe in a deist god; one who created the world and then just left it alone and isn't concerned with us. I think such a person would more rightly label himself a deist in that case, but we might be digressing too deeply into the?ubtleties?f language. Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Sorry, perhaps I am growing tired and grumpy, but the issue about about the lack of a T Logical truth has its uses, but it has no provision for self or feelings or indeed life, no meaning, no aesthetics, no morality, no intelligence, just the gears of logic. No Bach, no Beethoven, no Vermeer. No sex. These are functions of the metaphorical right brain, logic being a function of the left brain. So to me logic it is like the shadows that the deluded men in Plato's cave thought was reality itself. Besides Truth, Beauty and Goodness have their roles to play in this shakey allegory called Life.. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 05:43:55 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 08 Sep 2012, at 06:19, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of >> modern mathematicians. > > In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of > course they are all methodological Platonists, but not necessarily > philosophical ones. > >> Computationalism (or functionalism) is the majority viewpoint of >> cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind. Thus the scientific >> consensus is that infinite (mathematical) truth > > Except mathematical truth is just a marker, T, whose value is > preserved by the rules of logic. Whether a proposition that has T > corresponds with any fact is another question. Be careful to distinguish a true sentence (like T) with the notion of truth or of arithmetical true sentence, which is not even definable in arithmetic, and can be meta-defined in some set theory or second order arithmetic, at the meta-level. God can be arithmetical truth, but God can't be just T. > >> is the self-existent cause and reason for our existence. > > That is very far from a scientific consensus. I'd say majority the > opinion among scientists who are philosophically inclined is that > mathematics and logic are languages in which we create models that > represent what we think about reality. This explains why there can > be contradictory mathematical models and even mutually inconsistent > sets of axioms and rules of inference. Yes, but this makes sense only for people agreeing on elementary arithmetical truth. If not, the notion of axioms and rules of inference don't make sense. Nobody serious disagree on elementary arithmetic. I have never seen someone doubting the meaning of (N, +, *), except philosophers. Bad philosophers, I would say, when they are in desperate needs to demolish some argument, or to look original or something. We need assess arithmetic to make sense of doubting arithmetic, and so, doubting arithmetic does not make sense, in fact. Bruno > >> Few people today have realized that this is inevitable conclusion >> of these two commonly held beliefs. > > Not only that a few people have rejected it. > > Brent > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en > . > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Digital devices can interface with living systems, but they must always ultimately be slaves to the self, the nonphysical governor (mind), just as the supreme monad (the All) is the governor of the universe. So transplant of a physical brain seems a bit impossible as of yet. And rocks have no intelligence so are governed purely by physical laws. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 05:35:00 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 07 Sep 2012, at 19:12, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough wrote: > machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling > facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us, if they don't it's their problem not ours; It might concerns you if the doctor intents to replace your brain by a digital device, or if your daughter want marry a man who did that. however those "dumb rocks" can and do outsmart us on a regular basis and the list of things they are superior at gets longer every day. The very title of this thread just screams whistling past the graveyard. > So there is no more communication with God possible than there would be with > an abacus. Now that I agree with 100%, computers are no better at talking to God than a abacus is. Indeed. Abacus are Turing universal, and so have the same ability than us (assuming comp). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
I think that the God attacked by atheists indeed does not exist. IMHO God is cosmic intelligence, which is nonphysical. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 23:43:22 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough wrote: > machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling > facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us, if they don't it's their problem not ours; however those "dumb rocks" can and do outsmart us on a regular basis and the list of things they are superior at gets longer every day. The very title of this thread just screams whistling past the graveyard. > So there is no more communication with God possible than there would be with > an abacus. Now that I agree with 100%, computers are no better at talking to God than a abacus is. John K Clark John, Bruno makes a valid point, that you attack only the weakest, most ill conceived, notion(s) of God. Perhaps you have never bothered to investigate deeply the true claims of various religions. If you haven't you might easily have missed some of the deeper meanings of God, which are quite different than what you might believe listening only to the most vocal (fundamentalist or literalist sects). Many, perhaps even a majority, of modern religions define God as the self-existent, self-sufficient, immutable, infinite absolute truth, and the foremost reason and/or cause for all of existence. I included some examples below: Judaism: God is an absolute one indivisible incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. The name YHWH literally means "The self-existent One" (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism ) The first sentence of the book Genesis begins: "The primary cause caused to be." (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo#History_of_the_idea_of_creatio_ex_nihilo ) Christianity: The book of John begins: "In the beginning was the ? ?? , and the ? ?? was with God, and the ? ?? was God." ? ?? or logos, is the root word from which we get logic, as well as the -logy suffix as in biology, geology, etc. It has connotations of reason, principles, logic, with no perfect translation to English. In Latin bibles it was translated verba, and when translated to English became "word". Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish of the first-century, taught that the logos was both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. "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 "Geometry existed before the creation; is co-eternal with the mind of God; is God himself" -- Johannes Kepler Islam: Among the names of God given in the Koran: "Al-Haqq", meaning: The Truth, The Real "Al-Wahid", meaning: The One, The Unique "As-Samad", meaning: The Eternal, The Absolute, The Self-Sufficient "Al-Baqiy", meaning: The Immutable, The Infinite, The Everlasting (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam#List_of_99_Names_of_God_as_found_in_the_Qur.27an ) Sikhism: The root mantra in Sikhism reads: "There is one creator, whose name is truth, creative being, without fear, without hate, timeless whose spirit is throughout the universe, beyond the cycle of death and rebirth, self-existent, by the grace of the guru, God is made known to humanity." (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_beliefs ) Hinduism: Brahman, the supreme God, is is seen as the infinite, self-existent, omnipresent and transcendent reality which is the divine ground for all that exists. In the Bhagavad Gita, “You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original Person, the unborn, the greatest.” In the Sri Brahma-samhita, “I worship Govinda, the foremost Lord, whose radiance is the source of the singular Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being distinct from the infinity of glories of the material universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth. “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.” He continued, “Then there is another thing in Hindu philosophy, namely, God alone is and nothing else exists, and the same truth you see emphasized and exemplified in the kalma of Islam. And
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Jason Resch Personally, I believe that there is more intelligence innate in nature (the brain) than scientists give nature credit for. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 01:52:09 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Brent, Thanks for your reply. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern mathematicians. In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. ?f course they are all methodological Platonists, but not necessarily philosophical ones. That is interesting.? Among the non-platonists, what schools of thought did you find most popular? ? Computationalism (or functionalism) is the majority viewpoint of cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind. ?hus the scientific consensus is that infinite (mathematical) truth Except mathematical truth is just a marker, T, whose value is preserved by the rules of logic. ?hether a proposition that has T corresponds with any fact is another question. Functionalism maintains that so long as the same relations are preserved, whether they be relations between neurons, silicon circuits, ping pong balls, objects in other possible universes, objects in a mathematical structure, or the integers themselves, the same brain state will result.? If one subscribes to Platonism, then there exist mathematical objects that possess the same relations that exist in our brains, and if one subscribes to functionalism, these platonic instances of our brains would not be zombies but fully conscious. ? is the self-existent cause and reason for our existence. That is very far from a scientific consensus. I agree, few realize it.? Not many mathematicians are also philosophers of mind, but does it not follow from platonism+functionalism? ? ?'d say majority the opinion among scientists who are philosophically inclined is that mathematics and logic are languages in which we create models that represent what we think about reality. Perhaps, but this wouldn't be platonism,? Many scientists probably are unaware that that formalism failed and that mathematical truth transcends any description, which is why it is better to look at the consensus of domain experts.? A biologist probably isn't the best person to ask about whether there is one universe or many. ? ?his explains why there can be contradictory mathematical models and even mutually inconsistent sets of axioms and rules of inference. This is no different than the existence of contradictory and inconsistent physical theories.? We arrive at better axiomatic systems for explaining truth about the numbers in the same way we arrive at better physical theories for explaining truth of the natural world.? Some turn out to be more powerful, explain more, etc, and we stick with them until a better one comes along. ? Few people today have realized that this is inevitable conclusion of these two commonly held beliefs. Not only that a few people have rejected it. ? Sure, many people reject Bruno's UDA, but has anyone shown the error in its reasoning? Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Roberto Szabo You don't need much evolution to arrive at a being that can feel and has at least some intellectual capacity. Any living entity has to know friend from foe, pain from pleasure, and so forth. But rocks, like computers, have no need for such abilities, because they are both dead. And the dead do not evolve. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Roberto Szabo Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 11:17:29 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Hi Roger, Brains some years ago had no "intellectual or feeling facilities" too. It came by evolution. Roberto Szabo 2012/9/7 Roger Clough Hi Stephen P. King ? No, machines, even computers,?MHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So there is no more communication with God possible than there would be with an abacus. ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-06, 19:39:10 Subject: Re: The All On 9/5/2012 12:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Roger, On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:23, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? No, the supreme Monad can see everything even though the monads have no windows. ? Also the "closeness to God" issue depends on your clarity of vision and feeling.?nd perhaps appetites. So everybody's different.? ? I agree. But my point was that "everybody" includes possibly machines, and that we are not supposed to dictate God which creatures he can look through.? Bruno Hi Bruno, ?? I agree with you here 100%! -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
