Le 07-févr.-07, à 05:55, Brent Meeker a écrit (some time ago)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of
course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people
do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis
for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality:
I'd say an irrational morality. I almost always make the utilitarian choice in
those hypothetical moral dilemmas (must
This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for
morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html
Le 15-mars-07, à 01:38, David Nyman a écrit :
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is
misleading.
It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world,
just that
they exist as concepts.
Le 15-mars-07, à 17:15, David Nyman a écrit :
Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist'
perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any
other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of
contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree of
Le 15-mars-07, à 19:38, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is
deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented
any argument for the existence of
. Not a primitive
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is
deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented
any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You
merely refer to closed science as though
Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit :
Lurking, lurking...
This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions,
aeons ago on my birthday last year.
Thankee, Tom
A little refresher now:
On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
Besides the question of how
On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is
misleading.
It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just
that
they exist as concepts.
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit :
I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian
machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong)
The problem with words like nothing and everything is that they
have as many meaning than there are theories or
Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit :
I am not in favor of human omniscience.
The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of
its ignorance.
Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite
room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more
On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible
that 17 is only contingently prime?
Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist'
perspective) that the justification for 'primeness'
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit :
But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is
deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented
any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You
merely refer to
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit :
I am not in favor of human omniscience.
The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of
its ignorance.
Knowledge
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
(Brent's question skipped)...
BM:
Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain
where
Thank you, Russell
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
I think high energy physicists talk about colour charge, rather than
colour pole
On Mar 14, 9:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/07, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is
conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or
God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that
circles or integers or
Kim, thanks for your observing 'lurking' about the 'hatchet'. I do not
believe that we would have buried it into each others' head, I accepted that
Bruno may be irritated (by my question/remark, or by other business).
To your choice of Q-#1: recalls my usual doubt in Mark's Plain English:
does
Russell,
I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours
of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true.G
I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as
poles. Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles.
My reply to the topic:
The question How to calculate the Universe? by definition is equivalent to
the question how to calculate Everything, including the answer to the
question what is the meaning of life.
It justifies our existence even if we were not to know exactly the meaning
of it. :-)
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading.
It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that
they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism.
Yes, I understand.
David Nyman wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading.
It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that
they exist as concepts. This is mathematical
Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit :
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god
I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability.
So the
Kim Jones wrote:
Lurking, lurking...
This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions,
aeons ago on my birthday last year.
Thankee, Tom
A little refresher now:
On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
Besides the question of how meaning relates to this
On Mar 12, 12:49 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question I'll define God as an
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit :
Still: human thinking.
You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being
human.
You can answer human thinking to any (human) post. So this does not
convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god
I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability.
So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as
done
by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned
energy
with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the sci
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the
sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can
agree on what it provides.
I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or
Brunos UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the
purposes of this question Ill define God as an entity capable of
creating everything that would be
: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything
: The Meaning of Life
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Brunos
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question Ill define God as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my
point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second
order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our
system of consciousness. But the input is not
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:30, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be
to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and
explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous
machine. Hence, now that it is all explained
Le 10-mars-07, à 09:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality,
even though logically they might know that there isn't.
Come on, come on, come on com,
I think this true even of those with religious beliefs:
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
be
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
be
explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology
etc.,
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time
(contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote
makes a bad
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living forever in time
(contrary to the
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's
UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this
question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that
would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical
If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to
become a silly argument over semantics.
Danny Mayes
A *lot* of the debate over God seems to be a silly argument over
semantics. When people ask me if I believe in God, I sometimes ask
What precisely do you mean by 'God'?. But only
On 3/8/07, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or
Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes
of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating
everything that would be observed
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
Creator is a person that we
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's
of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it
provides.
I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God,
who
doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality,
containing
these qualities in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If
you're
happy to say
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God,
who
doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality,
containing
these qualities in
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
Creator is a person that we can get to know (not totally, but in a
process of growth just
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we
can
do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best
guess as to
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All
we
can
do is stumble around blindly gathering
not 'causing' just
'directing/facilitating' - entailing in some sense. JM
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
I suppose it depends on what is covered
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
don't believe in it either. The problem with this is
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP, in response to Tom Caylor]:
Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential.
Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a
closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP, in response to Tom Caylor]:
Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or
tangential.
Several posts back you spoke of positivism being
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42
is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that
the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that
ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is
ultimately based on (and is inescapably
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42
is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the
integers makes this point. I think
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that
positivism is the right way of viewing
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
whole post (and previous ones). These questions are
On 2/16/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary
matter
Le 14-févr.-07, à 00:27, Tom Caylor a écrit :
This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning
(i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense
of true) for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the
other dog provides 1st person subjective
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million
years nothing
we do now
will matter.
On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker It does not matter
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary
matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I
Tom Caylor writes:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary
matter situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I
Brent Meeker writes:
If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder
at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its
wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this
observation is.
I don't think it's true. My
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think
wonder
at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its
wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance
of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now
will matter.
--- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
Tom
That is, it isn't true that in a million years
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing
we do now
-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500
Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question
at the end the maxim from Mark's post:
I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat]
(whatever that came from. Of course we
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to
make the best guess I can given the evidence
, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to
make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea,
like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have
evidence
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,
Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief
systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must
be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to
alternative beliefs
-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent
belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their
beliefs must
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic
and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he
answered:
I never mix the two
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different
criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs
about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on
top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the
computerized machine-identity (Oops, no
reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John Mikes wrote:
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout
catholic and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind,
he
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic
and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two
?)
idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38
AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own
beliefs and a different
Brent meeker writes:Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and
science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything
else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you
can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be
right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different
beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law.
However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of
course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people
do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head,
like your brother-in-law. However, this is
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 5, 4:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in
that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have
values? If you have values then that mean
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read the modern
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
