Re: On rational prayer
On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:24, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Rationality isn't a very useful function. I only use it when I get in trouble. I don't need it to drive my car or do practically anything. I doubt this. If you want to go on the left, you act accordingly, and that is a use of rationnality. We are rational all the times (except when doing philosophy perhaps :) I don't have more than a scanty definition of my ladyfriend, and only she knows if this is correct, but I can still talk to her. And the highest form of prayer (centering prayer) is simply wordless intention. And even higher, even the intention drops off (you stop doing praying and just be with God). I have only done this once in my life. Zen masters call this the Void. I would call it the Plenum. There are many path and all words miss it. But this can be explained in computer science through the use of the self-referential logics. You might read my papers on the subject perhaps. Mechanism is very close to Descartes and Leibniz, and also Plato and the neoplatonist. It is incompatible with Aristotle notion of primary matter and physicalism. In fact physics become a branch of machine's psychology, or theology, or simply theoretical computer science, itself embeddable in elementary arithmetic (that is not obvious, but well known by logicians since Gödel's 1931 paper). Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/10/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-10, 05:22:59 Subject: Re: God has no name Hi Roger, On 07 Aug 2012, at 11:53, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVBEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME. Luther said that to meditate of the sacredness of God according to this phrase is the oldest prayer. In old testament times, God's name was considered too sacred to speak by the Jews. The King James Bible uses YHWH, the Jews never say God as far as I know, they sometimes write it as G*d. We have relaxed these constrictions in the protestant tradition, use Jehovah and all sorts of other sacfed names. It is the problem with the notions of God, Whole, Truth, consciousness, etc. we can't define them. You can sum up Damascius by one sentence on the ineffable is already one sentence too much, it can only miss the point. (But Damascius wrote thousand of pages on this!). Like Lao Tseu said that the genuine wise man is mute, also. John Clark said it recently too! This is actually well explained (which does not mean that the explanation is correct) by computer science: a universal machine can look inward and prove things about itself, including that there are true proposition that she cannot prove as far as she is consistent, that machine-truth is not expressible, etc. My last paper (in french) is entitled la machine mystique (the mystical machine) and concerns all the things that a machine might know without being able to justify it rationally and which might be counter-intuitive from her own point of view. The word god is not problematical ... as long as we don't take the word too much seriously. You can say I search God, but you can't say I found God, and still less things like God told me to tell you to send me money or you will go to hell. God is more a project or a hope for an explanation. It cannot be an explanation itself. For a scientist: it is more a problem than a solution, like consciousness, for example. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/7/2012 Is life a cause/effect activity ? If so, what is the cause agent ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-07, 05:37:56 Subject: Re: God has no name Hi Stephen, On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement (anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of such. [BM For me, and comp, it is an open problem. [SPK] ? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has always has a name. [BM] Why? Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. OK. You are using name in the logician sense of definite description. With comp we always have a 3-name, but the first person have no name. Let us try an informal proof by contradiction. Consider the case where it is *not* necessary for a person to have a name. What means would then exist for one entity to be distinguished from another? By the entity itself: no problem (and so this is not a problem for the personal evaluation of the measure). By some other entity? We might consider the location of an entity as a proxy for the purposes of identification, but this will not work because entities can change location and a list of all of the past locations of an entity would constitute
On rational prayer
Hi Bruno Marchal Rationality isn't a very useful function. I only use it when I get in trouble. I don't need it to drive my car or do practically anything. I don't have more than a scanty definition of my ladyfriend, and only she knows if this is correct, but I can still talk to her. And the highest form of prayer (centering prayer) is simply wordless intention. And even higher, even the intention drops off (you stop doing praying and just be with God). I have only done this once in my life. Zen masters call this the Void. I would call it the Plenum. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/10/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-10, 05:22:59 Subject: Re: God has no name Hi Roger, On 07 Aug 2012, at 11:53, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVBEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME. Luther said that to meditate of the sacredness of God according to this phrase is the oldest prayer. In old testament times, God's name was considered too sacred to speak by the Jews. The King James Bible uses YHWH, the Jews never say God as far as I know, they sometimes write it as G*d. We have relaxed these constrictions in the protestant tradition, use Jehovah and all sorts of other sacfed names. It is the problem with the notions of God, Whole, Truth, consciousness, etc. we can't define them. You can sum up Damascius by one sentence on the ineffable is already one sentence too much, it can only miss the point. (But Damascius wrote thousand of pages on this!). Like Lao Tseu said that the genuine wise man is mute, also. John Clark said it recently too! This is actually well explained (which does not mean that the explanation is correct) by computer science: a universal machine can look inward and prove things about itself, including that there are true proposition that she cannot prove as far as she is consistent, that machine-truth is not expressible, etc. My last paper (in french) is entitled la machine mystique (the mystical machine) and concerns all the things that a machine might know without being able to justify it rationally and which might be counter-intuitive from her own point of view. The word god is not problematical ... as long as we don't take the word too much seriously. You can say I search God, but you can't say I found God, and still less things like God told me to tell you to send me money or you will go to hell. God is more a project or a hope for an explanation. It cannot be an explanation itself. For a scientist: it is more a problem than a solution, like consciousness, for example. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/7/2012 Is life a cause/effect activity ? If so, what is the cause agent ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-07, 05:37:56 Subject: Re: God has no name Hi Stephen, On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Which is the definition I use. Any one that actually thinks that God is a person, could be a person, or is the complement (anti) of such, has truly not thought through the implications of such. [BM For me, and comp, it is an open problem. [SPK] ? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least, nameable. A person has always has a name. [BM] Why? Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. OK. You are using name in the logician sense of definite description. With comp we always have a 3-name, but the first person have no name. Let us try an informal proof by contradiction. Consider the case where it is *not* necessary for a person to have a name. What means would then exist for one entity to be distinguished from another? By the entity itself: no problem (and so this is not a problem for the personal evaluation of the measure). By some other entity? We might consider the location of an entity as a proxy for the purposes of identification, but this will not work because entities can change location and a list of all of the past locations of an entity would constitute a name and such is not allowed in our consideration here. Sure. What about the 1p content of an entity, i.e. the private name that an entity has for itself with in its self-referential beliefs? It has no such name. Bp p, for example, cannot be described in arithmetic, despite being defined in arithmetical terms. It is like arithmetical truth, we can't define it in arithmetic language. Since it is not communicable - as this would make the 1p aspect a non-first person concern and thus make it vanish - it cannot be a name. Names are 3p, they are public invariants that form from a consensus of many entities coming to an agreement, and thus cannot be determined strictly by 1p content. You might also note that the anti-foundation axiom is every graph has a unique decoration. The decoration is the name! It is the
Re: [SPAM] On rational prayer
On 8/10/2012 5:24 AM, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Rationality isn't a very useful function. I only use it when I get in trouble. I don't need it to drive my car or do practically anything. Ben Franklin found rationality very useful. I don't have more than a scanty definition of my ladyfriend, and only she knows if this is correct, but I can still talk to her. Only because you assume a definition must be in words. You actually have an excellent ostensive definition of her. An ostensive definitions are how, facilitated by the evolutionary design of your brain, you learned the meaning of the words you use in verbal definitions. Brent So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do. --- Benjamin Franklin, Autobiographical Writings 1791 -- 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.
