Re: Re: The poverty of computers

llowing 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 e

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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

ough, 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,

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/17/2012 8:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 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.

Re: The poverty of computers

er 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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

ng-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,

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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 St

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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 trut

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/16/2012 3:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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

Re: The poverty of computers

r: 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

Re: The poverty of computers

om: 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 woul

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,

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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

on." - 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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

eceiving 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'

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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 t

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/15/2012 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 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. What religion leaves it to God

Re: The poverty of computers

everything could function." - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net> *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *Time:* 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computer

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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

verything 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 associ

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

rk 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 surpri

Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

, "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

Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

tion." > > - 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: >> &

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/14/2012 12:42 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: > A have to side a bit with John here as the "truthfulness" of a concept is different from the "meaningfulness". Yes they are different. 2+2=5 is meaningf

Re: The poverty of computers

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > A have to side a bit with John here as the "truthfulness" of a concept > is different from the "meaningfulness". > Yes they are different. 2+2=5 is meaningful but not truthful. 2+2=4 is meaningful and truthful. "Man has qewhrwv" or "Man

Re: The poverty of computers

om:* Craig Weinberg <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com> *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/14/2012 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Sep 2012, at 18:47, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal > wrote: >>> makes a bridge between two fields, >> What two fields? > The study of the notion of truth, (epistemolo

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 pes

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

Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

'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:

Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 12 Sep 2012, at 18:47, John Clark wrote: 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 orig

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/13/2012 1:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 w

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

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

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 Cla

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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 poe

Re: The poverty of computers

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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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

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 importa

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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,

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

ing-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 p

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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:36, John Clark wrote: 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, b

Re: The poverty of computers

On 11 Sep 2012, at 17:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: (to John Clark) I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the 3-view on the 1-view (like in "I will feel myself in both cities"), and the 1-view on the 1-views (I will feel myself being in only one city and I can't

Re: The poverty of computers

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, its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. John K Clark -- You rece

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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, 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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:14, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent statement than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's something that happens not to be true but at least its saying

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

he 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

Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

, "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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

erything 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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/10/2012 12:45 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> 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

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/10/2012 12:30 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > What would you say is the reason for: 1. The anthropological universality of spiritual concepts The fear of death. > 2. That religious-philosophical development i

Re: The poverty of computers

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".** > > Someon

Re: The poverty of computers

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012, Craig Weinberg wrote: > What would you say is the reason for: > 1. The anthropological universality of spiritual concepts > The fear of death. > 2. That religious-philosophical development is universal pre-requisite > for the emergence of science, ie. science never emerges

Re: The poverty of computers

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent >> statement than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's >> something that happens not to be true but at least its saying something, >> while "God is truth" is not say

Re: The poverty of computers

Roger, I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist. A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a relig

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

Re: The poverty of computers

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 Jason Resch wrote: > I think we agree that closed mindedness, in all its forms, in something > we to be avoided. It's good to be open minded, but not so open minded all your brains fall out. I believe in moderation in everything, including moderation. > > the devout athei

Re: The poverty of computers

On 09 Sep 2012, at 19:12, Jason Resch wrote: Hinduism: "By understanding the Self, all this universe is known." — Upanishads Can hardly be more close to comp, where indeed physics is a branch of machine self-reference logic. Yoga: "God dwells within you as you." That is the eastern

Re: The poverty of computers

On 09 Sep 2012, at 23:06, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Logos obviously is not a white man with a beard I think "God is a white man with a beard" is a more intelligent statement than "God is truth" because its actually saying something, it's

Re: The poverty of computers

John, What would you say is the reason for: 1. The anthropological universality of spiritual concepts 2. That religious-philosophical development is universal pre-requisite for the emergence of science, ie. science never emerges ab initio from a culture devoid of a history of religious thought.

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

#x27;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

Re: The poverty of computers

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > because if I'm not a atheist nobody is. > > I think we agree that closed mindedness, in all its forms, in something we to be avoided. The devoutly religious can be close minded if they believe that their ideas, or their view of the world is t

Re: The poverty of computers

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > Omnipotent and omniscient may be inconsistent properties, which would > mean they don't exist anywhere. > Good, you're making progress and God just got demoted. *> Particle nature of light, and beginnings of matter-energy equivalence:* > Indi

Re: The poverty of computers

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote: > 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,

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 wor

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

ion." - 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 Clar

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/8/2012 3:58 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 mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Bruno makes a valid point, that

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 >>> conce

Re: The poverty of computers

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 mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Bruno makes a valid point, that you attack only the weakest, most ill

Re: The poverty of computers

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 > st

Re: The poverty of computers

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 act

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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 mathematicia

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

no 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, a

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

eiving 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

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

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: Platon

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

ime: 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 inte

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

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

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. Of course

Re: The poverty of computers

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. Computationa

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,

Re: The poverty of computers

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

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, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or > feeling > facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So th