subject:"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  

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 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 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 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

Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Stephen P. King


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.

Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Stephen P. King


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.

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.


Hi Roger,

I agree with you. I meed more detail so I look at this more 
carefully. Math lets us do that.


--
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

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough

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

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough

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

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough

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: 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.

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.

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 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



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: 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 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




Amen!

--
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 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: 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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 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 rclo...@verizon.net 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 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Stephen P. King


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 mailto: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 mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*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:   

 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.



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 mailto: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 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 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread meekerdb


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 to teach the children of its adherents?

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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



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


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 already behave like the notion of God, or what is the more common  
about it in many traditions.




And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing  
intelligent to say because it has not discovered any facts.


Theology is a science. Aristotle hypothesis of the existence of a  
primary universe has been refuted, so we can progress in it. The  
physical science is a product of a theology.







 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.


Not at all. Theology has been stolen by politics, 1500 years ago, we  
have to backtrack if we want to be rational on that issue.






 It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't want  
to get informed.


 I didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy  
than he did, a lot more.


You know a lot of things, but knowing is not a valid argument in  
science.






 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.


Aristotle is one of the first very big scientists. To be wrong is the  
natural fate of all serious scientists.
He was wrong not just on physics, he was wrong on theology (at least  
with respect to comp)..

But physics is allowed in academy, so we can correct his physics.
Unfortunately his theology is not allowed in academy, so if you say  
that it is incorrect you are mocked in the academy, and ignored, of  
course, from the churches. Result: we can't progress.
Again atheism goes hand in hand with the fundamentalist christians and  
muslims. They both defend, in their own ways, the idea that Aristotle  
theology has to remain unchanged.

I don't buy your religion, John.





 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


We understand that because you have stopped the thinking at step 3.


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.


?

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: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Roger Clough

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: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Roger Clough

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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Stephen P. King


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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 already behave like the notion of God, or what is the more common 
about it in many traditions.


Dear Bruno,

A have to side a bit with John here as the truthfulness of a 
concept is different from the meaningfulness. There is a context 
requirement. For the former case of Truth it is in all worlds and for 
the latter it is in all accessible worlds.






And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing 
intelligent to say because it has not discovered any facts.


Theology is a science.


Not so much. It must make contact with physical falsifiability in 
some sense of an accessible world, but not independent of that 
conditional. Theology is meta-physics, literally, before physics, as 
its considerations are such that all else, including physics, supervenes 
upon its truth. We can only reason a posteriori for theologies to 
justify them.


Aristotle hypothesis of the existence of a primary universe has been 
refuted, so we can progress in it. The physical science is a product 
of a theology.


This is the key ideas where we have a disagreement. Aristotle was 
just being consistent with the basic and fundamental requirement that 
the physical world acts (or even *is*) the pattern of invariances 
between *many* 1p points of view and thus acts as a medium of 
information exchange. If you remove the stipulation of such a pattern 
of invariances betwen many then the ability to communicate vanishes.






 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.


Not at all. Theology has been stolen by politics, 1500 years ago, we 
have to backtrack if we want to be rational on that issue.


I agree. Orwell's book 1984 illustrates this fact very well; if one 
can control the language and ideas of a population (and hence its 
theology) then you can control (to some degree) the thoughts of the 
population.








 It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't
want to get informed.

 I didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy 
than he did, a lot more.


You know a lot of things, but knowing is not a valid argument in 
science.


I agree.






 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.


Aristotle is one of the first very big scientists. To be wrong is the 
natural fate of all serious scientists.


If one is unwilling to be wrong, then one cannot be correct.

He was wrong not just on physics, he was wrong on theology (at least 
with respect to comp)..


He did not understand the concept of universality and thus didn't 
know about 1-indeterminism. I am sure that if we could go back and talk 
to him he could be pursuaded to understand and agree somewhat with us, 
but we have to also consider that the reality that he knew was 
different from ours today. Beware of chronocentrism!



But physics is allowed in academy, so we can correct his physics.


Let no one that does not understand geometry enter here!

Unfortunately his theology is not allowed in academy, so if you say 
that it is incorrect you are mocked in the academy, and ignored, of 
course, from the churches. Result: we can't progress.


Academy is always in danger of becoming merely a bastion for 
orthodoxy and thus a blinkering of the genuine search for Truth.


Again atheism goes hand in hand with the fundamentalist christians and 
muslims. They both defend, in their own ways, the idea that Aristotle 
theology has to remain unchanged.

I don't buy your religion, John.


And I do not either. I see all belief systems as having some kernel 
of Truth that can be informative in our Quest.








 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


We understand that because you have stopped the thinking at step 3.


but I will say this, if you have never seen a physics

Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:

   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 has free will is not
meaningful and therefore is neither truthful nor untruthful, it is noise.

 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Stephen P. King


On 9/14/2012 12:42 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Stephen P. King 
stephe...@charter.net 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 meaningful but not truthful. 2+2=4 is 
meaningful and truthful. Man has qewhrwv or Man has free will is 
not meaningful and therefore is neither truthful nor untruthful, it is 
noise.


 John K Clark


--

Dear John,

You are contradicting yourself! If Man has qewhrwv or Man has 
free will is not meaningful and therefore is neither truthful nor 
untruthful, it is noise. is true then 2+2=5 is meaningful but not 
truthful. 2+2=4 is meaningful and truthful. is not true, because the 
particular combination of symbols 2+2=5 could mean the same thing  to 
XFR as 2+2=4 means to you. There is no unique meaning to a set of symbols.


--
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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Craig Weinberg



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 javascript:
 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 javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *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.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Roger Clough

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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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

2012-09-13 Thread Roger Clough

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

2012-09-13 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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

2012-09-13 Thread Craig Weinberg



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

2012-09-13 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:58:10 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 13, 2012  Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Stephen P. King


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 which we can access to get 
us through days where we don't see how its going to work out.


 I agree as well. Faith is to know that even though I cannot 
prove something for a fact, I can know that it will be a fact. It is 
an anticipation of a future truth.



--
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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



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 know which one). This gives the only  
indeterminacy phenomenologically equivalent with the quantum one,  
yet explained entirely with assuming quantum physics.


I meant without assuming QM.

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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



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

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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?


The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy,  
metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology.




 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.


Yes, it is the idea.





  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.


We don't talk about true, but about the notion of truth.





 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?


For the same reason we talk about feeling, consciousness, etc. We  
refer to experience, and attempt to make sense of them.







 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.


Plato's questions are at the origin of science. It is no use to say  
more if you don't have read it, and don't want to get informed.






 Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality.

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused.


Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the  
physical science. Even Aristotle did not make that error, and present  
the primary matter as an hypothesis, or a theory, needing such  
statement to be made explicit.


I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical  
reality, still less a paper showing how to test such idea. Comp,  
mainly the movie graph, debunks such an idea.





 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.


You are the only one who have a problem here, and you did not succeed  
in showing any confusion, except your own about 1p and 3p.

Little sentences with a dismissive tone are not arguments.

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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Clough

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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Clough

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 marc...@ulb.ac.be 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.


 I 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.

 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

2012-09-11 Thread Roger Clough

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 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 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-11 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 saying anything, it's just  
silly wordplay.


 No, it is not.

I already know what the word truth means so when you say God  
means truth you aren't telling me anything of philosophical or  
mathematical or scientific interest, you're just giving me a  
synonym. But when you say God has a beard you're actually saying  
something, you're saying something about God; it happens to be  
something that is not true but at least its saying something. If I  
believed in God I would feel that I knew a little more about the  
being who created me and the universe, but no matter how deeply I  
believed I couldn't do anything with God is truth.


God = truth makes a bridge between two fields, and thus provide  
information. You might as well criticize 1+1=2.







 If you are so worry about fairy tails notion of God, why are you  
limiting the meaning of God to such fairy tale notion.


Because that's what the word God means, without those fairy tail  
notions it would no longer be God, at least not in the English  
language.


I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non  
fairy tale sense, like Aldous Huxley who wrote a book on the subject.




Everybody on this list seems to want to mutate the meaning of the  
word God into something more reasonable so you wouldn't have to be  
a idiot to say the words I believe in God.


One of the reason of doing this is that 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 after the long  
persecution of those who dare to think differently than a well know  
political power.




Well that certainly can be done, make the word God mean truth  
for example, but I don't see the point, we already have a perfectly  
good word for that, truth. But if you should succeed in this  
ridiculous quest then we're going to need to invent a new word to  
replace the old meaning of the word God, let me suggest  
Klogknee, then I'll be able to tell people I do believe in God but  
I don't believe in Klogknee.


God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. Read Plato for  
learning more on this.






 you are the one preventing theology to come back to seriousness

Come back? When was theology ever serious?


The question is more when theology has derailled. And the answer is  
simple: when God's name has been used for normative terrestrial  
purpose, which is a blaspheme indeed, in a lot of traditions.






 some people have made the physical universe into a sort of  
authoritative God


Unlike God physical reality can smack you right on the head, in fact  
it seems to have habit of doing so, thus when physics says that  
bridge is not strong enough to hold your weight it would be wise to  
listen to what that authority is saying.


Nobody doubts physical reality here. but when you make into a God, you  
block the attempt to understand where it comes from, as you block the  
idea that it might be something emergent from something else, like  
arithmetical truth in the comp theory. Here you confuse physical  
reality and primitive physical reality.







 this not only does not explain where it comes from but prevent  
progress both on the origin of the universe and on the mind-body  
problem.


And the God theory does not help one teeny tiny bit in explaining  
any of that.


It depends which one. yes, God has a beard is not helpful, but God as  
truth has already provided light in the frame of the computationalist  
theory. Read my paper on Plotinus for more.






  You're saying that the Brahman is the truth and the truth is the  
Brahman, well OK but other than being able to say that its Brahman  
that 2+2=4 what have I gained from learning that?


 A foreseen of the fact that if 2+2=4 is a scientific statement,  
the following is not: 1+1=2 is true. This plays a key role in  
the comp theory of consciousness.


Well duh! The fact that 2+2=4 plays a key role in EVERYTHING and  
anybody with half a brain knew that long before being told that the  
Brahman is  truth and  truth is the Brahman, this new information is  
of zero utility to me.


You did not read what I wrote. I wrote 2+2=4 is a scientific  
statement, but in the comp theory, literally, 2+2=4 is true is NOT a  
scientific statement. If we are machine, God = Truth is so true that  
Truth also cannot be used in any scientific or public statement. of  
course, like God, machine can use Truth as a pointer, and not as a  
descripotive name. This is because they can approximate such concept  
in the scientific way.







 It becomes clearer and

Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-11 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-11 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-10 Thread Craig Weinberg

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.

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/-/kDEJ-RBWb3QJ.
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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-10 Thread Bruno Marchal



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 Inner God, or neoplatonist third God, and the  
notion of first person fits that role quite well, as I try to  
illustrate in the Plotinus paper.




Islam: He who knows himself knows his lord. — Muhammad


Ditto.



Confucianism: Heaven, earth and human are of one body.



Taoists are closer to the comp truth than Confucianists, who bring  
back the physicalism in the divine picture.




Zen Buddhism: Look within, you are the Buddha.
Christianity: The Kingdom of God is within you.

Hmm... The problem is that christianity has exiled or burn alive those  
who look too much in the internal kingdom, and they will insist that  
you confess to the local authorities. But Christianity is a human  
thing, and it has not completely kill its original spiritual motivation.


Mathematician like to generalize definition, making 0, 1, and 2  
numbers, where the initial intuition of number was numerous.


In a similar vein,  it is all normal to provide a general definition  
of theology, as the search of the truth, including the irrational or  
unjustifiable (non provable) one, like I am conscious, or I will  
survive the Doctor technological reincarnation of me, or I am  
consistent, or there is something real, or there is a primary  
physical universe, or there is an afterlife, or there is no  
afterlife, etc.


Then the math, or just logic, shows that machine's theology is closer  
to Platonism, mysticism and the eastern conception of God, than the  
Aristotelian physicalist one which bet that reality is wysiwig.







Since there are religions that adhere to ideas for God which I  
cannot reject, the only solution is to reject atheism, and declare  
what one does or does not believe in on a case by case basis.  As I  
believe in Platonism, it is very difficult for me to find something  
I do not believe exists, in some sense, or somewhere, so where I  
draw the line is on things which are self-inconsistent.  For  
example, am omniscient+omnipotent god, can it forget?  If so is it  
still omniscient, if not is it still omnipotent?  It is easy to show  
the inconsistency for some ideas of God, and thus reject them, but  
this is less easy for other notions of God.


And the same for Matter or any metaphysical notion. All concepts  
evolves when tackled scientifically. Only fundamentalists sticks on  
invariant definition.



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: The poverty of computers

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012  Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 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 atheists, may make a habit out of rejecting all ideas that
 have little or no evidence


I certainly hope so! As a devout atheist that is the creed I adhere to.

  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: The poverty of computers

2012-09-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

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
religious believer in a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps.

To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means I
believe in x, and if g means (god exists)

A believer is characterized by Bg
An atheist by B ~g
An agnostic by ~Bg ~B~g

But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with
respect of matter, etc.

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,
which is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything,
which is just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed
clearly.

I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making
clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg
than to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or
even a tiny part of it.

Bruno

On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 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
.

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: The poverty of computers

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 saying anything, it's just silly wordplay.



 No, it is not.


I already know what the word truth means so when you say God means
truth you aren't telling me anything of philosophical or mathematical or
scientific interest, you're just giving me a synonym. But when you say God
has a beard you're actually saying something, you're saying something
about God; it happens to be something that is not true but at least its
saying something. If I believed in God I would feel that I knew a little
more about the being who created me and the universe, but no matter how
deeply I believed I couldn't do anything with God is truth.


  If you are so worry about fairy tails notion of God, why are you
 limiting the meaning of God to such fairy tale notion.


Because that's what the word God means, without those fairy tail notions
it would no longer be God, at least not in the English language. Everybody
on this list seems to want to mutate the meaning of the word God into
something more reasonable so you wouldn't have to be a idiot to say the
words I believe in God. Well that certainly can be done, make the word
God mean truth for example, but I don't see the point, we already have
a perfectly good word for that, truth. But if you should succeed in this
ridiculous quest then we're going to need to invent a new word to replace
the old meaning of the word God, let me suggest Klogknee, then I'll be
able to tell people I do believe in God but I don't believe in Klogknee.

 you are the one preventing theology to come back to seriousness


Come back? When was theology ever serious?

 some people have made the physical universe into a sort of authoritative
 God


Unlike God physical reality can smack you right on the head, in fact it
seems to have habit of doing so, thus when physics says that bridge is not
strong enough to hold your weight it would be wise to listen to what that
authority is saying.

 this not only does not explain where it comes from but prevent progress
 both on the origin of the universe and on the mind-body problem.


And the God theory does not help one teeny tiny bit in explaining any of
that.

  You're saying that the Brahman is the truth and the truth is the
 Brahman, well OK but other than being able to say that its Brahman that
 2+2=4 what have I gained from learning that?



 A foreseen of the fact that if 2+2=4 is a scientific statement, the
 following is not: 1+1=2 is true. This plays a key role in the comp
 theory of consciousness.


Well duh! The fact that 2+2=4 plays a key role in EVERYTHING and anybody
with half a brain knew that long before being told that the Brahman is
truth and  truth is the Brahman, this new information is of zero utility to
me.


  It becomes clearer and clearer for me  that your avoidance of going from
 step 3 to step 4 might come from your religious atheistic beliefs.


Maybe but I'm not sure because I've long since forgotten what step 3 or 4
is, or even step 2. All I remember is you claimed to have discovered some
new type of indeterminacy that was fundamentally different from regular run
of the mill indeterminacy and it never made any sense to me.

  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: The poverty of computers

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 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 ab initio from a
 culture devoid of a history of religious thought.


I wouldn't call it thought but no culture is devoid of a history of
religion and I have a theory as to why. In general it would be a
Evolutionary advantage for children to listen to and believe what adults,
particularly parents, have to say; don't eat those berries they will kill
you, don't swim in that river there are crocodiles, etc. Most people may
not be born with innate religious feelings and visions but some are, and
they teach their children that belief. And when those children grow up they
in turn teach their children that belief too, that's why religious belief
has a strong geographical pattern. So the root cause is that most people
have a  tendency (which started out as a advantage) to believe into
adulthood whatever they were told as children. And so screwy religious
ideas that start small propagate and become huge.

  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: The poverty of computers