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
On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> God = truth
Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a
profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well
because people often want to be fooled, b
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
Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book "Moses and
Monotheism".
What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can give a reason
for something
doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true, it would be
suprising if
it did NOT show up as a soc
Hi Bruno Marchal
Self can include personality, history, ID, whatever,
but it has as its central, essential feature a point of focus
which is a unity: a substance, to use Leibniz's
vocabulary.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent
Hi Bruno Marchal
Two horns ? Metaphorically, yes. But real, actual, and an agent,
even though a metaphor. The Prince of Darkness, the Ruler of our earthly
domain.
That is a far more useful description than attributing evil to some pscyhiatric
condition or fate or whatever.
Evil generallly see
Hi Bruno Marchal
Amen.
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: 2012-09-11, 12:58:10
Subject
There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other
mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted.
religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough
believers and the object of mitification is far away in time.
People are reluct
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building
the universe from very small units in "A New Kind of Science."
http://www.wolframscience.com/
Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily
from units of yin and yang.
Roger Clough, rclo...@ver
On 12 Sep 2012, at 11:57, Roger Clough wrote:
Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book "Moses
and Monotheism".
What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can
give a reason for something
doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true,
Hi Bruno Marchal
Thanks.
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: 2012-09-11, 13:25:05
Subje
On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Self can include personality, history, ID, whatever,
but it has as its central, essential feature a point of focus
which is a unity: a substance, to use Leibniz's
vocabulary.
Which is not the "substance" is the materialist sense.
Hi Bruno Marchal
I don't disagree, but anything goal-oriented, like life, human action, or
religion,
seems pulled by Aristotle's "final causation", while in the world of science,
events are driven by the past and effective causation.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would sa
Hi Roger,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Two horns ? Metaphorically, yes. But real, actual, and an agent,
even though a metaphor. The Prince of Darkness, the Ruler of our
earthly domain.
That is a far more useful description than attributing evil to some
ps
I don´t know. Of course I don´t mean that my theory is all that can be said
about it.
What i say is that therese processes have a computable side, a phisical
substrate, that has a underlyng logic and it is not
a bunch of nonsensical neuronal firings that make 99.9 of humans, except a
few chosen one
Hi Craig Weinberg
According to Paul, over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus
in the vicinity of Galilee. It was Jesus's one final miracle.
The resurrection was necessary to prepare a mechanism, a way, for
our bodies to be resurrected in the End Times. It was comparable
to Moses' leadin
On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:22, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building
the universe from very small units in "A New Kind of Science."
http://www.wolframscience.com/
Wolfram is not aware of the first person indeterminacy. The idea
Hi Craig Weinberg
That was a rhetorical statement. Hyperbole.
Obviously, as you point out, it didn't happen with the white men killing
Indians or the nazis killing Jews.
But I think it still had to be overcome in those cases, by orders from above.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
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
Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a
evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology
(sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make
individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women "exist in reality"
as objects of
Hi meekerdb
First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so
it only works with half a brain.
Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. So science
can neither make nor understand meaningful statements.
Logic has the same fatal problem.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12
Hi meekerdb
Religion does not have the capacity to judge scientific statements.
Science does not have the capacity to judge religious statements.
So let science be science and religion be religion.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>
> 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/9/11 benjayk
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 2012/9/11 benjayk
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 2012/9/11 benjayk
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Quentin An
Hi Roger,
Thank you for the link to Steve Wolfram's new book.
What he says in the first few pages is that his new science
does away with the need for an all-powerful supernatural being.
However, it does appear that his new science has application to
Leibniz's monads as well as the monads of strin
Hi John Clark
1) God, being inextended, is invisible to the scientific method and logic,
life, being inextgended, is also invisible to the scientific method
and logic, as is the intelligence of nature.
2) As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever
is
Hi Alberto G. Corona
You are obviously one of those that believe that religion is
"nothing but" a bunch of myths. Could be, but not necessarily so.
You have fallen for the "nothing but" fallacy. If religion
is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths.
It should be
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects
Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended (nonphysical) objects.
Period.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everythin
Hi Bruno Marchal
Any creator has to be greater than his creations.
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: everyth
Hi Bruno Marchal
I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very
sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads.
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:
>
>>
>> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume
>> I want to
>> attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism),
>> and I am
>> obviously frustrated by that, which is not conduc
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
Lei
Hi Bruno Marchal
Good point. I hadn't thought about a "nothing but" problem with comp,
but as with any evidence (such as a missing auto, or a possibly
unfaithfuyl lover) you have to consider alternative explanations.
Popper may have discussed this topic. Others certainly have.
Roger Clough,
2012/9/12 benjayk
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >
> > 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/9/11 benjayk
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > 2012/9/11 benjayk
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > 2012/9/11
Hi Bruno Marchal
If the self or the perceiver is a substance in the Leibniz sense,
then it is also a monad. Monads (such as me) do not perceive
directly, but must "wait" (although actually it's instant) until the Supreme
Monad does the observation for it and reports back.
As I understand it
2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux
>
>
> 2012/9/12 benjayk
>
>>
>>
>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/9/11 benjayk
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 2012/9/11 benjayk
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Que
Hi Bruno Marchal
The demon is a living spirit (a monad) that requires an actual
monad body to act through, just as God is a good
spirit (acting through the Supreme Monad) that looks for a believing
human monad to act through. Dominant monads always take over
less dominant ones, I would hope t
Roger,
Not at all. In the previous response to your comment I said that there are
miths, that myths and beliefs are very important, but not that religion is
nothing but that.
I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the
positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m
Hi Bruno Marchal
Thanks for the warnings.
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: 2012-09-1
Hi Richard Ruquist
1) Wolfram's new science does not do away with a Creator
needed to create his new science. Wolfram's metaphysics are
also essentially those of Descartes and Materialism, which
have swept the problem of the impossibility of two different
substances (mind/body)
But unextended objects according with S. T. Aquinas exist in our mind and
are reasonable, that is they are absent from contradictions, that is
according with the facts of reality, which for Aquinas is part of the
Revelation, which has two sides: the Natural Revelation ( The creation:
Nature) and th
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk wrote:
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume
> >> I want to
> >> attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism),
>
Even rational knowledge is guided by passion, because "Thought by
itself moves nothing" (Aristotle) including the inhability to move
though itself.
But passions obey hidden reasons (An evolutionary psychologist would say)
2012/9/11 Roger Clough
>
> Hi Jason Resch
>
> Faith (trust) and love trump
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> makes a bridge between two fields,
>>
>> >> What two fields?
>>
> > The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy,
> metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology.
>
Translation from the original bafflegab: The truth is importa
This is actually an old story:
Head Transplant: The Truly Disturbing Truly Real Story
http://vimeo.com/20230127
Evgenii
On 12.09.2012 05:07 Richard Ruquist said the following:
When I read this I thought of you all.
Richard
-- Forwarded message --
From: Anna
Date: Tue, Sep 11,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Any creator has to be greater than his creations.
Why?
The Universal Dovetailer, is smaller than what it does, and what it
created.
The Mandelbrot program is very small, but it "creates" the most
complex object, full or s
On 12 Sep 2012, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so
it only works with half a brain.
Bad decision. You are the one cutting the "corpus callosum" here.
Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. So science
can neither
On 12 Sep 2012, at 13:30, benjayk wrote:
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
2012/9/11 benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/11 benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
2012/9/10 benjayk
No program can deter
On 23 Aug 2012, at 18:37, Roger Clough wrote:
The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary.
Turing-completeness, is necessary because with less you don't get even
elementary arithmetic, and with it, it becomes absolutely undecidable
for machines if there is anything more, beyon
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>
> 2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/9/12 benjayk
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> 2012/9/11 benjayk
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > 2012/9/
2012/9/12 benjayk
>
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >
> > 2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/9/12 benjayk
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> 2012/9/11 benjayk
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux
>
>
> 2012/9/12 benjayk
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > 2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/9/12 benjayk
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>>
On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:
Why we debate religion: two completely different and frequently
confused types of truth.
There are two completely different types of truth.
The first is rational or objective or public truth, discussed
in philosophies of "truth" and logic.
The s
May not be of interest,
but the Reform branch on Judaism has a prayer for "Doubt" in their
High Holiday services.
That may be one reason why some have become such good scientists.
Richard
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> God, being inextended,
>
If God is not extended then He must be very small and that could be the
reason we don't see Him. God is like a germ.
> is invisible to the scientific method and logic
>
I think you're correct about that, God make
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very
sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads.
By definition of comp, the lady can't see the difference. Apparently
your daughter did not complain,did she?, as
Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume
>> >> I want to
>> >> attack you (and
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:05, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote:
Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume
I want to
attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism),
and I am
obviously frustrated by that, w
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> OK. The bad is in arithmetic. To believe we can eliminate it would be like
> believing we can eliminate the number 666 from N. We can suppress the room
> 13 and 17, even 666 in some hostels, but that is the best we can do.
>
> Still, we
He means copies. I get two copies from you too.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:48:27AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
>
> mail exemplars ? what are they ?
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 9/12/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:32:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> I am intolerant of stupidity and deception, particularly
> when the idea of carbon credits pops up. This suggests that
> "Global warming" is just a method of raising taxes,
> diminishing coal and oil,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:06:44 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:20:49 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define:
>>
>
61 matches
Mail list logo
