Re: Reality

2008-12-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno, Just coming at this after not thinking about it much. Sometimes that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent points that were understood before. So if it's the latter, I hope you forgive me. Taking two of your statements and trying to synthesize them, first

Re: blend of ancient and modern cosmogenesis or creations stories and inquiry into the relevance of love

2009-01-23 Thread Tom Caylor
Hi, Bardia. Welcome, although I haven't participated much here myself lately. I've been too busy following my heart, although these discussions also do touch on something down deep for me. I'll comment briefly off the top of my head, but hopefully from my heart. On Jan 23, 4:23 pm,

Re: continuity - cloning

2009-02-11 Thread Tom Caylor
The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless of the sapping strength notion. You would have reason to worry about being killed if there were clones and then a shell game was played with you being mixed up with the clones, and then all of the yous were killed except one. All of

Re: continuity - cloning

2009-02-11 Thread Tom Caylor
But of course you would worry just as much if the clone were replaced by a zombie... I guess that gets back to the distinction between first person and third person. On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, Tom Caylor daddycay...@msn.com wrote: The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless

Which Darwin?

2009-02-12 Thread Tom Caylor
Today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (the 150th anniversay of the publication of On the Origin of Species, and we Americans at least are also celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps at this milestone it would be good to bring up the question, What bearing does Darwin's

Re: Non unique Universe

2009-07-09 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jul 5, 9:44 pm, thermo thermo therm...@gmail.com wrote: hi, I am not very much into string theory but i liked the paper, it was pretty much self-contained for me, a computer-scientist, . On the other side, It seems that the main conclusions are extracted from the Löwenheim–Skolem

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-24 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by: Computationalism entails COMP. Bruno,

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-24 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: David and 1Z: How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to successively approach the accuracies needed for the collisions in the linear accelerator

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-24 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: David and 1Z: How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to successively approach the accuracies needed

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-24 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: David and 1Z: How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to successively approach

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-25 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If you died today and just by accident a possible next moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in the future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 25-oct.-06, à 13:57, 1Z a écrit : Brent Meeker wrote: It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead. Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can reach are those of the form It is true that axioms =

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Again, the kind of formalism that says everything can be brought under a single formal scheme (the Hilbertian programme) is different from the kind that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms, and different truths will be arrived at under

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Again, the kind of formalism that says everything can be brought under a single formal scheme (the Hilbertian programme) is different from the kind that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le Jeudi 26 Octobre 2006 18:02, 1Z a écrit : Quentin Anciaux wrote: But c breaks down into: c1) I experience something coherent that obeys the laws of physics and c2) I experience wild and crazy harry Potter stuff.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit : No, I am just asking. I have even come up with formulations like real in the sense that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what kind of reality I have. Ah OK. I guess that is the RITSIAR. I

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from the empirical side (top down rather

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit : If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to do on the Everything List? That's *mathematical* truth. It is not.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi Stathis, Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean

Natural Order Belief

2006-11-13 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu

Re: Natural Order Belief

2006-11-14 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:32:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit : 1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it. Why do

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit : 1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it. Why do you (or Plotinus) think we need it? The 0-person is the big whole

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-28 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural causes

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-28 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-01 Thread Tom Caylor
Sorry for my long reaction time. I have my thoughts on Bruno's, Stathis' and Brent Meekers' posts, but I will not be able to post until this weekend. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature and cause were foundational to modern science. We have to assume that there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to make sense of it. Reality

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Why should nothing be the default. Or to paraphase Quine, Nothing is what doesn't exist. So what is there? Everything. Everything that there is is there. But this is the ultimate in begging the question. The question remains, why is everything (I see) there? Why do I

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there). I agree with this a priori. At this stage

Re: Objects, Lists, and continuums

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Hal Ruhl wrote: I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have not found any yet so I would appreciate comments. The idea is based in the description of objects. It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by Alastair Malcolm. The idea is

Re: Objects, Lists, and continuums

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have not found any yet so I would appreciate comments. The idea is based in the description of objects. It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by Alastair

Re: The Totally Blind Zombie Homunculus Room

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Mark Peaty wrote: Nice try Colin! :-) and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which I have read on various discussion groups. Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and you beg some of the questions you seem to be assuming that you are

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there). The

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by machine you talk about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine. We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see why a present God would abandon them

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: OK. I'll take the belief out of it for your convenience. 1) If the infinite personal God of love exists this makes it possible for me to take my eyes off of myself, by looking at God (granted that such a thing is allowed). (not done yet) 2

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: (Schaeffer's phrase Is Not Silent is an answer to Wittengenstein's famous quote.) Sorry, Wittgenstein. I must have had Witten on the brane ;) Regarding Bruno's use of the word 'theology', I agree with Brent that it is unconventional to the point of targeting the wrong

Re: The word theology again (was Hypostases

2006-12-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stathis, What you haven't really addressed in this post is the PR implications if you use the word theology prominently in your writing. You will alienate many scientists and academic philosophers even though this may be due to

Re: The word theology again (was Hypostases

2006-12-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stathis, What you haven't really addressed in this post is the PR implications if you use the word theology prominently in your writing. You will alienate many scientists and academic philosophers even

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote : The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not... I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is due to my motivation

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Tom Caylor
true. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, You asked a similar question before: Tom Caylor writes: But as somewhat of an idealist, I strive to make everything whole, integrate beliefs and works, and live in integrity (same root as integer). So I understand that tension between idealism and real

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-18 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature and cause were foundational to modern science. More prevalent on the Christian Right is the Dominionist idea, shared by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses to your last post on

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear two times. On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit : Bruno, ... I believe the answer to the question, What is Truth? which Pilate asked Jesus, was standing

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit : The crux is that he is not symbolic... I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no evidences for the idea that Jesus is truth, nor can I be sure of any clear

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
that provide evidence for an invariant reality and truth, not necessarily freedom of will, but something. And I think that looking for ultimate sources would be circular (as you've said on the Atheist List) only if there were no ultimate source that we could find. Do you agree with this statement? Tom

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 26, 7:53 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: On Dec 26, 3:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single self that maintains

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Tom Caylor
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit : On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-30 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit

The Meaning of Life

2006-12-30 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): [TC] My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the absence of hope. [BM] Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You

The Meaning of Life

2006-12-30 Thread Tom Caylor
I'll make this a new topic. It's the same as my post on the older topic. Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): [TC] My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I must agree this explanation is more coherent with

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-06 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was hoping is that you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best an impressive piece of literature with some interesting moral teachings: i.e

Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life

2007-01-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jan 26, 9:22 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, I still don't understand how you will avoid the white rabbits. By extracting the physical laws from some 1-person machine measure. This one can be extracted from some interview of an honest self-observing machine. Well, to

Re: R�p : The Meaning of Life

2007-01-28 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jan 27, 7:50�am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 26-janv.-07, � 19:00, Tom Caylor a �crit : Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? �For purposes of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural) white rabbits sufficient? That would

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-05 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want it.

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you really read the modern

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate meaning. So you say. I see no reason to believe it. Again, I haven't just

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-11 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it isn't true that in a million years

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-13 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a million

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-13 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-15 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary matter

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-19 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals, laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-19 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that positivism is the right way of viewing

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-22 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42 is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the integers makes this point. I think

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-23 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-23 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is ultimately based on (and is inescapably

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Feb 24, 6:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The universe is not under any obligation to reveal itself to us. All we can do is stumble around blindly gathering what data we can and make a best guess as to what's

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-01 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God, who doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality, containing these qualities

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-05 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-05 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the Creator is a person that we

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it provides. I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-06 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote: You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the meaning of possible for now

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-08 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-09 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You could replace love with chocolate and God with the chocolate fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-09 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of the stuff in the Plenitude is useless

Re: God and the plenitude (was:The Meaning of Life)

2007-03-11 Thread Tom Caylor
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-04 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jun 3, 12:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney) wrote: Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas about consciousness. Various people here have proffered their own ideas, and we might assume that

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-05 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jun 4, 11:50 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor skrev: I think that IF a computer were conscious (I don't believe it is possible), then the way we could know it is conscious would not be by interviewing it with questions and looking for the right answers. We

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-05 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jun 5, 7:12 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 03-juin-07, à 21:52, Hal Finney a écrit : Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas about consciousness. Various people here have

Re: Attempt toward a systematic description

2007-06-08 Thread Tom Caylor
On May 25, 6:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit : On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... 0) historical background ARISTOTLE: reality = what you see PLATO: what you see = shadows of shadows of shadows

Re: Asifism

2007-06-11 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to save the notion of consciousness, free will, responsibility, qualia, (first)-persons, and many notions like that. Tthe only price: the notion of matter

Consciousness and Consistency

2007-06-12 Thread Tom Caylor
On Jun 12, 3:35 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 11-juin-07, à 08:05, Tom Caylor a écrit : On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to save the notion of consciousness, free

Re: Attempt toward a systematic description

2007-07-25 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit : I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness thread) along with Protagoras and some Aristotle (along with the dozen other books I'm

Re: $US 2 million math puzzle challenge

2007-08-23 Thread Tom Caylor
On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc, I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some trouble obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can readhttp://uk.eternityii.com/ Italy isn't included in the

Re: $US 2 million math puzzle challenge

2007-08-23 Thread Tom Caylor
On Aug 23, 8:41 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc, I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some trouble obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can

  1   2   3   >