Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: Brent, interleaving John --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John M wrote: > Dear Stathis: > my answer to your quewstion: > Of course not! > There is a belief systems "I" like and there are the others I don't. > I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness

RE: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
erything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:01 PM Subject: RE: Evil ? Dear John, Perhaps if you could answer just this question of Brent's, neither a straw man nor personal abuse: "Do you consider all belief systems to be e

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread John M
Brent, interleaving John --- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John M wrote: > Dear Stathis: > my answer to your quewstion: > Of course not! > There is a belief systems "I" like and there are the others I don't. > I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness that I am not t

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: > Dear Stathis: > my answer to your quewstion: > Of course not! > There is a belief systems "I" like and there are the others I don't. > I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness that I am not the judge > to decide about the rightness of "mine" and "not mine". > ---

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-13 Thread John M
a view of totally interconnected complexity of a deterministically interactive existence. So I have experience. Am I biased? you bet. Best wishes John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:01 P

RE: Evil ?

2007-01-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
OTECTED] > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Evil ? > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:41:55 -0500 > > Dear Brent, > I value many of your posts higher than continue this exchange which starts to > turn strawmannishly ad personam. > I wanted to continue, but delet

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-12 Thread John M
- "Evil". With best regards your voodoo expert John - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Evil ? John M wrote: > Brent, > sorry if I irritated you - that

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-12 Thread Mark Peaty
"Mark Peaty wrote: [amongst other things] ... What scientific method has brought to the human species is the clear demonstration that ALL beliefs and assumptions are open to question." Brent M: ' They *should* be, but religious dogma of the Abrahamic theisms is, according those who believe it

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Mark Peaty wrote: > The writer and theoretician of, ummm, comparative beliefs and spiritual > practices, Ken Wilbur wrote a book many years ago titled A Sociable God. > It was quite a slim book if I remember rightly, in which he examined the > uses in English or the word 'religion'. He analysed

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-11 Thread Mark Peaty
The writer and theoretician of, ummm, comparative beliefs and spiritual practices, Ken Wilbur wrote a book many years ago titled A Sociable God. It was quite a slim book if I remember rightly, in which he examined the uses in English or the word 'religion'. He analysed and teased out nine (9) d

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-11 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: > Brent, > sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response. > -- > You remarked: > (>"> Upon your: > > "...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? " is showing. > - Who is unbiased? )"< > You don't have to decide who's unbiased. > J

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-11 Thread John M
my mouse. Especially not with people who 'fundamentally' are on the same side with me - just hate my trend to be 'unbiased' (= fair to both parts). JM - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, Janua

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jone Mikes writes: > Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated). Not really: the people who claim they saw Elvis after his alleged death are more numerous and more credible than the second-hand (at best) Biblical accounts of Jesus being sighted after his crucifixion

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2007-01-10 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: > Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated). > Values, like ethics or morale is culture related - mostly anti-natural. There are no cultures in which people do not love their children, cooperate with relatives, seek both security and stimulation. > The

Re: Evil ?

2007-01-10 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: > Brent: > I wonder if I can make a readable sense of this rather convoluted mix of > posts? I suggest the original should be at hand, I copy only the parts I > reflect to. My previous post quoted remarks go by a plain JM, the > present (new) inclusions as "JMnow paragrap

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

2007-01-10 Thread John M
tabbing me with Santa). With friendship John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief) John, We need to have some

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2007-01-10 Thread John M
ohn M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases John M wrote (previously): > Interleaving in* bold*(*-* > John > > - Original Message - >

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2007-01-09 Thread Brent Meeker
t:* Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM > *Subject:* RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief) > > > > Tom Caylor writes: > ---SKIP > > > Stathis Papaioannou: > People disagree on lots of things, but they also agree on lots of >

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
he atheist/ agnostic thing: are you atheistic or agnostic about Santa Claus? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:19:08 -05

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

2007-01-08 Thread John M
Interleaving in bold John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief) Tom Caylor writes: ---SKIP > Stathis Papa

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

2007-01-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-janv.-07, à 05:36, Tom Caylor a écrit : Do you recognize the problem of evil, and if so, what do you believe is the solution? Do you think that the MWI is the key to the solution? What or who is Jesus in the MWI? Is Jesus described by a quantum wave function? If yes, did God send hi

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: 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 i

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2007-01-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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

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.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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., what atheists > say about

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

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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

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 of >

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, then w

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 Bruno Marchal
Tom, It seems you are doing to the arithmetical hypostases what Augustin did to Plotinus's hypostases, including a relation between the three primary hypostases and trinity (criticized by many scholars, note). Roughly speaking, I can agree, except that I cannot put any singular name in a theo

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 into relat

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 "theories/philo

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

2007-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit : Just to clear this up, my above statement was not meant to be an argument. I purposefully used the word "entail" rather than "imply". I wasn't saying that you cannot believe in some kind of truth without believing in the personal God. However is

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

2007-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 16:41, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno - It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level epistemology. It is possible. Note that in general those who appreciates the hypotheses I build on, does not like so much the conclusion, and vice versa, those w

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-30 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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, 19:5

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 cri

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

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
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

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

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
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 : > > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bru

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

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically co

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Thanks Bruno. Much of your terminology at this point escapes me. I do see that a small part of our differences below are simply due to the imprecision of language (and my somewhat sloppy writing.) I also sense that at the core of much of this discussion is the idea that, although we are subj

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I realised when I was about 12 or 13 years old that there could not be any ultimate meaning. I was very pleased and excited with this discovery, and ran around trying to explain it to people (mostly drawing blank looks, as I remember). It seemed to me just another i

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically cogn

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

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit : 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. No problem, Tom. In fact I will print your post and read it comfo

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno - It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level epistemology. But I don't know much about your "comp" so I'll begin reading. - Jef Bruno Marchal wrote: > With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values > increasingly resemble principles of the

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

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit : (to Jef) I think "objective" should just be understood as denoting subjective agreement from different viewpoints. Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying "physically objective" can be understood as denoting subjective agree

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

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Jef, Please, don't hesitate to skip the remarks you could find a bit too technical, but which could help others who know perhaps a bit more on G and G*, which are theories which I use to tackle many questions in this list. You can come back on those remarks if ever you got time and motiva

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 are just admitting > yo

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 P

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically cognizant, being evolved human

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

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 23:40, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : All meaning is necessarily within context. OK, but all context could make sense only to some universal meaning. I mean I don't know, it is difficult. But this can be se

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: > This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious > convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a > point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence > is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Des

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Jef Allbright
Brent Meeker wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes "diagonal argume

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

2006-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes "diagonal argument": it is the fixed p

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes "diagonal argument": it is the fixed point of doubt. If we de

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

2006-12-28 Thread John Mikes
On 12/28/06, Johnathan Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person will give > you his reasons for his belief: [...] > This is very similar to the arguments of people w

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

2006-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ... This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person will give you his reasons for his belief: [...] This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite evidence in support

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: > It's a strange quality of delusions that psychotic people are even more > certain of their truth than non-deluded people are certain of things > which have reasonable empirical evidence in their favour. Yet this seems understandable. The psychotic person is believin

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

2006-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 20:11, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transpare

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

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: > I said "might" because there is one case where I am certain > of the truth, which is that I am having the present > experience. Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you clai

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: > I said "might" because there is one case where I am certain > of the truth, which is that I am having the present > experience. Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real?

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : All meaning is necessarily within context. OK, but all context could make sense only to some universal meaning. I mean I don't know, it is difficult. But this can be seen in a very consistent way. The significance of

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): > >> Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea >> of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is >> no truth that we can discover. B

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

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunder

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

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: ... The statement "I am conscious", as usually intended to mean that one can be absolutely certain of one's subjective experience, is not an exception, because it's not even coherent. It has no objective context at all. It mistakenly assumes the existence of an observer

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack of precision, or someth

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-déc.-06, à 19:54, Tom Caylor a écrit : 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 evid

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack of

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

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-déc.-06, à 19:54, Tom Caylor a écrit : 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

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

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would expre

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

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 01:52, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? We might never be certain of the truth, so our beliefs should always be tentative, but that doesn't mean we should believe whatever we fancy. This is a key state

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

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-déc.-06, à 23:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : 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 beliefs. Is this not a bit self-defeating? It has the form of a belief. Now I can sti

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

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is no truth that we can discover. But on the other hand, if there is no dis

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes (quoting Tom Caylor): > Dr. Minsky, > > In your book, Society of Mind, you talk about a belief in freedom of > will: > > "The physical world provides no room for freedom of will...That concept > is essential to our models of the mental realm. Too much of our > psycholog

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is no truth that we can discover. But on the other hand, if there is no discoverable truth, then how can

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > But our main criterion for what to believe should be > what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would express this belief of his i

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-26 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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

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"

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-26 Thread Brent Meeker
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 beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is co

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

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
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 beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is constantly switching a

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would express this belief of his in the form of a tautology.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:59:17 -0800 I regard the idea of "believing" to be unsound, because it is

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-26 Thread Brent Meeker
[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 beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is constantly switching among various different "ways to think" in

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

2006-12-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is constantly switching among various different "ways to think" in which different assertions

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-26 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Brent, you don't REALLY put strange (implied?) words in my mouth, but that gives the impression to the innocent byreader that I said anything like that. BM: "Did I claim that we had reached a complete inventory??" JM: No, you only said: "> It is only your opinion that the inv

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-26 Thread John Mikes
Brent, you don't REALLY put strange (implied?) words in my mouth, but that gives the impression to the innocent byreader that I said anything like that. BM: "Did I claim that we had reached a complete inventory??" JM: No, you only said: "> It is only your opinion that the inventory is *necessarily

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 cle

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

2006-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit : 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, "Wha

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: ... > > > JM: > Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non > (Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not > cal

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time we take what we say as truth. On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter of

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread John Mikes
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > > JM: > Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non > (Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not > call a "whole") Sorry. You called it a "totality". Thanx, makes a difference. I consider

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: John Mikes wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time > > we take what we say as truth. > On 12/24/06,

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread John Mikes
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John Mikes wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time > > we take what we say as truth. > On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > "When

Re: Evil ?

2006-12-25 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: > This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time > we take what we say as truth. On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matte

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-25 Thread John Mikes
Tom Caylor wrote: This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time we take what we say as truth. On 12/24/06, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "When I take what I say to be true based on evidence it is not a matter of faith" JM: it is based on your faith in your evide

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-24 Thread Jef Allbright
Brent Meeker wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: > > Brent Meeker wrote: >> That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's true? >> Of course in general we don't know what's true and we never know it >> with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific, >> provisiona

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases

2006-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's true? Of course in general we don't know what's true and we never know it with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific, provisional sense. And we also have certain valu

  1   2   >