Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-févr.-07, à 05:55, Brent Meeker a écrit (some time ago) Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-25 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: I'd say an irrational morality. I almost always make the utilitarian choice in those hypothetical moral dilemmas (must

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-23 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
This study recent published in Nature suggests not only a neural basis for morality, but a specific neural basis for a specific kind of morality: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05631.html

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-mars-07, à 01:38, David Nyman a écrit : On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts.

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-mars-07, à 17:15, David Nyman a écrit : Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree of

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-mars-07, à 19:38, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-17 Thread John M
. Not a primitive John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Tom Caylor wrote: On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor wrote

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit : Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts.

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit : I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong) The problem with words like nothing and everything is that they have as many meaning than there are theories or

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit :  I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread David Nyman
On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primeness'

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life (Brent's question skipped)... BM: Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-15 Thread John M
Thank you, Russell John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I think high energy physicists talk about colour charge, rather than colour pole

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread David Nyman
On Mar 14, 9:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/14/07, Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is conceivable that the physical world might not exist, or God not exist, or God exist but not make the physical world, but it is not conceivable that circles or integers or

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread John Mikes
Kim, thanks for your observing 'lurking' about the 'hatchet'. I do not believe that we would have buried it into each others' head, I accepted that Bruno may be irritated (by my question/remark, or by other business). To your choice of Q-#1: recalls my usual doubt in Mark's Plain English: does

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread John Mikes
Russell, I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true.G I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as poles. Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles.

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread 明迪
My reply to the topic: The question How to calculate the Universe? by definition is equivalent to the question how to calculate Everything, including the answer to the question what is the meaning of life. It justifies our existence even if we were not to know exactly the meaning of it. :-)

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread David Nyman
On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand.

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-14 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit : Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-13 Thread Kim Jones
Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Kim Jones wrote: Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread Jason
On Mar 12, 12:49 am, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:33, John M a écrit : Still: human thinking. You should subscribe to some alien list, if you are annoyed by us being human. You can answer human thinking to any (human) post. So this does not convey any information, unless you explain what in our human nature

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread John Mikes
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease: The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability. So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread John M
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge. John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-12 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit :   If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno’s UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God?  For the purposes of this question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of creating everything that would be

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-11 Thread John M
: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-11 Thread Danny Mayes
: The Meaning of Life Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno’s UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of creating everything

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-11 Thread Danny Mayes
Le 07-mars-07, à 18:50, Danny Mayes a écrit : If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno’s UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I’ll define “God” as an entity capable of creating everything that would be

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our system of consciousness. But the input is not

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:30, Tom Caylor a écrit : Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous machine. Hence, now that it is all explained

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-mars-07, à 09:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality, even though logically they might know that there isn't. Come on, come on, come on com, I think this true even of those with religious beliefs:

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 be

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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: 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

2007-03-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 be explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc.,

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 forever in time (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless. However, the quote makes a bad

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 forever in time (contrary to the

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-07 Thread Danny Mayes
If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed to exist in a (all possible) quantum mechanical

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-07 Thread Russell Standish
If the answer is yes the whole debate over God seems to become a silly argument over semantics. Danny Mayes A *lot* of the debate over God seems to be a silly argument over semantics. When people ask me if I believe in God, I sometimes ask What precisely do you mean by 'God'?. But only

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/8/07, Danny Mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you assume an ensemble theory, whether it be an infinite MWI or Bruno's UD in the plenitude, is it POSSIBLE to avoid God? For the purposes of this question I'll define God as an entity capable of creating everything that would be observed

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: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
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 in himself necessarily rather than contingently. If you're happy to say

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 in

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-03-01 Thread Brent Meeker
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 can get to know (not totally, but in a process of growth just

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

2007-02-26 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term metaphysics. Theists sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I thought

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread John M
not 'causing' just 'directing/facilitating' - entailing in some sense. JM - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:32 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I suppose it depends on what is covered

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because a closed system which is supposedly totally explainable will always

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. Several posts back you spoke of positivism being

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-23 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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

2007-02-23 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

2007-02-20 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-20 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: On Feb 19, 7:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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 to

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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

2007-02-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 2/16/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

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

2007-02-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-févr.-07, à 00:27, Tom Caylor a écrit : This is precisely my point. If all that exists is internal meaning (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense of true) for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the other dog provides 1st person subjective

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 Brent Meeker
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 now that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.

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

2007-02-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
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 situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 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

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: 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 situation. I think you maintain that experience is enough. I

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this observation is. I don't think it's true. My

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-12 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of

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

2007-02-11 Thread Brent Meeker
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 years nothing we do now

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500 Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question at the end the maxim from Mark's post: I think therefore I am right! - Angelica  [Rugrat] (whatever that came from. Of course we

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-08 Thread John M
- Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea, like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have evidence

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-07 Thread John M
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John, Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to alternative beliefs

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
- From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread John Mikes
Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he answered: I never mix the two

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different criterion for everyone else's. If Christians said, those old Greeks sang songs about their gods' miraculous exploits, really seemed to believe in them, and on top of that were pretty smart, so I guess everything in the

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread John M
computerized machine-identity (Oops, no reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread John Mikes
@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Stathis: is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY with a person who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic and an excellent biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
?) idem, non est idem. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent meeker writes:Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may

RE: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law. However, this is *inconsistent*, and inconsistent is even

Re: The Meaning of Life

2007-02-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head, like your brother-in-law. However, this is

  1   2   3   >