Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-19 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Yes,  we are products of God's will, although
not all of those activities (such as sin) are
his preferred will. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/19/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-18, 10:09:00 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/18/2012 9:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Stephen P. King 

The supreme monad (God) does everything  
(God causes all to happen) while the monads,  
being entirely passive, can do nothing except  
display the changes that God made for them  
as what is called  their individual perceptions, 
meaning the universe from their own points of view. 
  Dear Roger, 

THus we can truthfully say that we are expressions of God's Will.   



This is another way of saying that effectively 
(not actually) each man-monad is a self 
who (but through God)  sees all in the phenomenal 
world from his own point of view. Here all is limited 
or filtered by the capabilities and biases of the man. 

We are also muddy and corrupt mirrors of Its perfection. All we have 
sinned and come short of the Glory of God. 

The Fall - the original sin - was the separation from God, and thus we 
acquired the ability to know Right from Wrong, or, in reality, fool ourselves 
into believing that we can. To perceive Valuation (such as numbers) is one 
result from our fall. God does not see numbers, or any other Particular Thing. 
It is ALL. 



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/18/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 





--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-18 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King

The supreme monad (God) does everything 
(God causes all to happen) while the monads, 
being entirely passive, can do nothing except 
display the changes that God made for them 
as what is called  their individual perceptions,
meaning the universe from their own points of view.

This is another way of saying that effectively
(not actually) each man-monad is a self
who (but through God)  sees all in the phenomenal
world from his own point of view. Here all is limited
or filtered by the capabilities and biases of the man.





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/18/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-17, 11:26:51
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 Monads are not rigidly separated.
 So change in one mind is reflected in all,
 the extent being how capable the others are of reading
 the content and their similarity to the subject.
Dear Roger,

 Your defiction is what we get if we ignore the computational 
resources that are required by a mind. I am taking the resource 
requirement into account and thus showing that the mind does not 
'always reflect all others. Only God's mind is free of contraint as it 
is the totality of existence itself.



 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 9/17/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
 so that everything could function.
 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14
 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


 On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Hi Stephen P. King

 Not sure I understand your objection, but
 faith, being subjective (hence personal)
 is at least to first order principally in one individual.
 Dear Roger,

 There is more to say!

 At the same time, however, since
 Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some
 spillover from other minds of like thinking.
 Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a
 concept of bisimulation but it seems that the symbolic representation
 that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and
 anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this spillover as the
 ability to have multiple expression of the same thing. We can
 represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each
 with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such
 that something that one does (computes) is the same as something that
 another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set
 of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there
 is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there
 is a bisimulation between them.
 We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is
 bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or
 all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible
 computations ( a repertoire) that each can perform). If there does
 exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a
 way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s)
 can be implemented on both of them.

 According to the monadology, also, an
 individual with his perceptions
 has a limited ability to see into the
 future.
 I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources
 available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have
 (locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a
 trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not
 computed yet!


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 9/16/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
 so that everything could function.

 Am I making any sense at all?




-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Yes, we can be fooled. Satan is the great deceiver. 
But I don't think that Satan has any real love, beauty or goodness
to share. Only fakes. Or only for show.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/17/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-16, 15:12:07
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers




On 16 Sep 2012, at 13:36, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

All love, all truth, all beauty necessarily comes from God (Platonia's All).
So if you can feel any of those, there's your experience. 


Yes.


But with comp there is a sense to say that Satan can fail all finite creatures 
on this, and imitate God, so that we can be deluded, and so we have to be very 
vigilant with those matter. Art is a serious matter somehow. 
Platonia owns fatal beauties.


Nobody knows in advance, we can only listen to the complains and reduce the 
harm.  It is sad, perhaps, but we can't avoid them. Like math is full of 
chimera.


Bruno












Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/16/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-15, 12:47:02
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers




On 15 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi John Clark 

Theology was once called the queen of the sciences,
but that was just a power rating.

Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than
philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture.
God's teachings, not man's.


I guess that it is here that we might disagree the more.


Theology, like everything else, should rely only to the experience, and then 
logic, theories, etc.


The experience can be helped by practice, meditation, prayer, plants, walking 
in woods and mountains, surfing the ocean, looking at Hubble picture, or doing 
jazz, and some Church can help a lot, when they handle magically the sun light.
Humans are known to write a lot of things, so scripture, as inspiring they can 
be, should never taken literally, nor ever too much seriously.


Most religion agree that God is not human conceivable, and that is why we can 
be deluded in recognizing sign, so that it is better to trust God for teaching 
Itself to the others, and not intervene too much on that plane. Cautious.
If not you are, willingly or unwillingly, imposing your conception of reality 
to the other.


Truth is a goddess which does not need any army to win.








Philosophy deals with belief and reason,


You mean science? OK.




moreorless.
Theology deals with faith  and scripture.


Theology deals with our relation with the big thing. Faith is a universal gift, 
but scriptures, when taken too much literally,  or too much repeated, can kill 
the original faith that we have all.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

The Christian Church, the Bride of Christ, is also called  
the communion of saints. That means that they are all children 
of God, and their minds are lead by the Bible and fellow 
believers. So faith is shared sotospeak. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/17/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-16, 11:18:30 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Not sure I understand your objection, but 
 faith, being subjective (hence personal) 
 is at least to first order principally in one individual. 
 
 At the same time, however, since 
 Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some 
 spillover from other minds of like thinking. 
 
 According to the monadology, also, an 
 individual with his perceptions 
 has a limited ability to see into the 
 future. 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/16/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function. 

Dear Roger, 

 ..faith ... is at least to first order principally in one  
individual. Please elaborate on this! How do you see this when we have  
to consider many different individuals and not just one? 

--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Monads are not rigidly separated.
So change in one mind is reflected in all,
the extent being how capable the others are of reading
the content and their similarity to the subject.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/17/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Not sure I understand your objection, but 
 faith, being subjective (hence personal) 
 is at least to first order principally in one individual. 

Dear Roger, 

 There is more to say! 

 At the same time, however, since 
 Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some 
 spillover from other minds of like thinking. 

 Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a  
concept of bisimulation but it seems that the symbolic representation  
that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and  
anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this spillover as the  
ability to have multiple expression of the same thing. We can  
represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each  
with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such  
that something that one does (computes) is the same as something that  
another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set  
of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there  
is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there  
is a bisimulation between them. 
 We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is  
bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or  
all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible  
computations ( a repertoire) that each can perform). If there does  
exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a  
way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s)  
can be implemented on both of them. 

 
 According to the monadology, also, an 
 individual with his perceptions 
 has a limited ability to see into the 
 future. 

 I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources  
available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have  
(locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a  
trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not  
computed yet! 

 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/16/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function. 
 
 Am I making any sense at all? 

--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-17 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King

The two words are commonly confused.  

Faith is wordless trust, personal and interior. It is in the heart.

Beliefs are public expressions of that faith and its object, and a 
whole lot more, and are thus in words. So it is in the head.

For more, see

http://lightomega.org/Ind/Pure/Belief_Faith_and_Knowing.html




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/17/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-16, 12:15:31 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/16/2012 8:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 My take on the meaning of knowledge of things unseen 
 is knowledge of what is invisible at the moment. 

  Hi Roger, 

 I agree with this definition. It is equivalent to mine. What we  
must understand is that at the moment is something that can be and is  
different for each and every one of us. 

 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/16/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function. 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Stephen P. King 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 
 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 
 
 
 On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Faith is merely trust. I could have faith in a doorknob. 
 But I wouldn't try faith in Satan. 
 
 
 Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you 
 up to authority, to submission, and submission 
 is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the 
 bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, 
 bending over to Jesus. 
 
 
 Hi Roger, 
 
 I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to 
 make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being 
 knowledge of things unseen. If I where the one entity in the universe then 
 it would not make any sense to confine knowledge of things not seem to a 
 future tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in 
 the domain defined by the not seen, but we appear to live in a universe 
 where I can communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he 
 can tell me all about that is happening beyond my local reach. 
 Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we have 
 to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might be 
 able to communicate with; not seen means not seen to anyone that I can 
 communicate with, no? =-O 
 
 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/15/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function. 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Stephen P. King 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 
 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 
 
 
 On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 
 Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
 Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
 confidence, etc. 
 
 Faith 
 
 Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 
 Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
 apprehension rather than proof. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dear Roger, 
 
 But not just anything it is contained to cover only that which is possible 
 in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that the 
 bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief 
 when I am actually crossing it.. 
 
 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 9/14/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function. 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Craig Weinberg 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 
 Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers 
 
 
 
 
 On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
 Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
 The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
 They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
 For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 
 
 The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
 It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. 
 Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. 
 
 
 
 It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
 In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
 belief is the privately expressed as wordless. 
 
 Craig 
 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

All love, all truth, all beauty necessarily comes from God (Platonia's All).
So if you can feel any of those, there's your experience. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/16/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-15, 12:47:02
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers




On 15 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi John Clark 

Theology was once called the queen of the sciences,
but that was just a power rating.

Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than
philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture.
God's teachings, not man's.


I guess that it is here that we might disagree the more.


Theology, like everything else, should rely only to the experience, and then 
logic, theories, etc.


The experience can be helped by practice, meditation, prayer, plants, walking 
in woods and mountains, surfing the ocean, looking at Hubble picture, or doing 
jazz, and some Church can help a lot, when they handle magically the sun light.
Humans are known to write a lot of things, so scripture, as inspiring they can 
be, should never taken literally, nor ever too much seriously.


Most religion agree that God is not human conceivable, and that is why we can 
be deluded in recognizing sign, so that it is better to trust God for teaching 
Itself to the others, and not intervene too much on that plane. Cautious.
If not you are, willingly or unwillingly, imposing your conception of reality 
to the other.


Truth is a goddess which does not need any army to win.








Philosophy deals with belief and reason,


You mean science? OK.




moreorless.
Theology deals with faith  and scripture.


Theology deals with our relation with the big thing. Faith is a universal gift, 
but scriptures, when taken too much literally,  or too much repeated, can kill 
the original faith that we have all.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Not sure I understand your objection, but 
faith, being subjective (hence personal)
is at least to first order principally in one individual. 

At the same time, however, since 
Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some 
spillover from other minds of like thinking. 

According to the monadology, also, an
individual with his perceptions 
has a limited ability to see into the
future.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/16/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Stephen P. King  

Faith is merely trust.  I could have faith in a doorknob. 
But I wouldn't try faith in Satan.   


Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you 
up to authority, to submission, and submission 
is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the 
bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, 
bending over to Jesus.  


Hi Roger, 

I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to 
make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being 
knowledge of things unseen. If I where the one entity in the universe then it 
would not make any sense to confine knowledge of things not seem to a future 
tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in the domain 
defined by the not seen, but we appear to live in a universe where I can 
communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he can tell me 
all about that is happening beyond my local reach. 
Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we 
have to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might 
be able to communicate with; not seen means not seen to anyone that I can 
communicate with, no? =-O  





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
confidence, etc. 

Faith 

Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.  
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
apprehension rather than proof.  





Dear Roger, 

But not just anything it is contained to cover only that which is 
possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that 
the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief 
when I am actually crossing it..  



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/14/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers 




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:  
Hi Bruno Marchal   

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s).  
They are exclusively in the fom of words.  
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds.  

The personal or private part of religion is called faith.  
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation.  
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. 



It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
belief is the privately expressed as wordless. 

Craig 

-- 




--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-16 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

My take on the meaning of knowledge of things unseen 
is knowledge of what is invisible at the moment. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/16/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-15, 13:15:26 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/15/2012 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Stephen P. King  

Faith is merely trust.  I could have faith in a doorknob. 
But I wouldn't try faith in Satan.   


Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you 
up to authority, to submission, and submission 
is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the 
bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation, 
bending over to Jesus.  


Hi Roger, 

I do not wish to sink into Scholastic style arguments, but I am trying to 
make a point here. Faith must be anticipatory or it is not capable of being 
knowledge of things unseen. If I where the one entity in the universe then it 
would not make any sense to confine knowledge of things not seem to a future 
tensed domain as anything that is beyond my direct reach would be in the domain 
defined by the not seen, but we appear to live in a universe where I can 
communicate with the fellow around the corner with a radio and he can tell me 
all about that is happening beyond my local reach. 
Thus if we are trying to be logically consistent in our definitions, we 
have to restrict the domain of Faith to the common future of any that I might 
be able to communicate with; not seen means not seen to anyone that I can 
communicate with, no? =-O  





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
confidence, etc. 

Faith 

Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.  
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
apprehension rather than proof.  





Dear Roger, 

But not just anything it is contained to cover only that which is 
possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that 
the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief 
when I am actually crossing it..  



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/14/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50 
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers 




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:  
Hi Bruno Marchal   

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s).  
They are exclusively in the fom of words.  
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds.  

The personal or private part of religion is called faith.  
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation.  
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc. 



It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
belief is the privately expressed as wordless. 

Craig 

-- 




--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

To use Russell's discriminations:

Faith is knowledge by experience (meaning personal or subjective knowledge)

Belief is knowledge by description. Public, objective, shareable, in words (The 
 Bible).





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:05
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers




On Friday, September 14, 2012 7:10:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
confidence, etc.

Faith

Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
apprehension rather than proof.




Can't exactly the same thing be said of belief?

be?ief
Noun:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. 
Craig




Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/14/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Bruno Marchal  

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. 
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.



It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
belief is the privately expressed as wordless.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qe9BSYnICrAJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark 

Theology was once called the queen of the sciences,
but that was just a power rating.

Theology is not a science, it's closer to but different than
philosophy in that theology is, or should be, based on scripture.
God's teachings, not man's.
Philosophy deals with belief and reason, moreorless.
Theology deals with faith  and scripture.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-14, 11:16:57
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


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


 Theology is a science. 

It's a very strange science, it's a science that does not use the scientific 
method and, not surprisingly, a science that has discovered absolutely 
positively nothing about the nature of the universe despite working on the 
problem for thousands of years. However I will admit that theology's rate of 
success is every bit as good as that other science, astrology. 



 Aristotle hypothesis of the existence of a primary universe


Face reality and get with the program, Aristotle didn't know his ass from a 
hole in the ground.


 Plato's questions are at the origin of science. 


And neither did Plato. 



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

Yes all the great scientists were wrong about something, but unlike them 
Aristotle was not just wrong he was also certain; he was so certain that men 
have more teeth than women he didn't bother to look into his wife's mouth. Even 
2500 years ago that was lousy science.? 


 Again atheism goes hand in hand with the fundamentalist christians and 
 muslims. [...] I don't buy your religion, John.

The taunt that atheism is a religion didn't impress me when I first heard it at 
the age of 12 and it doesn't impress me today.? 


 The physical science is a product of a theology.


Yes, chemistry is the product of alchemy and astronomy is the product of 
astrology, but our knowledge has improved over the centuries and we no longer 
need such crap.



 if you have never seen a physics paper even attempt to do something then its 
 probably not very important because they've attempted some pretty wacky 
 things.? 



 ?

Which word didn't you understand?

? John K Clark 



?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark 

Religious faith is like trust in your father, but
the one in heaven instead.

With faith you have everything.
Without faith you have nothing.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-14, 11:27:35
Subject: Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers


On Fri, Sep 14, 2012? Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:



 Faith is ?o me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and love.


Faith is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for doing 
so; an optimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with hope and 
love, and a pessimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with 
despair and hate. Both are idiots. 

? John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King 

Faith is merely trust.  I could have faith in a doorknob.
But I wouldn't try faith in Satan.  


Even the doorknob would work to some extent, for trust opens you
up to authority, to submission, and submission
is the meat and potatoes of salvation. It's the
bending over that does the work. In the case of salvation,
bending over to Jesus. 




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-14, 12:11:35
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


On 9/14/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
confidence, etc.

Faith

Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
apprehension rather than proof. 





Dear Roger,

But not just anything it is contained to cover only that which is 
possible in the future. Faith is forward projected belief. I have faith that 
the bridge can support my weight because it is possible to falsify that belief 
when I am actually crossing it.. 



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/14/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Bruno Marchal  

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. 
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.



It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
belief is the privately expressed as wordless.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
confidence, etc.

Faith

Noun:Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual 
apprehension rather than proof.





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/14/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:21:50
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal  

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. 
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.



It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion though. 
In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in words and 
belief is the privately expressed as wordless.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark 



Faith is  to me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and love.

Religion is not faith. It is a social tradition of men. 
Men-- you know-- whose lives can be natsy, brutish and short.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/14/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: John Clark  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-13, 10:58:09 
Subject: Re: Re: The poverty of computers 


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012? Roger Clough  wrote: 



 Theology is based on faith  

I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is why 
faith is supposed to be a virtue.  


 and moral practice. 


Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another?  

? John K Clark 





? 

--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Faith is  to me at least a virtue since it is associated with hope and
 love.


Faith is believing in something when there is absolutely no reason for
doing so; an optimist with faith would believe in things that fill him with
hope and love, and a pessimist with faith would believe in things that fill
him with despair and hate. Both are idiots.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-14 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, September 14, 2012 7:10:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 Faith can be expressed as a belief, but faith itself is inner trust, 
 confidence, etc.
  
 Faith
  
   Noun:   

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on 
spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


Can't exactly the same thing be said of belief?

be·lief
Noun:

   1. An *acceptance* that a statement is true or that something exists.
   2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or *
   conviction*. 

Craig

 
  
 Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
 9/14/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
 so that everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-09-13, 13:21:50
 *Subject:* Re: Re: The poverty of computers

  

 On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 

  Hi Bruno Marchal  

 The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
 They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
 For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

 The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
 It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or 
 motivation. 
 Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.


 It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion 
 though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in 
 words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless.

 Craig

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Qe9BSYnICrAJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark  

Theology is based on faith and moral practice. 
In other words, meaning and value, 
neither of which you will find in facts.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/13/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: John Clark  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-12, 12:47:12 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012? Bruno Marchal  wrote: 



? makes a bridge between two fields, 
? What two fields??  

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

Translation from the original bafflegab: The truth is important. 
And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing intelligent to 
say because it has not discovered any facts.?  


 Plato's questions are at the origin of science.  

But Plato lived 2500 years ago and we are no longer at the origin of science, 
it's time to move on.  



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

? 
? didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy than he did, a 
lot more. 
? 
 Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the physical 
 science.  

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused because I have said 
more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived. Even his 
reputation as a great logician is overstated, he used some very intricate pure 
logic and concluded with certainty that women MUST have fewer teeth than men. 
They don't. Aristotle had a wife, he could have counted her teeth at any time 
but never bothered to because like most philosophers he already knew the truth, 
or thought he did. 


 I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical reality, 
 still less a paper showing how to test such idea. 


I have no idea what you mean but I will say this, if you have never seen a 
physics paper even attempt to do something then its probably not very important 
because they've attempted some pretty wacky things.?  

?ohn K Clark 





--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal  

The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or motivation. 
Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/13/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-13, 08:33:44 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 


Hi Roger, 


On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:08, Roger Clough wrote: 


Hi Bruno Marchal  

Applying science to religion can be no more successful than 
applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be 
experienced if they are of any use at all, and science 
is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge.  


It might be true for an experiential part of the spiritual experience, but this 
one is not supposed to be shared. 


I can accept somewhat telling me in private he made some experience, but I 
cannot accept, or will not be convinced, even disbelief anyone making factual 
religious statement, like saying that mister x or missis y is a nephew or 
daughter of some divinity and that all they say has to be taken for granted. 


Poets does not pretend to make assertive statements, but some religious people 
does, and actually, you have already do it yourself. What am I suppose to 
think? That was just poetry?  


I appreciate Alan Watts when he says that a priest makes only a show, and that 
he should blink sometimes to remind the audience of this. 


Then theology, (perhaps religion I dunno) can make factual *hypotheses* and 
reason on the fundamental questions from there. I don't see why not, unless you 
want to confine religion in the absurdities. 


With computer science, a machine A, having much stronger arithmetical 
provability power than a machine B, can study scientifically the theology (the 
true but non provable by B) of the machine B, and the act of faith, like yes 
doctor, and its first person experience,  by the machine A, can be used to 
lift that theology of B on herself, but that is a personal non sharable act 
made by A. 


Bruno 








Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/12/2012  
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function. 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53 
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers 




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


On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote: 

 Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) 
 attitude. Why not apply it in theology? 

It has been,  


Nice to hear that. 




its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. 



I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone believing in God cannot 
have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can 
only ask question and suggest temporary theories. 


Not answering about the step3 --- step4 makes you looking like a devout 
atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem. 


Bruno 


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 








--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012  Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

 Theology is based on faith


I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is
why faith is supposed to be a virtue.

 and moral practice.


Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  Hi Bruno Marchal  

 The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). 
 They are exclusively in the fom of words. 
 For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. 

 The personal or private part of religion is called faith. 
 It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like trust or 
 motivation. 
 Religion trusts its creeds, science trust the laws of physics etc.


 It sounds like you are talking about the particular forms of religion 
though. In some other traditions, faith can be the public proclamation in 
words and belief is the privately expressed as wordless.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/mUtjBvMhl8sJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-13 Thread Craig Weinberg


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

 On Thu, Sep 13, 2012  Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

  Theology is based on faith 


 I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is 
 why faith is supposed to be a virtue. 


I'm actually with you on this JC, although mainly because by faith I think 
most people really mean hope. Screw hope. To me faith is just about being 
ok with things even if they don't seem ok right now. It's more of a 
patience or benefit of the doubt which we can access to get us through days 
where we don't see how its going to work out.
 

  and moral practice.


 Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another? 


When people mistake the subjective for objective, or objective for 
subjective, the result is often pathological.

Craig
 


   John K Clark




  


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/owEsWWNCbJYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark 

Try God= universal intelligence.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-11, 12:36:24
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


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

?
 God = truth 

Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound 
discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often 
want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a 
unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity? 


 makes a bridge between two fields,

What two fields?? 

 I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale 
 sense

I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a 
specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth.


? the term God, and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. 
In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term

Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of 
baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that 
something is true then use the word true. ? 



 God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. 

If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much 
in public? 



 Read Plato for learning more on this.

I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would 
be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; 
philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't 
even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in 
Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the 
stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved 
from philosophy to science.


 Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality.

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. 



 I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the 
 3-view on the 1-view 

There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. 

? John K Clark

?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-12 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

Applying science to religion can be no more successful than
applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be
experienced if they are of any use at all, and science
is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/12/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers




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


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

 Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) 
 attitude. Why not apply it in theology?

It has been, 


Nice to hear that.




its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with.



I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone believing in God cannot 
have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can 
only ask question and suggest temporary theories.


Not answering about the step3 --- step4 makes you looking like a devout 
atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-11 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb 

Using religion to prove anything in this world

would be like using Mozart to build a bridge.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/11/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-10, 15:54:00
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


On 9/10/2012 12:45 PM, John Clark wrote: 
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes 
 come from

Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I 
stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said I don't know.
 
 Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted 
 other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, 

Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which 
can't explain anything.

Or, looked at another way, can explain anything and hence fails to explain at 
all.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-10 Thread John Mikes
John C, you have been urged:
 *If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist.*
*I am not an atheist, an atheist needs a god dy deny, the concept does not
fit into my worldview, but that is besode the point. What is more relevant:*

years ago on another list I received a similar outburst - more politely
than Roger's - and replied: Wrong position. I do not have to PROVE a
negative, if the positive is questionable. Prove the 'existence' of god
FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX (no dreams, no ancient teachings, no feelings, no
faith, no assumptions/presumptions or questionable written sources (like a
Bible?) including such supposition)  and THEN I will prove you wrong.
End of discussion.
The person left the list.
John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi John Clark

 If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist.
 If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that
 God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on.


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 9/10/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
 so that everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-09-09, 10:37:05
 *Subject:* Re: The poverty of computers

  On Sat, Sep 8, 2012� Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 You call yourself an atheist,


 I do, but that's only because I also have the rather old fashioned belief
 that words should mean something.

  which means you reject every notion of God, of any religion, does it not?


 Apparently not. If we live in a world where words mean whatever Jason
 Resch wants them to mean then I'm not sure if I'm a atheist or not. However
 I do know that the idea of a omnipotent omniscient being who created the
 universe is brain dead dumb. And I do know that I have never heard any
 religion express a single deep idea that a scientist or mathematician
 hadn't explained first and done so much much better. You tell me if that's
 good enough to make me a atheist or not.

  you cannot simply reject the weakest idea, ignore the stronger ones,


 That is just about the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in my
 life! The key to wisdom is to reject weak ideas and embrace strong ones
 regardless of where they originated.

  rejecting the idea of Santa Clause won't make you an atheist


 I am a Santa Clause atheist and you are a Thor atheist, and in fact you
 are a atheist for nearly all of the thousands and thousands of Gods that
 the Human race has created over the centuries, I just go one God further
 than you do.

  In my post, I showed that the notion of God as eternal, immutable,
 unlimited, self-existent truth appears in many religions. Do you reject
 this concept of God?


 No, I don't reject that true things are true, and I don't reject that a
 being that was eternal and knew everything that was true would have
 superpowers, and I don't reject that Superman in the comics had X ray
 vision or that Harry Potter was good at magic. Perhaps you find this sort
 of� fantasy role-playing philosophically enlightening but I don't.

  I have studied some of the beliefs of other religions.


 So have I and I've concluded that to a first approximation one religious
 franchise is about as idiotic as another.

  I am showing the common themes: self-existent and cause of existence


 Just saying that God caused Himself to exist without even giving a hint as
 to how He managed to accomplish that interesting task is as vacuous as
 saying the Universe cause itself to exist with no attempt at a explanation
 of how it works.

   The following sentence has identical informational content: in the
 beginning was stuff, and the stuff was with stuff, and stuff was stuff.
 Funny ASCII characters do not make things more profound.


  Logos is not a meaningless term,


 Logos has more meanings than you can shake a stick at, none of them
 profound; Logos can mean a reason or a speech or a word or a opinion or a
 wish or a cause or a account or a explanation or many other things; when
 religion says in the beginning there was logos it means stuff; but I do
 admit that logos sounds cooler than stuff and is more impressive to the
 rubes.

  and therefore the above expresses a meaningful idea about the notion of
 god,


 Yes, the sentence at the beginning of stuff there was stuff is not only
 meaningful it is also without question true, its just not very deep. Oh
 well, you got 2 out of 3.

  which is almost word-for-word identical to Keppler's quote below.


 If God is geometry like Kepler thought then I'm not a atheist. If God is
 an ashtray then I'm not a atheist either.

  mathematics is a form of theologh.


 OK two can play this silly word game, theology is the study of the
 gastrointestinal tract.

Only a fool would say truth does not exist so with that definition
 God certainly exists.


  Ahh

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Jason Resch 

You ask Is there any word for someone who rejects both theism and deism? 

Answer: Perhaps an agnostic ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/9/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-08, 16:24:35
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers





On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 9/8/2012 10:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote: 



On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



 Bruno makes a valid point, that you attack only the weakest, most ill 
 conceived, notion(s) of God.? 

It is my habit to attack only the weakest parts of ideas, attacking the 
strongest parts seems rather counterproductive because they may actually be 
true.? 



You call yourself an atheist, which means you reject every notion of God, of 
any religion, does it not?

A-theist means not believing a theist god exists;


Interesting, I was not aware that this level of distinction existed, but it 
seems implied in first definition of theist here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist?s=t 


However, the definition for atheist in the world English dictionary (lower on 
the page here:?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t?)?


Simply says A person who does not believe in God or gods.


Is there any word for someone who rejects both theism and deism? 
?
one that's an extremely powerful person who wants to be worshipped and is 
extremely concerned with how we behave, especially while nude.? An atheist 
might believe in a deist god; one who created the world and then just left it 
alone and isn't concerned with us.



I think such a person would more rightly label himself a deist in that case, 
but we might be digressing too deeply into the?ubtleties?f language.


Jason


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-08 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Roberto Szabo 

You don't need much evolution to arrive at a being that can feel
and has at least some intellectual capacity. Any living
entity has to know friend from foe, pain from pleasure, and
so forth. But rocks, like computers, have no need for such abilities,
because they are both dead. And the dead do not evolve.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Roberto Szabo 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-07, 11:17:29
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


Hi Roger,


Brains some years ago had no intellectual or feeling facilities too. It came 
by evolution.


Roberto Szabo


2012/9/7 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Stephen P. King 
?
No, machines, even computers,?MHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling
facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So there is no more communication with 
God possible
than there would be with an abacus.
?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 19:39:10
Subject: Re: The All


On 9/5/2012 12:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Roger, 


On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:23, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 
?
No, the supreme Monad can see everything even
though the monads have no windows.
?
Also the closeness to God issue depends
on your clarity of vision and feeling.?nd perhaps appetites.
So everybody's different.?
?


I agree. But my point was that everybody includes possibly machines, and that 
we are not supposed to dictate God which creatures he can look through.?


Bruno

Hi Bruno,

?? I agree with you here 100%!

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-08 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

IMHO Digital devices can interface with living systems,
but they must always ultimately be slaves to the self,
the nonphysical governor (mind), just as the supreme 
monad (the All) is the governor of the universe. So transplant
of a physical brain seems a bit impossible as of yet.

And rocks have no intelligence so are governed purely by
physical laws.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-08, 05:35:00
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers




On 07 Sep 2012, at 19:12, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: 



 machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling 
 facilities, are no more than dumb rocks.

Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us, if they 
don't it's their problem not ours; 


It might concerns you if the doctor intents to replace your brain by a digital 
device, or if your daughter want marry a man who did that.








however those dumb rocks can and do outsmart us on a regular basis and the 
list of things they are superior at gets longer every day. The very title of 
this thread just screams whistling past the graveyard.



 So there is no more communication with God possible than there would be with 
 an abacus.

Now that I agree with 100%, computers are no better at talking to God than a 
abacus is. 



Indeed. Abacus are Turing universal, and so have the same ability than us 
(assuming comp).


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: The poverty of computers

2012-09-08 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

IMHO Sorry, perhaps I am growing tired and grumpy, 
but the issue about about the lack of a T
Logical truth has its uses, but it has no provision for self or feelings or 
indeed life, no meaning, no aesthetics, no morality, no intelligence, 
just the gears of logic. No Bach, no Beethoven, no Vermeer.

No sex.

These are functions of the metaphorical right brain,
logic being a function of the left brain.

So to me logic it is like the shadows that the deluded men in 
Plato's cave thought was reality itself.

Besides Truth, Beauty and Goodness have their roles to 
play in this shakey allegory called Life..


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-08, 05:43:55
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers


On 08 Sep 2012, at 06:19, meekerdb wrote:

 On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of 
 modern mathematicians.

 In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of 
 course they are all methodological Platonists, but not necessarily 
 philosophical ones.

 Computationalism (or functionalism) is the majority viewpoint of 
 cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind. Thus the scientific 
 consensus is that infinite (mathematical) truth

 Except mathematical truth is just a marker, T, whose value is 
 preserved by the rules of logic. Whether a proposition that has T 
 corresponds with any fact is another question.


Be careful to distinguish a true sentence (like T) with the notion of 
truth or of arithmetical true sentence, which is not even definable in 
arithmetic, and can be meta-defined in some set theory or second order 
arithmetic, at the meta-level. God can be arithmetical truth, but God 
can't be just T.




 is the self-existent cause and reason for our existence.

 That is very far from a scientific consensus. I'd say majority the 
 opinion among scientists who are philosophically inclined is that 
 mathematics and logic are languages in which we create models that 
 represent what we think about reality. This explains why there can 
 be contradictory mathematical models and even mutually inconsistent 
 sets of axioms and rules of inference.

Yes, but this makes sense only for people agreeing on elementary 
arithmetical truth. If not, the notion of axioms and rules of 
inference don't make sense.

Nobody serious disagree on elementary arithmetic. I have never seen 
someone doubting the meaning of (N, +, *), except philosophers. Bad 
philosophers, I would say, when they are in desperate needs to 
demolish some argument, or to look original or something. We need 
assess arithmetic to make sense of doubting arithmetic, and so, 
doubting arithmetic does not make sense, in fact.

Bruno



 Few people today have realized that this is inevitable conclusion 
 of these two commonly held beliefs.

 Not only that a few people have rejected it.

 Brent

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
 .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.