Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 *Subject:* Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal�CYM monad�subspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.�We have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, theories REFER to physical entitires, but they are NOT the entities themselves. This is kindergarten stuff, Richard, give me a break. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 09:21:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Theories always refer to physical entities. Otherwise they are unless. In string theory the monads supernatural entities but still part of nature. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. In a theory, not physically. Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, being theory, are unextended. It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 Subject: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 Subject: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal?YM monad?ubspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Of course theories are not the physical entities. But the laws of physics are a good approximation of how the universe works and string theory just says where they come from. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, theories REFER to physical entitires, but they are NOT the entities themselves. This is kindergarten stuff, Richard, give me a break. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 09:21:12 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Theories always refer to physical entities. Otherwise they are unless. In string theory the monads supernatural entities but still part of nature. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist In my opinion, the CYM is only extended geometrically on paper. In a theory, not physically. Although they describe what actually happens physically, they themselves, being theory, are unextended. It's just like the Pythagorean Theory. It doesn't exist physically as triangles ihn space, it only exists on paper. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:56:13 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Agreed Roger, except that the CYM monads have extension. The physical laws you speak of are in human imagination and seemingly not extended, but there is necessarily a substantial manifestation of them... The supernatural of course extends across the entire universe. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physical law is unextended, while physical objects are extended. As I understand it, Nature is extended while Supernature is not. So I could call physical law supernatural. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:12:42 *Subject:* Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal�CYM monad�subspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.�We have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion
Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,? however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal?YM monad?ubspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal ? According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.? ? ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense for short term goal, like it makes sense to obey to orders in the military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later. What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think. To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all others!). Bruno http
Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,� however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal燙YM monad爏ubspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal � According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.� � � Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense for short term goal, like it makes sense to obey to orders in the military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. And that means
Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Roger, I answer your many post in one, by pity for the virtual mail boxes. On 20 Aug 2012, at 11:29, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God. We have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. If it is a gift by God, why a bible? All religions which believes that religion does not apply to machine will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical universe. Yes, Hume was complaining about slipping modal logic into an argument. OK. Note that this was before Kripke, who found a nice mathematical semantic for a large class of modal logics, giving them at least mathematical sense. And that was before it was realized, notably by Kripke, that incompleteness provides transparent aritthmetical interpretations of modal logics (Gödel, Löb, Solovay). There are indeed some similarities between Hume and van Quine. Hume was an empiricist while van Quine sxeems to me at l,east to have been a pragmatist. Bother woirk from the particular to the general. Theory schmeery. Van Orman Quine pragmatism is not so well clear cut. Comp relates theology and theo-technology, you can eventually say yes to a doctor for pragmatic reason. Anyway. Technically Quine's critics on modal logic is refuted by incompleteness, even on the first order extension, with the quantifiers allowed to have variable in the scope of the box. Note that this is true Peano Arithmetic but not for Zermelo Frankel set theory. Quantifying in the scope of a set predicate is hard to define. I spent 33 years at least in the metallurgical laboratory before retiring, so in the end, I can't help that while I enjoy and respect theory, and and am always fascinated by it, in the end I worship data. Pragmatism. I was born that way. We makes sense of data through theory and experiences, but not always consciously. The brain implements many theories learned through evolution. I don't think we can separate data from theory so easily. Somehow a brain is by itself already a theory. Our bodies are divine hypotheses, somehow, assuming comp. We are words in a rational truncation of a quantum field, to take a low level. I have no problem with pragmatism, as long as it is not used against the freedom of any inquiry, nor used as justified invalid reasoning, or lies and propaganda. Nor used as pretext to cut the funding of fundamental research, as I can give a pragmatic reasons to fund fundamental research in all direction. Pragmatic OK, if honest. That is sometimes difficult with respect to hard question, like what's going on?. It is normal that we develop wishful thinking, and if that works, as already suggested by the Löb formula( in some very weak and formal sense to be sure), a theory has to be assumed always in remaining open it can be false. Sorry, I was again being a bit harsh again. You are a kind person. Can you give me a link to the sort of output a comp program would provide ? Being a natural pragmatist, I learn best from examples. By definition, all programs are comp programs, so an example of output is what happens on your computer's screen right now. BY comp, I am a program, so another example, is this post. There is a reason why a machine looking inward become religious. Hi Bruno and Stephen I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings. Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you post! Why are you so wrong. It would help if you could be a little more specific. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly
Re: divine selection versus natural selection
On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. I agree. Nevertheless, by using some hypothesis science might explain why science does not know the meaning of anything. I agree with what you say, but not as a closure of inquiry. If something seems impossible, we must favor the simplest hypothesis which explains the impossibility. Science is not truth. Science is only a tiny lantern on a big unknown/ ignorance-space. Only pseudo-scientist know the public truth. Serious scientists suggests only hypotheses, and evidences or refutation. Never the truth. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,� however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal燙YM monad爏ubspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal � According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.� � � Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense for short term goal, like it makes sense to obey to orders in the military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the long run, or we
Re: divine selection versus natural selection
On 8/21/2012 8:12 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set of monads. Hi Richard, Please calm down a bit and understand that it is not possible for a single finite mind to comprehend, much less, know in a way that can be explained to the average grandmother, the delicate balance of the monadology. Even Leibniz himself fudged his explanation! The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP. I agree with this remark 100%! One brief comment on the tittle of this thread. Is it necessary for Divine Selection and Natural Section to be two mutually contradictory possible explanations? How is God not immanent in Nature? It is only when we push transcendence that we have serious problems. BTW, this is another version of the disagreement that I am having with Bruno. He is pushing a transcendence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29 only theory of truth and I am arguing forimmanence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence *and* transcendence within an over all Panentheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism theory. My argument revolves around the problem of interaction between multiple minds. My solution is not very different from Spinoza http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-modal/'s but I seek to frame it using computer science, as that allows a finite mathematical model. Bruno's idea seeks a reduction of all interactions to being wholly within the Supremum and all appearances or interaction and actions in general (including physics) to dreams of numbers. The problem with this is that Transcendance models fall apart when they try to explain the necessity of finite appearance. Transcendence alone theories just postulate that all objects have properties in an inherent way because of they are in reality just shadows of the Forms and Forms are the essence of the properties themselves. This works and sound fine until one tries to construct a model of interactions using that theory. Doing so inevitably causes contradictions to arise that cannot be solved by appeals to measures or any other hand-waving or question-begging device. Please think about this carefully, the reasoning is very subtle, but unassailable. *_/How might the shadows of the Forms cast shadows of their own on each other?/_* What about shadows of shadow of shadows of shadows of ... What prevents the infinite regress? AFAIK, only the limitations of actual physical resources cut off the computations such that endless loops of self-modeling recursions never happen. This possibility was, sadly, missed by Dennett in his valiant attempt to save materialism. Computations having to actually solve an NP-Complete problem with finite resources is the requirement that eliminates Bruno's measure problem, but he refuses to see this. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know what the meaning of anything is. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,� however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal燙YM monad爏ubspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal � According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.� � � Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon
Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Hear Hear! On 8/21/2012 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: All religions which believes that religion does not apply to machine will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical universe. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
divine selection versus natural selection
Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God. We have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense for short term goal, like it makes sense to obey to orders in the military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later. What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think. To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all others!). 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. -- 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: divine selection versus natural selection
Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the universal CYM monad subspace. Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust does not come from you, it is a gift from God. We have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/20/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10 *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked semanticfield(mind). On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone. I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them. What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division. But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between woman and man, east and west, yin and yang. Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the schizophreny appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other pole. The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics. So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever. I concur. When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and within new organization. Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all). The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever. OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense for short term goal, like it makes sense to obey to orders in the military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run. And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later. What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think. To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all others!). 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.+everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message
