I hear only Zombies all the time, have you watched too much Resident Evil films?
-J.
Sent from AndroidNicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:Robert,
I am sure my colleagues will see immediately the fallacy in your argument:
that it is a case of an Ad-Zombium argument.
Reading
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defends-religion/
was
a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the Salafists,
the zombies, and whatever.
The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, written
by a believer (Alvin
Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own
faith even though our
God may be different. We all develop our own models of reality,
apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough
accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and
still
Sarbajit,
Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for your
reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, are we
atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term?
In what ways?
Nick
-Original Message-
From:
Nick,
I too am interested in Sarbajit's reply, but I can tell you there are
developing differences in the U.S.
In the current becoming-adults generation there is a growing number of what
sociologists have labeled nones. This is a group that is not religious, but
also Atheism is not a
Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My
religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise
I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God
(or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant
whether a car (or
Sarbajit,
The question your definition raises is how does God, defined as 'the'
principle which regulates existence/the uinivers/multiverse/ parallel
worlds or whatever differ from what science is looking for?
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor,
I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth
generation in question but am also, myself, more a None than an
Athiest.
It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on
(though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps
I would not be
Sarbajit,
I think I believe that everybody HAS a philosophical system. The variables
are how explicit it is and whether the holder of the system is capable of
engaging in analysis and critique.
If somebody says they don't have a philosophical position, it generally
means that they have
Steve,
I am happy to drink, but not because it improves the quality of my thought.
There is an idea lurking in this discourse about Whiskey, roughly
In vino veritas
Do you think that you think better, in some respects, when you are drinking?
Nick
-Original
Nick, you asked Steve, specifically, but I'm happy to chime in.
I like drinking. It brings me out of my shy, reticent shell, helping me to
become less hesitant in expressing myself.
I also like having a couple of beers before a gig, because either 1) I play
better with a couple of good brews in
As regards to the quality of my music with/without beer lubrication. I may
not, in fact sound any better after having had a couple.
But I don't care.
Because I'm enjoying it more.
--Doug
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
Interesting.
Hi Russ
The question doesn't differ
The answer(s) may.
Our own answer (or belief) is that the answer (to the question) is so
beyond the comprehension of mere mortals that its unknowable. ie.
There is universal law dharma to explain everything but we can
never know all of it. ... (and God does
Dear Steve
3 quick interjections.
1) You will never find an :Adi Dharmist (??) knocking at your door,
bugging you at an airport or selling / dumping you literature. Adi
Dharm does not proselytise .. period. My own occasional statements on
this mailing list are only to test whether your models
Dear Nick
I think the both of us are talking at cross purposes here.
I know next to nothing about philosophy. Perhaps somebody like Richard
Dawkins could help you here.
In my faith (I do wish the Islamists, Mormons, Sikhs, etc on this list
would speak out) . the Devil is all that is known (and
Sarbajit,
Trying to make things succinct, I think the argument Nick is trying to make
goes something like this:
To act a certain way in a certain situation is to have a belief. Thus, our
lives are full of beliefs, which are variously consistent or inconsistent
depending on how you examine our
As a youngster, I read a (stunning :-) book that contained this:
“What the hell are you getting so upset about?” he asked her bewilderedly in
a tone of contrite amusement. “I thought you didn’t believe in God.”
“I don’t,” she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. “But the God I don’t
Wow. I have to get behind myself! Nick
-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith
Dear
And Sarbajit’s response seems to be that they make me DEVILISH!
All I can say is, “Gosh!”
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:42 PM
To: Sarbajit Roy
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Catch-22 was brilliant.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Tom Carter t...@astarte.csustan.edu wrote:
As a youngster, I read a (stunning :-) book that contained this:
“What the hell are you getting so upset about?” he asked her
bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. “I thought you
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 09/15/2012 07:51 AM:
the next step in a discussion like this is for someone
to ask you what evidence you have that any actual thing has more actor
status
than a thermostat.
My evidence is, like *all* evidence, subject to interpretation. Unlike
most people, I don't
This also applies to trolls and bullying on the internet. The method
Do not feed the trolls seems (to me) to fail most of the time. And I
tend to believe it fails mostly because the definition of troll is
ambiguous and vague. People abuse the term all the time. Most of the
so-called trolls
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote:
Sarbajit,
Trying to make things succinct, I think the argument Nick is trying to
make goes something like this:
To act a certain way in a certain situation *is *to have a belief.
Thus, our lives are full of beliefs, which
I vote that rec retain his status as FRIAM master of the understatement.
--Doug
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote:
*Faiths which classify the unfaithful as subhuman have proven to be very
difficult neighbors historically.*
-- rec --
But what if the compressible class turns out to be the same as the
uncompressible class? It seems the only way to tell is to test every
possible case, as you say in your second paragraph.
What it comes down to, though, is that, again as you say, you are talking
about knowledge, how people model
Nick -
The point I was making was roughly that many if not most and most if not
all of the folks interested in telling you how it is are categorically
opposed to consuming alcohol and other such things. They may or may not
have a good reason for this...
The key, at least for me, and I
On 9/17/12 10:00 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Nick, you asked Steve, specifically, but I'm happy to chime in.
I like drinking. It brings me out of my shy, reticent shell, helping
me to become less hesitant in expressing myself.
Actually I would claim to have observed just the opposite... a few
Sarbajit -
Dear Steve
3 quick interjections.
(are these anything like jabs with the left before a roundhouse with the
right?)
1) You will never find an :Adi Dharmist (??) knocking at your door,
bugging you at an airport or selling / dumping you literature. Adi
Dharm does not proselytise ..
I'm starting to like Adi Dharmism more and more! Maybe strong drink
*is* the way to God (or Enlightenment or ...)!
Trying (hard as it often is for me) to be serious, I have long suspected
this correlation, that knowledge in some sense leads us away from Grace
(whatever that is).
God is
Arlo Barnes wrote at 09/17/2012 04:03 PM:
But what if the compressible class turns out to be the same as the
uncompressible class?
Well, even if that's true in principle, as long as there is a predicate
to slice them all into two sets: 1) really really hard to compress vs.
2) pretty easy to
Eric -
Thanks for paraphrasing or interpreting Nick... I think I got this when
he said it, but rehashing it from a slightly different perspective
helped me.
I myself love philosophy in the sense of seeking structured systems of
thought. I'm not convinced that any such systems of thought
Nick -
And Sarbajit's response seems to be that they make me DEVILISH!
Those wicked-awesome eyebrows of yours always made me suspect you of
some Demonic origin!
All I can say is, Gosh!
I think this is the perfect response!
Get thee behind thyself!
*From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com
REC-
Well said!
Though more than a few of us may like to play with alternatives to this
core... like what if the world doesn't actually exist? or maybe
(some) other people *aren't* like me (e.g. evil people) or
communication might be an illusion?.
What you say about the core being all
On 9/17/12 3:25 PM, glen wrote:
This also applies to trolls and bullying on the internet. The method
Do not feed the trolls seems (to me) to fail most of the time. And I
tend to believe it fails mostly because the definition of troll is
ambiguous and vague. People abuse the term all the time.
Well, this implies that there are times when thought is better without
acuity. I am wondering what value might be increased with a loss of acuity.
There must be one.
Nick
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, September
Mail traffic on the FRIAM list pops to mind.
-Doug
On Sep 17, 2012 6:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Well, this implies that there are times when thought is better without
acuity. I am wondering what value might be increased with a loss of
acuity. There must be
Might be...
Freeman Dyson is oft quoted It is better to be wrong than vague...
which of course just tweaks the holy shit out of me...
Wisdom might actually be the contrapositive of this.. being ultimately
vague and ultimately right (whatever that is?).
Just a thought.
- Steve
Well, this
Glen Wrote:
. In so doing, I accused Nick of having asserted that faith underlies all
reality. I expected him to evolve during the course of the conversation to
explain what actions constitute faith. If we got that far, then we'd have
Nick's physical theory of everything! Those actions
I hope an evolved Nick still has eyebrows. I'd miss the eyebrows.
On Sep 17, 2012 6:19 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Glen Wrote:
** **
. *In so doing, I accused Nick of having asserted that faith underlies
all reality. I expected him to evolve during the
39 matches
Mail list logo
