RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

['Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

 

 

On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>' via
Everything List wrote:





At some level, there is only that, which is personally experienced... each
has to know God on their own, by their own way, in their own heart. No one
can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the way to some extent -- teach or lead
anyone down this path. A spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal
quest.

 

>>Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also search it
"in the head" of any (reasonable) machine.

 

Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we are
insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this effect the
outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our machines as
operating and the reductionist first principles we derive from our search
for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious thought, awareness,
self-awareness, etc?

I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single sample -
our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we can infer about
other entities by communicating with those that can communicate and studying
the behavior of others.

Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a
generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do.

 

 

>>Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody. 

 

 

Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the growth of
all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but I have no proof
of this statement LOL

 

Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for all men
being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the genuine bodhisattva
will go to heaven only after every one has. 

Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two bodhisattvas,
but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical difficulties. It can
even cultivate them, to help people not taking them too much literally, like
with the zen koans.

 

>>Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as
"anti-personal", like "killing the ego", "merging with the one", "becoming
god", "realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness", etc.

 

Perhaps... though I believe that is not the best perspective. It is not so
much about "killing the ego" - I would argue -- as was famously said during
the early days of the psychedelic movement -- (which is a kind of
egotistical thing to do <grin>); rather I have come to feel it is about
understanding the "ego" and it's place.  Seeing what its role is in
existence and what its purpose is and why we have these self-important egos,
and what these entities are, how they operate etc. 

Once the ego is perceived - from a perspective outside of the ego, and the
deeper (perhaps one more level of inner reflection going on) entity that
perceives the ego for what it is makes sense of this layer of personality
the ego and it's purpose can be better understood and the individual may
come to realize that there exists a transcendent "i" (maybe less personal
and more universally centered) and perhaps there is belly laughter as the
ego's many foibles and funnies becomes manifest.

But is it really against the ego? Isn't rather seeing the ego more clearly
for what it is?

 

>>Love also is personal, and cannot be enforced. There are many things like
that. 

 

 

Agreed

 

The definition by Theaetetus of the notion of knowledge, when applied to
Gödel's arithmetical provability predicate ([]A), and its intensional
variants, suggests many such annuli, where truth not only extends the
machines abilities to communicate rationally, but where the attempts to
communicate them only forces or builds the counter-example(*). 

 

The notion of god maximizes the gap between use and mention. Somehow, it
looks like only the devil dares the mention of god, especially in normative
statements. With comp god is creative and "god" is destructive.

 

Lao-tseu seems right: the foolish talks, the wise stays mute.

 

Lao-Tseu wrote many words of wisdom and poetry.

 

Sound rich machines say already something similar: <>t -> ~[]<>t.    (<>t =
~[]f )

 

Bruno

 

(*) There are three important most "obvious" annuli: G* \ G,   Z* \ Z,   and
X* \ X,   

and their computationalist "1" variants (with p -> []p for the atomic
sentences). 

Amazingly, for knowledge itself, the annuli is empty: S4Grz* \ S4Grz is
empty (and S4Grz1* \ S4Grz1 too).

 

 

I need to learn the symbolic system you are using to express yourself. Maybe
once I get through reading your book ;)

Cheers,

Chris

 

 

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

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.