On 03 Jun 2014, at 06:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Jun-2014, at 11:23 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02 Jun 2014, at 09:27, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 02-Jun-2014, at 12:05 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 00:25, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 01-Jun-2014, at 12:14 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 30 May 2014, at 05:43, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 30-May-2014, at 7:35 am, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 30 May 2014 14:26, Samiya Illias <[email protected]>
wrote:
These are people who are committing crimes in the name of
religion. You, on the outside, are horrified by such acts in
the name of Islam, and are terrified of it, rightly so. We,
on the other hand, live in midst of this blatant violation of
the guidance in the Quran! What these elements have not been
able to find or insert in the Quran, they have created
Some of the people involved are priests, and some are
students of Islam - do you think that these are people who
are committing crimes in the name of religion? Again this is
a straight question, I'm not drawing any conclusions at the
moment.
What's wrong is wrong. They may think they're doing right and
may feel it to be their pious duty, however it is still wrong.
How God will judge them is another matter, let God do that.
However, it is important to speak up and point out that it's
incorrect and inhumane.
Please also bear in mind that all religions have suffered the
tragedy of deviation from the original message, misunderstood
and convoluted it into something terrible. Islam has also
suffered thus. However, the arabic Quran is preserved in
written form and in the minds of millions of people since it
was revealed. That is the criteria that I apply to evaluate
whether something is correct or not.
Hmm.... Because you take as axioms that those word are divine.
The Quran seems to contain threats for those departing of the
text, but that is an authoritative argument.
It can be true that departing from Truth is a problem, but I am
not sure that this can be said.
You may have noticed that I present Quranic verses to answer
or explain my point, which I believe is divinely revealed,
Is that not a problem?
No, because (a) the questions being asked are about the contrast
between core beliefs of Islam and the practical implementation
(b) to show that Quranic guidance is far from the ideas people
have developed about the religion
All right (although we might discuss the "responsibility" of a
text for his possible misinterpretation).
Fair enough. The Quran claims that there is it is clear guidance
and there is no crookedness in it, and that it is protected from
changes.
Hmm... But this is circular. What if the real original Quran
contained a verse saying "and please add comments, criticize and
correct the text if needed as I have to simplified myself to be
understood by you in the short term"; but then, for special
interest, a human changes it into "... protected from changes"?
No it doesn't contain any such verse. I've read multiple
translations several times, as well as studied a bit of Arabic
grammar, and check in the dictionary and with scholars wherever I
feel the translations do not seem accurate.
My point was not factual, but logical. You just can't be sure, because
it is an historical event, and like Napoleon said: history is the
story made by those who win the wars.
You ask that we read the Quran with scientific eyes, but for this
we have "test" it without prejudice. We have to be neutral on
whatever its source can be.
Without prejudice and neutral to the source: that is a good position
to start with!
Based on what you discover, you can form your opinions on it later.
OK, but it is hard to not be influenced by culture, education, etc.
Ideally, I might like the idea that children should not even know the
religion of their parents until 18.
I don't suggest to implement this. I just don't know how to protect
the children from their parents. Some sects/religion can make their
life quite hard, in the name of the one that has no name.
I have no problem with people choosing their own way, and what can
be an obstacle for some, can help others. yet "reapeating" can
become close to brainwashing, as you can surely guess.
We see it as connecting to the source. Helps keep the perspective
clear.
So please use it. But if you want to develop a scientific attitude,
don't use to build certainties, use it to doubt and search. If by
chance you do get some first person sort of certainties, never make
them public. Bet on the good willingness of those who search the truth
to figure it by themselves, and communicate only the one which are
doubtable and falsifiable.
I appreciate that is what you seem to do or to want doing, but ... see
below.
The second verse speaks of Rabb il Aalameen, mostly translated as
Lord / Sustainer of the Worlds. The root letters of aalameen are a-
l-m which is also the root for knowledge. Repeatedly across the
Quran, it is stated the God is the One with Complete Knowledge of
everything and everyone.
This touch very complex question in the theology of the machine.
There is clear "outer-god", but it is unclear if it makes sense to
see it has a person, although we can ascribe to it/him/she some
beliefs (like the arithmetically true proposition, which with comp
gives already all subjective events in the possible multiverses).
Now that outer-God is not omniscient, and its is somehow even small
compared to the machine's Noùs, Plato's realm of the intelligible
ideas.
Then there is the Universal Soul, or the Inner-God. That is the one
you can awake in you. It is the one which makes the place for the
mystic experience, and it is the channel between you and heaven
(another fuzzy name encompassing probably the "one" and the "noùs".
This entails richer "theurgies", indeed from the use of Plant
(Iboga, cactus, mushrooms, hemp, tobacco, salvia, ...) to the use
of the available bio or theo technologies.
Of course the inner god and the Noùs are not different God than the
outer god, but are more internal modes of it.
If comp is true, we are locally finite, and it is absolutely
impossible for us to distinguish the outer god from arithmetical
truth. Note that no machine can really name or describe
"arithmetical truth", and since Gödel, there is an understanding
that we can't really either, except with non effective means (which
we can accept, but with comp, appears to be only useful fictions)
Considering the recent theories regarding everything being
knowledge or numbers, I'm really curious and would like to
understand it in greater depth. I suppose all these ideas will
eventually lead towards a single unified theory.
Yes, and no.
Things will not be simple.
With comp we can eventually agreed on some small number of axioms,
to describe what we need from the "outer God" (which itself as I
said cannot be described by a finite number of axioms, nor by a
mechanical set of axioms).
But the soul, by its very nature, will defeat all theories.
I guess you're right, but it's worth seeking a better understanding:
the reward is in the journey :)
Absolutely :)
With comp, it is even unclear if we can unify the physical laws,
but it is clear that we cannot unify the psychological laws, nor
the theological. They got a solid common trunk (machine's theology,
machine's physics), but, a bit like life, can develop in many
directions and dimensions.
Personally, I like that, because it gives a role to liberty and
freedom. But it means also that as enlighten we can luckily be here
or there, we can still loss ourselves.
True
Normally, what happens is that the one, and the many are unstable.
The one gives rise to the many (Plotinus use the word "emanation"
for that process), and then the many explores and lives its many
lives until he remember (for some reason) and try to come back to
the one, and eventually come back to the one (plotinus called that
the conversion).
But those processes are not physical processes, they are more type
of amnesia/remembering of the universal person. It is not easy to
describe. You might read the "popular" book on Plotinus by Brian
Hines:
http://www.amazon.com/Return-The-One-Plotinuss-God-Realization/dp/0977735214/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401728819&sr=8-1&keywords=Plotinus+return+to+the+one
And you might take a look on my paper for a translation of Plotinus
in arithmetic.
Marchal B., 2007, A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically
Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus' Theory of Matter,
Contributed Talks in CiE 2007: Computation and Logic in the Real
World, University of Siena, June 2007.
If the link does not work:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
Thanks for the links.
I have also analyzed closely the taoists, but my writing about that
is in french.
Suppose, or imagine if you can, that we find an error in the
Quran, would you abandon the idea that it is a literal text by
God, or would you abandon the idea that God is perfect?
I would abandon the idea that it is the protected literal text
of God. I believe that we can verify this by examining the
verses that can be examined in the light of scientific
knowledge. I have started a humble effort in a new blog:
signsandscience.blogspot.com It'll be helpful if you can have a
look at it from time to time and comment on the scientific
content.
In my humble opinion, you can't nitpick with the sacred.
Agree. Based on my current beliefs, as I find in the Quran, all
scriptures were revealed by divine decree and it is an article of
faith for Muslims to believe in all prophets and scriptures.
We will have to discuss this. I am afraid of going too far with you
too quick.
Okay
With comp teher are not intermediate between god and the creature,
only direct channel (so to speak) between god and each creatures,
and this leads to asking us to be a priori skeptical of prophets
and scriptures, indeed even physical universes and events, when we
dig very deeply.
Prophets and scriptures are sent by the divine to guide us.
Hmm ... yeah, ... but, you can't be sure, some humans are good
magician, and then even if that was true, the divine is not all good,
you know, Satan belongs to the "divine" realm, and there is nothing
the Real-Bad like the most than making us believe it is the Real-Good.
I am not accusing Moose, Jesus, or Muhammad or anyone. I am a
logician. I know falsities can take the shape of truth.
So, I prefer to search in myself, looking inward, but then it happens
that the universal machine does that, and that we can already get some
information of a "theological" nature, once we assume "consciously
enough" the computationalist assumption.
They are not intermediaries. As I mentioned elsewhere, we call upon
God directly, and trust that God sees, hears and responds.
I think you have to trust god OK, but also you should trust only
yourself for the answers. Other can help and make suggestion, but not
talk like if they knew the truth.
It is mentioned in the Quran that there was never a population
without a warner. It also mentions that there was a break in the
series of prophets between Jesus and Muhammad. Also mentioned is
that Muhammad is the seal of prophets. The Quran is protected and
preserved, and is available for whoever wishes to seek guidance.
But this literally evacuate the whole of Plotinus and many honest
researchers.
I know many Muslims will still study (neo)platonism, but I am afraid
that the use of a personal god in giving authority to a text
perpetuated was I already believe did gone wrong with christianism:
authoritarianism, which prevents the questioning and the doubt.
Then, with all my respect, it seems to me that the God of Islam
inherits some, hmm... capital sin, from the God of the Christian and
the Jewish.
It looks like such a God can be angry.
I don't know the truth, but I have more evidence that God is never
angry. Sad? Probably (if it is a person, say), but angry? If some
people go to hell, it is not God's responsibility.
With Aristotle, reality is what you see.
With Plato, reality is what you see + what is hidden by what you
see (and which is the "real cause" of what you see).
In Quran Chapter 2, verse 2 states that it is a guidance for the
pious (those who keep their duty); the following verses describe the
pious: the first characteristic is those who believe in the unseen.
OK. That's roughly the important thing that they keep from Plato. With
"pious" meaning "honest researcher", or "wise man".
We also believe that though the previous scriptures have suffered
human interpolation and may have errors, the Quran ( Arabic text)
is protected, and we cannot nitpick with the it.
But you did, when asking if the Quran is correct on insect genders.
I did what? Please explain.
OK. Here is the paragraph related by "see below" above.
What are the reason to look if the Quran was correct on the gender of
bees?
If not to verify the "discourse of God"?
I know that somehow, you want to advertize us the scientific
correctness and perhaps foresee of the Quran, but that would not been
an evidence for God. Tuns of other explanation remains possible, no
more nor less "crazy" than an actual acting personal god, like
1) Written by a gifted guy
2) Written by a Alien
3) writen by a time travellers
4) etc.
You ask to compare with "science". Science is a method, and per se
neutral.
My point here is that science + "assumption that the brain is a
machine" entails that the Bibles and the Quran should not be
interpreted in the Aristotelian way, as they are by the current
majority (with exceptions), but more in the Platonist way.
I think mystics and persons having varying degrees of personal
sipiritual intuitions get easily that point, and that this is why they
have been persecuted since religion are institutionalized, because
that experience free you of the "human" authorities, you become a
universal dissident, somehow.
Actually I would be pleased to find an error in the Quran, because,
IF it is divine, THEN, it would be a sign by God that we should not
take the Quran literally, nor any text literally, except perhaps
elementary arithmetic.
I notice the absence of comment here. Fair enough :)
Hmm... It is delicate as I see you have some emotional attachment
to a literal reading of a sacred text,
Yes, I'm emotionally attached to the literal reading, as I think,
if it's revealed by the divine, it must be perfectly accurate,
free from any mistakes. Science is the only tool that can be
employed to check that and that's what I'm trying to do.
Science cannot check truth. It can only check inconsistencies
(internal in a theory, or "external" with finite set of repeatable
measurements).
Science is the best tool to search the truth, but the worse to tell
one.
Have you had a chance to look at the few posts in the new blog I
started: signsandscience.blogspot.com ? I use a questioning approach
to check for what science has to say about what the verse is saying.
Do you think the approach is reasonable?
OK, I will dare to retry my browser, ... OK, ouch! it complains a lot,
my poor old machine!
Is not the "people of the cave" a comment on Plato's allegory (in the
republic?). It looks like, nice!
It is difficult reading for me, but I take a look.
but well, buddhist thinks that we have to kill all buddhas at
some point (of course: not literally).
We believe there is no intermediary between us and God, so that
each one can and should pray only to God
OK. That would be a deep common point between comp and muslims (and
protestants, I think, but catholic are not happy).
Unfortunately it does not seem you act like that, because you use
the Book as an intermediate.
No the Book is not an intermediate. It is a guide. We do not pray to
the Book. We take guidance from it.
OK. But making it literal, and attributing it to god, remains suspect
to my conscience, and arguably seems difficult to the universal
machine conscience, at least as far as I can say today.
Have you read "philosophia perennis" by Aldous Huxley?
By looking at what is common to all human theologies, as they are
based on a common experience of the self, I hope to illuminate what
the machine already says about herself and her possibilities.
I do appreciate some passage of the Quran, but I can't claim to
appreciate them all, like when it looks like God can be angry (or like
when god can let his son suffer "for us", which creates a kind of
manipulative guilt (sometimes ingenuously exploited by the catholics
and jewish mothers).
Comp go farer. Chosing one book among all is still a form of
idolatry. A book can be good in a context, and bad in another one,
with respect of its link with the divine.
It can be problematical with the literalist of the other
religion, and with all the non literalists.
We think god cannot be named, which really implies that you can't
identify it with anything, and specifically invoke in the human
affair.
We read that God is not like anything we can imagine, and so we
have no form or image or idol.
OK. That is like what the universal machine can discover when
looking inward.
We are also told that all beautiful names belong to Allah, the
Deity, and we can call God by any name / attribute such as The
Compasionate, The Merciful, The Irresistable, The Loving, The All
Hearing, The All Seeing, and the list goes on. There are many such
names / attributes mentioned in the Quran.
We might need to dig on this, but of course it is very difficult.
For example it looks like the God of comp loves unconditionally all
creatures .... except those who believe or assert that God loves
unconditionally all creatures. The reason is that this would entail
"God loves me", which cannot be asserted publicly as it is an
infinitely big authoritarian statement. If "God loves me" is true
it can only belong to G* minus G.
According to the Quran, no community or individual can claim that
it's preferred by God above others. We are all in pledge for our
deeds. In fact, in the Quran it says that if they claim they are
dearer to God than others, ask them to yearn for death. It goes on
to say, such people will never yearn for death because of the deeds
they've already sent forth.
But does not the Quran claim that the community of those using the
Quran as guide to God are better than others or preferred by God? What
does the Quran say about other religion, abramanic and non abramanic?
I am always uneasy when sacred text are taken literally, because if
this is done in different religion it can lead to wars of the kind
little-enders versus big-enders (on the way to eat eggs in
"Gulliver"). This always hides the deeper questions.
But I appreciate very much your patience with a pagan logician.
Now, if you want to really understand "machine's theology", well you
have the choice between a lot of work in mathematics and computer
science, or a 4 minutes experience with salvia, perhaps.
Do you remember your dreams?
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
