> On 27 Jan 2015, at 4:44 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>
>> On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>> I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a universal
>>> person is natural in this context.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the human
>> race that we are a universal person.
>
>
> I appreciate your enthusiasm, Kim. But here we are close to a problem. Why
> would I do that?
Because "they" are going to install a world government sooner or later which
will mean the re-enslavement of humanity. The "one person" concept could be
hijacked by the forces of evil. Plato's Republic has a very very dark side.
> If there is only one person, it is enough to convince that person, or to see
> that such a person is born conceiving that thing.
OK - you've pretty much convinced this person! And I reckon I was born with the
ability to conceive of the unseen reality. Mathemusicians are maybe like that.
We are a platonic clan. Are you sure that's all there is to it? I haven't been
able to convince anyone else of this yet. I know lots of people who remain to
be convinced. I don't see the need to endlessly debate the thing; I'm now
looking at the practical, everyday value of such a view. Sooner or later you
just go with it to see where it leads. That's what I'm doing. I gave up years
ago trying to find the difference between "right" and "wrong". Now I just look
for "what works" (relative to some plan or goal) as opposed to "what doesn't
work". You have to know the goal with this method. For me the goal is education.
>
> We are close to the theological trap. That is something which I have better
> understood thanks to the salvia experience: illumination has a life spoiling
> effect: like reading the end of the novel or thriller.
Indeed. Why bother, then? What drives us to desire illumination, given we only
succeed in making our lives miserable when we find what we seek?
>
> But then, of course that is the base of the whole Platonism: guessing the
> reality behind the appearances.
Ahhhhhhh! A game it is.....It's a personality-type then, as I have been saying.
One is predisposed to desire this kind of thing. Others maybe not. I've got it
bad. You have it bad.
Do you agree with me that we cannot divide the two belief-tribes of Aristotle
and Plato into anything more fundamental in terms of belief systems? If yes,
what does it mean that we confront life continually as the one or as the other?
> It is a contemplative things, quite opposite to the self-extending habit of
> the singular first person who believes being different, and who will tend to
> exploits all the illusion.
>
Agreed. The Tao is Very Silent. But, with comp, are we replacing the singular
first person habit of exploiting the Grande Illusion with comp or are we adding
a string to our bow? If so, what is the advantage of this extra string?
>
>
>> Best of British, old son! The math alone maybe will convince another
>> mathematician, but without your guiding values, they will fail to see the
>> big picture we are sketching here, and instead will prefer to slap you down
>> for it!
>
>
> Yes, they don't listen to the guy who listen already to the machine.
Ce sont les vrais salauds et les salopards. They know that "something like"
your comp conjecture is possible (?????) - yet they don't want you to tell
others?
> Things will take time, the humans does not recognize themselves in the other
> human, so for PA and cuttlefishes, that will take some time.
>
So much for the self-accelerating effect of consciousness....
>>
>> The concept of the Universal Person needs to be hurled at humanity from the
>> rooftops and from the pulpit and the schoolroom. Beethoven and Schiller
>> tried in the 19th century. Jesus may have had something or other to say
>> about it but nobody much appears to have understood.
>
>
>
>
> But I thought it was more or less obvious, that the arithmetical hypostases
> provides a general theory of the person, which is, relatively to "truth" a
> discursive reasoner (G and G*), a soul (S4Grz), an observer (Z*, Z1* with the
> arithmetical emulation of computationalism), etc.
>
I see what you mean, but Plotinus's hypostases may need to be described in more
normative language for some. Most will see the three levels of reality a little
bit like a(n un)Holy Trinity - even though these hypostases underlie even the
concept of the Christian "tri-une" God. Yours is a form of gnostic wisdom, a
deeper investigation of the anatomy of belief.
Write a book called "The Anatomy of Belief". Unless Smullyan or someone already
has...
> A general theory of person defined implicitly a universal person, which is a
> sort of universal baby,
Kubrick and Clarke's enigmatic "star child" at the end of "2001"
> which lives in us and all arithmetical incarnation of our recursively
> enumerable extensions.
Why is it I don't have any trouble with that idea? Seems entirely natural
>
> People must understand by themselves.
> The choice is between some amount of work in the math, or 4 minutes of salvia.
I skipped math at school, so I guess I need to do the salvia. But, what I am
saying is I can buy the framework without the math or the salvia, so what is
wrong with me? :-/
> Although you can see on youtube that surviving a near crash plane landing can
> help too, and more generally all so called "mystical" experiences.
>
>
My partner recently came out of a nine hour cancer operation. Where does the
"person" go during nine hours under anaesthetic?
>
>>
>> Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that
>> which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between
>> seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one."
>>
>>
>> If comp is finally the better view of theology then it needs to be
>> understood and acted upon.
>
> What if it is ethically better, and then refute (too much white rabbits, some
> mysterious primary matter does exist, Aristotle comes back!
Hmmmmmm. Pass the salvia.....
>
> I am just an humble scientist, Kim. Yes, it seems to me that the evidences
> are going to send us back to Plato, but we still don't know, and probably
> will never know for sure.
That's right, but we have to live somehow in a way that does not place us at
odds with ourselves! Humans are forever at odds with themselves; surely comp
has a place in education. This is ancient wisdom, rebottled as new knowledge.
> But it fits about everything together in a simple theory, and it might helps
> to develop ethic working for some millenaries.
That's what I want to see happen. Please write another book:
"Comp for Kids"
Let's try and make this thing as simple as possible. Complexity is easy. Simple
is never simple. The easier it is to understand, the more people will
understand. You change a person's perception of something and you change their
emotions. You change someone's emotions and you change their behaviour. That's
the goal. We want to change human behaviour. You have to enrich human
perception to be in a position to effect changes to human behaviour. Comp is a
way of perceiving reality. The earlier in life people realise they are each
other the more chance we have of reducing violence on this planet.
>
>
>
>> For once we are looking at the ways in which persons are the same rather
>> than minutely examine the ways in which persons differ.
>
> In theology, I only study what is common in all known theologies. But people
> fear to lose their identity, they are unaware that the math shows that the
> rabbit hole run very deep, and you can't loose your identiy. By the Galois
> correspondence between syntax and semantics, the more closer to the universal
> baby you are, the more possible identities you can develop.
>
In principle, a person should be capable of a number of parallel
identities/lives. There is no overwhelmingly convincing reason why we should
maintain just one identity. Live in several universes at once. It's all of it
in your head anyway (including your head itself) so the illusion is absolutely
perfect, as always. The leading of parallel lives is what in fact goes on with
those who have the means but usually, every effort is made to keep secret the
'existence-bis' so that the wife and the paparazzi will leave the official
person alone. DSK was brought down by the weight of his secret parallel lives.
Very few seem to be more than one person successfully in the eyes of others.
There is a need for humans to be able to explore the rich possibilities of
parallel identities without the risks.
>
>>
>> The Universal Person sees no point in war, murder, prohibition and the like
>> because it no longer merely applies to others;
>
> Well, you mean the universal person which reminds itself to be the universal
> person.
> We know what do the universal person which forgets that, and believe she is
> mister X, living in new-Y, in country Z, on the planet P, in the solar system
> S in the galaxy M-W.
>
So how to make sure they don't forget is a big part of the goal. The amnesiac
effect of a person being instantiated surely doesn't have to extend to a person
forgetting that they are suffering amnesia?
>
>
>
>> it applies to the self. You don't disallow others from doing what you allow
>> yourself - this is not libertarianism; this is self-referentially correct
>> behaviour of a consistent machine that knows that it cannot prove with
>> arrogant certainty its own consistency.
>
> You even become compassionate toward the arrogant. (They usually don't like
> that when they discover it).
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, if the conception of that idea was more widespread; it might limit
>>> the attempt of some people to annoy or kill other people, given that they
>>> would be more likely able to suspect being, maybe, those other people when
>>> put in a different general situation.
>>
>>
>> This then, is our only hope to enter into the experience of another in the
>> hope of understanding their otherness.
>
> We can progress in that direction.
>
>
>
>> Paradoxically, you now ERASE the concept of "otherness" in your outlook.
>
> Which is close to solipism. But it is not solipsism: it is the exact
> contrary: you recognize yourself in a vaster collection of entities.
This requires humility, modesty and great reserves of imagination.
>
>> This is more than simple empathy. This is the fundamental assumption that
>> you ARE in fact more than one single individual yourself but that you only
>> have your personal perspective.
>
> Yes, a body is a way for God to look at Itself, and even to say "hello" to
> itself, more or less explicitly. God plays hide-and-seek with Itself, and
> sometimes, he/she finds itself.
>
You SURE you haven't been dipping into "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald
Walsch? :-)
>
>
>> Different people are now seen as the self from a different perspective. This
>> kind of happens already in the tribal/family view of persons but tribes and
>> families despite being able to empathise and psychologically bond with their
>> own - never seem to get over their inability to empathise with different
>> tribes and families.
>
> Yes. It is normal also, the predator might become depressed in case it
> develops too much empathy for its prey, you can't avoid some struggle in
> life, although you can take harm reduction path, which are transfinite in
> length, or take shortcut, like death and other illusions.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It helps from going from:
>>>
>>> Hitler is the bad. We won against Hitler the bad. The good has won, cheers
>>> and tra-la-la ...
>>>
>>> To "I have made a big cruel mistake, I succeeded in stopping it, how can I
>>> prevent to do it again", ...
>>
>>
>> This implies that humans may one day "learn the lessons of history" but they
>> never do. The reason is they study too much history. If you read 1,000 books
>> about the causes of WWI then you have not become an expert at how to prevent
>> war but rather an expert at how to cause war.
>>
>> There is no school subject called "Human Universality". Why do humans never
>> study the ways in which all the tribes and clans and families are the same
>> as each other? What really is the difference between a Jew and a
>> Palestinian? A Chinese and a Japanese? A German and an Austrian? A Christian
>> and a Muslim. All of these designators are fake, fake, fake. They all say "I
>> want to be taken seriously on tribal family grounds, not on grounds of human
>> universality."
>
> Without saying, I see you came back to the universal human person, but we
> started from the machine, or non-machine, universal person, which is already
> in most mammals and some invertebrates (I would bet), but also in PA and ZF,
> despite their very miserable bodies and their lack of senses and memories.
>
> We are not human beings having from time to time glimpse of the divine, we
> are divine beings having from time to time amnesia, due to the finiteness of
> our conditions in the neighborhood of zero.
If I were a painter, I would do a canvas entitled "The Finiteness of Our
Condition in the Neighbourhood of Zero". Maybe music can capture this better.
>
> I might say too much, here, like betraying my own G*-G difference, but it is
> just for being short and avoid jargon.
>
> The question is: will obscurantism last for one more century, or one more
> millennium.
Well, with the help of things like comp, perhaps we can break this cycle. Comp
is a tool for humans to better understand themselves. Who cares if it's
"wrong". If it leads to greater empathy, civility, modesty, humility and less
arrogance and violent opposition and subjugation then it's "right" even if it's
"wrong".
> Machine's theology, a branch of pure mathematics, will offer an etalon
> theology to compare the different current theories, and that will be helpful.
So write a truly easy to read book about it.
>
> But we are not even at the beginning of that history. We need more spiritual
> and intellectual maturity, which are in bad shape after having separated, too
> much, the intellect ([]p) and the soul ([]p & p) for so long.
Now I'm depressed. Airdrop salvia cigarettes to ISIS?
>
> Atheists are correct on many things in their critics on religion, but they
> throw the baby with the bath water.
Yes. I have been scathing about Dawkins for his replacing God with matter, but
I can only consider him a hero for taking on the theocrats and challenging the
edifice of power in this world that is institutionalised religion.
K
> Confessional religions are correct on many things, but they put too much
> clothes on the baby making it suffocates.
>
> We might eventually learn the (infinite) lessons of history, with or without
> the human body. There is something very patient there.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>>
>> K
>>
>>>
>>> But that is not normative, only it might encourage the "spiritual
>>> experiences" (be it with music, or whatever) which can help people to
>>> recognize themselves on a vaster spectrum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
> 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.
