date:20141014



On 12 Oct 2014, at 17:02, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 09 Oct 2014, at 21:06, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 09-Oct-2014, at 11:42 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote:





On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias > wrote:


Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your  
'demonstrating factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.':

http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1

You changed the subject and focus. Why?

I did not refer to your blog but to this:

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm

You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored.


In the foundalis link you sent, under 1.2, it quotes Quran Chapter  
18 and goes on to discuss the verses in it. It discusses Dhul  
Qarnayn's travels. Therefore I sent my blogpost' link. I have  
presented my study and interpretation of other aspects of Chapter  
18 also in my blog listed under blog archive. I sent that link just  
as an example.
If you find the approach not critical enough, perhaps you can do it  
in a more scientific manner, if it interests you.
I can critically try to understand the Quran, looking up meanings  
and science research on the topic, but I cannot take the  
falsifiable approach simply because I'm convinced that the Arabic  
text of the Quran is from God, the Master-Creator, while scientific  
knowledge is what we are discovering. So, for me personally, the  
scripture takes precedence.



This is problematic. You leave the scientific attitude, and you make  
a quasi infinite argument per authority error. Like the catholic  
church which at least condemn literalism. You might be the one doing  
the blasphemy, asserting knowing a public relationship with god.


It is equivalent with: by definition I do right and you do wrong.  
Your literalism is equivalent with insulting all believers not  
sharing your assumption, pursuing different ways.


It would be more appropriate to search on what we all share about God.

I advocate the scientific attitude in theology. Literalism does not  
help. How could we ever "religare" the literalists in different  
traditions? How can you be literalist about a subject as complex as  
God, known for having no real name, no image, being inconceivable,  
etc.  Your attitude prevents the doubt which makes possible the  
progress. I think.


Bruno

Bruno, you misunderstand me. I speak for my personal self only.



OK. This is not entirely obvious. Typically, we can already explain  
(using some "reasonable theory/hypothesis) that in the theological  
field, public beliefs and private beliefs can be different. It is part  
of the truth that some truth can be known, but not in a public way.  
Worse, some truth becomes false when asserted publicly.




Having studied the Quran and using science as a tool to help  
understand it, I am now fully convinced that the Arabic text of the  
Quran is indeed revealed scripture.


Hmm...



So, my attitude towards it is one of humble submission. There are  
many verses that are still not clear to me, as I am only human and  
limited by my knowledge and understanding, yet as a believer I try  
to look for scientific research and knowledge to help me better  
understand the verses, instead of rejecting it simply because it is  
not according to my knowledge or popular current theories.


So, why not remain open to the possibility that some verse are perhaps  
from God, but also perhaps from the devil or from some humans, as you  
acknowledge not understanding them? Why extrapolate?
I understand the desire that all verse comes from God, but if you want  
use science, you must free yourself from wishful thinking, I think.




Also, it is important to remember that the verses we speak and try  
to understand are mostly about creation.


I am not entirely sure. Not literally.



So, its basically an exploration and discovery of and about nature.  
Only a few verses give any idea about God. In fact, a verse clearly  
states that there is nothing like God, so we really cannot imagine  
or speculate about God.


But this is what you do publicly, by asserting that you are convinced  
that God is the literal author of the Quran.




We can only observe and wonder about the majesty of God through the  
creation and check how factually accurate the scripture is about  
creation.


You need also to introspect. What you see can be a dream, or a show by  
the "devil". Aristotelian believes that seeing is proof, but  
Platonicien believes that seeing can be an illusion.





I understand that each one of us is at a different level of  
knowledge and understanding, as well as in their own unique journey  
of making sense of it all. It is perfectly okay for you and others  
to doubt and put the verses to the falsification test.


OK. Nice.


I believe that if you're earnestly looking for the truth, God will  
lead you to it.


I believ

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?



On 12 Oct 2014, at 17:30, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 10 Oct 2014, at 05:40, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 10-Oct-2014, at 3:21 am, John Mikes  wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on  
the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN,  
and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of  
God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby  
when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your  
thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your  
father was studting.)


I tried to answer, to which you've referred to above. Beyond that,  
even I don't know. I suppose I was always blessed with faith, and  
life experiences and the wondrous world of scientific discovery  
only served to increase the faith and make me value the blessing of  
faith and scripture!



 I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the

Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid- 
eastern) people - then the
Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus- 
related stories, (attached some modifications from reform- 
thinking), while


some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the  
Quran as the work of Allah.


We believe, as we have been informed in the Quran, that Prophet  
Mohammad was not given a new religion. Rather, it is a continuation  
and repetition of the same message which was sent throughout the  
ages through many messengers to all nations. Prophet Mohammed is  
unique in that he is the last in the series of messengers and the  
Quran revealed through him is a message of warning and good tidings  
for all humans and djinns. Therefore, it's divinely preserved in  
its original language and therefore it is important that we study  
it diligently.



Mohammad was a man. All man can fail, he is not a god. You can't be  
sure it was always listening well, or even understanding him. My  
reading of the Quran makes me doubt he was under the same  
inspiration. The text is historical, and not easy to understand,  
translate or interpret. It is a witnessing of many part of the old  
bible, and the gospels, but it remains a text, which can only  
scratch the surface.


Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19	Stir not thy  
tongue herewith to hasten it.	 Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting  
together thereof and the reading thereof.	And when We read it,  
follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation  
thereof.


We believe the arabic Quran was inspired, preserved, transmitted and  
protected from changes or alterations under the command of God. It  
was not a human act by Prophet Muhammad. He received and conveyed  
the message verbatim.


I think that this is close to a form of idolatry. It is a mixing of  
the celestial and the temporal. It is very dangerous to do in the quest.





Yes, as I had mentioned in my last post, just above your comment  
here, the message revealed was not new. It was a continuation of the  
message sent through all prophets over the ages. So, of course,  
there is similarity of content.


Yes, and there is a similarity in content in all honest introspecting  
machine's discourses.






If I can be of any help in your reading of the Quran, please don't  
hesitate to ask.


Thanks,

Bruno












Scriptures are revealed for our information and guidance. If I may  
quote an example from the Quran, the purpose of scriptures is that  
they be studied:

Holy Quran 62:5
--
مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا  
التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ  
يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ  
يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ  
الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا  
بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا  
يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ


'The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then  
did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of  
books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of  
Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.'




We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic  
PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated  
and believe.

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that.
What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite  
complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not  
correctly understood. Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK  
we know the World. Well, we don't.
We don't know what is good, or bad, what (so far) unknowable  
factors do influence whatever happens in addition to those we  
(think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic  
asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally,  
but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God. I  
disagree with Brent's "random" - I deny the concept at all -  
changes are all deterministic whether we know the details, or not.
I don't repeat the chorus

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?



On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:




On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:

Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on  
the list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN,  
and HOW did it occur that you first thought of the existence of  
God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby  
when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your  
thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your  
father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the


Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid- 
eastern) people - then the
Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus- 
related stories, (attached some modifications from reform- 
thinking), while


some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the  
Quran as the work of Allah.


We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic  
PLUS restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated  
and believe.

Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that.
What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite  
complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not  
correctly understood.


That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the  
perspective of the universal numbers.





Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World.  
Well, we don't.


Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.




We don't know what is good, or bad,


I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories,  
but basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that  
if we look at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot  
set, but for the main things I think all the mammals knows the  
difference between good (like eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad  
(sick, desperate, broken, burning, etc.).
Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the  
bad divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.

Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.







what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in  
addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly'  
teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it  
as it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of  
questioning God.


Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God?
Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying?

No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply.
[3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the  
creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the  
night and the day are signs for those of understanding. Who  
remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides  
and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth,  
[saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are  
You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of  
the Fire.


Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider  
the following verses about him:
[2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his  
Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said:  
Dost thou not believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that  
my heart may be at ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds  
and cause them to incline unto thee, then place a part of them on  
each hill, then call them, they will come to thee in haste, and  
know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.


[6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall] (Remember) when Abraham said unto  
his father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy  
folk in error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the  
heavens and the earth that he might be of those possessing  
certainty: When the night grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He  
said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not things  
that set. And when he saw the moon uprising, he exclaimed: This is  
my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless my Lord guide me, I  
surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And when he saw  
the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater! And  
when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that  
ye associate (with Him).


OK, that is a bit of platonism. Truth is beyond all representations,  
and the physical might be a representation, in fact an unknown sum  
on infinities of representations.






PS: in 6:76, the word that's translated as star I think should be  
translated as planet.


And I think the following verses partially address the question  
John Mikes hesitates to ask:
[33:72-73  Translator: Pickthall] Lo! We offered the trust unto the  
heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing  
it and were af

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

2014-10-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

> On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz  wrote:
> > Oh that is stupid beyond belief. "The argument here is that there is no
> subjective impression." WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have
> for philosophical zombies. I suppose he means *objectively* there is no
> subjective impression, but try to parse the meaning of that assertion!
>
> Yes, the "consciousness does not exist" claim is on the face of it so
> obviously absurd that I think its proponents must mean something else
> by it, such as that consciousness is epiphenomenal.
>

It's possibly the most absurd claim one can make, because it's precisely
the only thing one can know for sure (assuming non-solipsism).

I think this is an attempt at dogma, and of the worst kind. Once we accept
such an idea, we necessarily lose all confidence in our own cognitive
abilities. Nothing is possible anymore, because the most fundamental aspect
of reality is denied. Reason is completely thrown out of the window. There
is no ground to stand on. As others pointed out, if it's an illusion, who's
being deceived? If this question is an abuse of language, then we might as
well throw language out of the window too, because it's completely useless.

Telmo.

>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
> 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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)



On 14 Oct 2014, at 12:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:

On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz  wrote:
> Oh that is stupid beyond belief. "The argument here is that there  
is no subjective impression." WTF? Maybe this guy is the best  
argument we have for philosophical zombies. I suppose he means  
*objectively* there is no subjective impression, but try to parse  
the meaning of that assertion!


Yes, the "consciousness does not exist" claim is on the face of it so
obviously absurd that I think its proponents must mean something else
by it, such as that consciousness is epiphenomenal.

It's possibly the most absurd claim one can make, because it's  
precisely the only thing one can know for sure (assuming non- 
solipsism).


Well, eve more so so with solipsism, note.




I think this is an attempt at dogma, and of the worst kind. Once we  
accept such an idea, we necessarily lose all confidence in our own  
cognitive abilities. Nothing is possible anymore, because the most  
fundamental aspect of reality is denied. Reason is completely thrown  
out of the window. There is no ground to stand on. As others pointed  
out, if it's an illusion, who's being deceived? If this question is  
an abuse of language, then we might as well throw language out of  
the window too, because it's completely useless.


They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only  
way to keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.


They don't want to backtrack to Plato.

It is not uncommon for "believer" to accept a contradiction to save  
their faith, which appears to be of the type *blind*.


It is wishful thinking. Which is doubly absurd from people eliminating  
consciousness.


Bruno



Telmo.



--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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.


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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)



On 13 Oct 2014, at 02:13, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/12/2014 2:31 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb  wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes  
consciousness to information processing like DNA, the "nothing but  
information processing" theory needs to explain what is different  
about my conscious information processing and the great majority of  
my information processing which is subconscious.  Is there  
"awareness" associated with that subconscious information  
processing that is just not *my* awareness?


Exactly. I believe Mr Dennett has an explanation for this, along  
the lines of awareness being "a user illusion, like a desktop".


That seems to assume user who is having the illusion.  And that may  
just be a view we're "tricked" into taking by our language, but it  
still leaves the question of exactly what kind of information  
processing produces a "user illusion"?  I think Bruno's idea is too  
expansive.  I've offered my own idea: that it's producing an  
internal narrative journal for purposes of learning and future  
reference.


But that is equal to mine, just less precise. A universal machine is a  
machine with some tape, and internal narrative (like the "[] defined  
in RA).


But from this you get the truncation, and the FPI problem, etc.It is  
not an answer, but a question.


Oops I have to go. Bye.

Bruno





Brent

--
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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

It is not uncommon for "believer" to accept a contradiction to save their
> faith, which appears to be of the type *blind*.
>

Yes indeed. It also puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."

Though it may not be quite what the eminent detective had in mind, it
strikes me that many people are driven to espouse highly improbable
positions purely in reaction to something they consider "impossible".

David

-- 
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.

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

2014-10-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
 multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is a quite interesting read:
>>
>> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
>>
>> It made me think of the everything list. We clearly have members of
>> the conventional tribes (red, blue and gray), with all the predictable
>> frictions.
>>
>
> There are thousands of social, psychological models that group people
> into categories. The difference between quality and mush here, is that I
> can see where an author is going ("what kind of people/world/proposition
> does this suggest; how would that look like with varying degrees of
> truth/implementation: relaxed to radical"), given that I put on his red,
> blue, grey glasses or whatever.
>

 I think the big question in this article is why do people criticise in
 blank statements groups that they conspicuously appear to belong to. I also
 observed an increase in this behaviour recently. E.g. men saying: "I'm a
 feminist, all men are pigs". Or white people saying that white people are
 to blame for everything, or americans saying that americans are dumb an so
 on. This is perplexing given what we know about human behaviour. I would
 say that the ontological status of such categories is beside the point.

 What I find convincing in the article is that implied categories are
 being sneaked into the discourse. So "americans" really means "the red
 tribe", gays really means "the blue tribe" and so on. Then I like the idea
 that real tolerance makes you sweat. If it doesn't cause you pain, it's
 fake tolerance.

>>>
>>> That's the basic working hypothesis of much discourse analysis in
>>> linguistics. For the last few decades, where the "blanketness" is
>>> significantly curtailed, due to what it is. You catch bigotry and elitism
>>> in NYtimes in concrete phrases or assumptions implied by them.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't look for elitism in the NYtimes a bit like looking for holy water
>> in the vatican?
>>
>
> You just want to provoke, but ok: Well, it's the quality stuff most
> discourse analysis is after. Not the easy "he's red and he's blue and their
> both hypocrites."
>

I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.


>
> Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
> don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
> leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
> never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
> but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
> stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
> have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
> episodes" call for it kind of model.
>
> Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
> Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.
>

I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
discussing...


>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
>>> don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
>>> I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
>>> appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
>>> on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
>>> people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
>>> their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
>>> raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
>>> some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
>>> dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
>> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
>> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>>
>
> Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to tolerance.
> That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me saying
>

I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
that tolerance preachers are hypocrites. I see this in myself. For example,
I am against racism and homophobia. I am against theses things because I
think they are the refuge of mediocre people, that can

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

2014-10-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 14 Oct 2014, at 12:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
>> On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz  wrote:
>> > Oh that is stupid beyond belief. "The argument here is that there is no
>> subjective impression." WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have
>> for philosophical zombies. I suppose he means *objectively* there is no
>> subjective impression, but try to parse the meaning of that assertion!
>>
>> Yes, the "consciousness does not exist" claim is on the face of it so
>> obviously absurd that I think its proponents must mean something else
>> by it, such as that consciousness is epiphenomenal.
>>
>
> It's possibly the most absurd claim one can make, because it's precisely
> the only thing one can know for sure (assuming non-solipsism).
>
>
> Well, eve more so so with solipsism, note.
>

In the first person, but I meant that solipsism would excuse the
philosophical zombies making such claims.


>
>
>
> I think this is an attempt at dogma, and of the worst kind. Once we accept
> such an idea, we necessarily lose all confidence in our own cognitive
> abilities. Nothing is possible anymore, because the most fundamental aspect
> of reality is denied. Reason is completely thrown out of the window. There
> is no ground to stand on. As others pointed out, if it's an illusion, who's
> being deceived? If this question is an abuse of language, then we might as
> well throw language out of the window too, because it's completely useless.
>
>
> They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only way to
> keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.
>

This is what I assume too.

Telmo.


>
> They don't want to backtrack to Plato.
>
> It is not uncommon for "believer" to accept a contradiction to save their
> faith, which appears to be of the type *blind*.
>
> It is wishful thinking. Which is doubly absurd from people eliminating
> consciousness.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Telmo.
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 13 October 2014 15:43, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

Well, some people might say "just information processing", and that is like
> using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to formulate the
> problem.
> This is doubly so in the use of the term information, which is a word
> which almost automatically leads to a confusion between the first person
> notion (like in: "I listen to the information on the radio and was
> shocked") and the third person notion (like in Shannon theory, or Quantum
> information theory, etc.
>

I agree. He says at one point "When we introspect and seem to find that
ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels
— our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are
providing information that is wrong." Note that he can't avoid saying "when
WE introspect" and "OUR cognitive machinery". What is taken for granted
here is *particularity*. He can't help resorting to a tacit "god's-eye"
perspective that is used, without justification, to pick out whatever is
under discussion and ascribe it to "we" and "our".

He might, I suppose, wish to protest that this is just "folk language" and
that there is, in the ultimate analysis, no "picking out" of the
first-person "we" and "our". This is perhaps what is behind the attempt to
deploy "illusion" as a term-of-art. Unfortunately it is merely a
term-of-obfuscation, as it unable to conceal the frank contradiction
inherent in ascribing a perceptual position to something you claim does not
exist.

David

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Samiya Illias

> On 14-Oct-2014, at 3:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
 On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:
>> 
>> Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the 
>> list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did 
>> it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested 
>> tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to 
>> pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have 
>> expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a 
>> Bible-scholar, consider the 
>> 
>> Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) 
>> people - then the 
>> Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding 
>> Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from 
>> reform-thinking), while
>>  
>> some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran 
>> as the work of Allah. 
>> 
>> We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS 
>> restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 
>> Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 
>> What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite 
>> complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not 
>> correctly understood.
> 
> That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the perspective 
> of the universal numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we 
>> don't. 
> 
> Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.
> 
> 
> 
>> We don't know what is good, or bad,
> 
> I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but 
> basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look 
> at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the 
> main things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good 
> (like eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, 
> burning, etc.).
> Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad 
> divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.
> Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in 
>> addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, 
>> our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be 
>> finally, but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God.
> 
> Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? 
> Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying? 

 No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply. 
 [3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of 
 the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are 
 signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or 
 sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the 
 heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this 
 aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the 
 punishment of the Fire. 

 Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the 
 following verses about him: 
 [2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My 
 Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not 
 believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at 
 ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline 
 unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they 
 will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. 

 [6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall] (Remember) when Abraham said unto his 
 father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in 
 error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and 
 the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night 
 grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He said: This is my Lord. But when 
 it set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon 
 uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless 
 my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. 
 And when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is 
 greater! And when it

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On 14-Oct-2014, at 3:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the
>>> list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it
>>> occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it
>>> was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray,
>>> giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded
>>> into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar,
>>> consider the
>>>
>>> Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern)
>>> people - then the
>>> Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding
>>> Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking),
>>> while
>>>
>>> some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran
>>> as the work of Allah.
>>>
>>> We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS
>>> restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe.
>>> Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that.
>>> What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite
>>> complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly
>>> understood.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the
>>> perspective of the universal numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we
>>> don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We don't know what is good, or bad,
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but
>>> basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look
>>> at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main
>>> things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like
>>> eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning,
>>> etc.).
>>> Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad
>>> divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.
>>> Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in
>>> addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our
>>> human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally,
>>> but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God.
>>>
>>>
>>> Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God?
>>> Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying?
>>>
>>
>> No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply.
>> [3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of
>> the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are
>> signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or
>> sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the
>> heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this
>> aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the
>> punishment of the Fire.
>>
>> Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the
>> following verses about him:
>> *[*2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord):
>> My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not
>> believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at
>> ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline
>> unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they
>> will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.
>>
>> [6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall*]* (Remember) when Abraham said unto his
>> father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in
>> error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and
>> the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night
>> grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He said: This is my Lord. But when it
>> set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon
>> uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless
>> my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And
>> when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater!
>> And when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye
>> associate (with Him).
>>
>>
>> OK, that is a bit of platonism. Truth is beyond all representations, and
>> the physical might be a representation, in fact an unknown sum on
>>

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 13 October 2014 16:05, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That is the difference between []p and []p & p. The difference is null,
> extensionally, from the point of view or the arithmetical truth. But the
> difference is huge from both the body and soul points of view. Neither []p
> nor []p & p will ever justify or know that  []p and []p & p define the same
> set of beliefs or knowledge. True, but unjustifiable.
>

Graziano writes:

"But the argument here is that there is no subjective impression; there is
only information in a data-processing device. When we look at a red apple,
the brain computes information about color. It also computes information
about the self and about a (physically incoherent) property of subjective
experience. The brain’s cognitive machinery accesses that interlinked
information and derives several conclusions: There is a self, a me; there
is a red thing nearby; there is such a thing as subjective experience; and
I have an experience of that red thing. Cognition is captive to those
internal models. Such a brain would inescapably conclude it has subjective
experience."

If I understand you correctly, what he is describing above is []p. What is
missing from his account is []p & p, presumably because he has concluded
that a belief in p is sufficient in the absence of p! Note that he states
(correctly) that p is "physically incoherent", which gives a clue to his
prior ontological commitments. Of course []p is a necessary component of
the account, but it is not sufficient. Indeed the fact that it is necessary
is often incompletely grasped (e.g. in Craig's theory) but it's
insufficiency can also be elusive, especially for those in the grip of a
dogma. If it were indeed sufficient, then neither matter nor arithmetic
could entail more than a wilderness of zombies.

What bamboozles this kind of reductionism is that p cannot be
propositionally justified. It is not another proposition but rather the
truth of the propositions that correctly refer to it. Hence its absence
would force rejection of the veracity of all claims to its possession. It
would force not only the conclusion that the propositionally-correct claims
of others are false, but that our own are equally in error. In other words,
that both they and we are zombies. This is, in effect, what Graziano is
claiming, however absurdly, in the above passage. I don't agree with
Stathis that he is really making a claim of epiphenomenalism; he is clear
enough that "the argument here is that there is no subjective impression".
He really is claiming that there are only zombies despite all propositional
claims to the contrary.

One might think that, stated as baldly as this, such a conclusion would be
as effective a reductio as one could wish. After all, "When one has
eliminated the impossible..etc." However, when one has a prior
commitment to third-person absolutism (to cite Professor Dennett's personal
epithet) it may only be acceptable to believe that "whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth". Such a position might seem to be
unsustainable in practice without resorting to what one might call
metaphysical and conceptual grand larceny. In other words, it's pretty much
impossible for discussion of such a schema to proceed without constant
reference to first-personal phenomena and concepts (beginning with "we" and
"our") that can have no ultimate validity in its own terms.

I've been re-reading Patricia Churchland recently in a sincere attempt to
understand this kind of position in a more nuanced way, and her view is
that, in terms of some ultimate neuroscience, all such first-person
concepts will be completely eliminable. That is, she believes that a future
neuroscience will be capable of fully characterising a mechanism that
"computes" the existence of first-person phenomena when "in reality" they
are entirely fictitious. The theory of such a mechanism, in her view, will
simply eliminate our current "folk theory" of the first-person much as the
modern theory of combustion has replaced that of phlogiston. This seems
pretty close to what Graziano is saying in this piece. It's at least a
mercy that Churchland thinks that such a goal lies beyond any current
conceptual horizon and hence a long way in the future, so we may get to
linger here a little longer before the grin disappears with the rest of the
cat.

Frankly, I conclude that there's no arguing with some people.

David

-- 
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.

Re: I can tolerate anything except the outgroup

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 wrote:

>
>
> I'm not trying to provoke, just making easy jokes maybe.
>
>
>>
>> Psychiatry as a whole faces the problem: imperative to categorize but
>> don't want to discriminate after their abandoning the asylum model, which
>> leads to interesting twist in countries that can afford it! These would
>> never dream of unconditional basic income... But abandoning asylum for all
>> but most dangerous patient, leads them to models of autonomy (daily affairs
>> stuff, pursuit of some goal) with such basic income as necessary to not
>> have to permanently monitor them, switching to needs based "when rupture
>> episodes" call for it kind of model.
>>
>> Of course still controversial... as is the field. But what I read in
>> Europe shows some aversion to authoritarian approach to psychiatry.
>>
>
> I don't disagree, but I don't see the connection with what we were
> discussing...
>

Labeling people by disorder while being fully invested into not
discriminating against them on institutional level. This leads banana union
republic of €urope to start reasoning for unconditional basic income. Say
if somebody has depressive episodes.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>

 The emotional aspect is misleading perhaps; I can tolerate things I
 don't understand, i.e. some fancy astrology stuff or bizarre sexual fetish
 I don't share, because I do not know, even though on the surface, it
 appears to make no sense to me and people spend a lot of time and resources
 on them. Here my choice to decline is not in jeopardy.  But where other
 people's decision making power is curtailed/abused by some agenda beyond
 their view and ability to not be a part of it, like molesting, hurting,
 raping, "blanketizingly" being forced into outgroups, theft/killing without
 some tangible goal or evidence for betterment (like killing of some
 dictator say...) etc. just is mindless harm without direction.

>>>
>>> Right, but this is precisely the point. You easily forgive what doesn't
>>> offend you to begin with. I'm the same.
>>> So one could argue that "tolerance" is hypocrisy.
>>>
>>
>> Here you expose that I should forgive and judge with respect to
>> tolerance. That's a very Christian god's eye approach, if you don't mind me
>> saying
>>
>
> I think you misunderstand me. I am not preaching tolerance. I am claiming
> that tolerance preachers are hypocrites.
>

Hmm, don't you run by your own standards then the risk of preaching
yourself here?

> I see this in myself. For example, I am against racism and homophobia. I
> am against theses things because I think they are the refuge of mediocre
> people, that can find nothing to like about themselves except the color of
> their skin or their sexual orientation.
>

Racism, homophobia etc. are no go because somebody has to get to the bottom
of identity question, and then argue authoritatively or employ violence in
natural consequence to cover that up.

> I am also against positive discrimination, so I'm sure many of the
> tolerant will brand me as an intolerant.
>
>
>> + it's still off: a lot of musicians, given economic difficulties, are
>> charging hundreds of bucks for elite workshops of shamanic musical therapy.
>>
>> I have had students of mine stolen, because these hacks make people
>> believe that "just being with music" changes your energy in ways that they
>> can control, to the alleged benefit of the listeners... this instead of
>> learning and sharing music for ourselves.
>>
>> Offend? I don't know. Stolen? I'm almost sure of it, but since I'm not, I
>> tolerate it without bad mouthing it or marketing similarly. Jeez, it's of
>> course the guys with no profile on the performance circuits that sell this
>> stuff and have never seen a real shaman/mystical experience if it kicked
>> them in the face.
>>
>
> Sorry to read that.
> Notice the hypocrisy at play: by being con artists they make a profit. If
> they offered something close to the real shamanistic traditions, they would
> be arrested.
>
>
>>
>> I wouldn't overrate consistency, as you seem to either, though. You can't
>> tolerate that which won't tolerate. Again, you're idea that genuine
>> suffering must be somehow involved for one not to be hypocrite is
>> suspiciously Christian;
>>
>
> Genuine effort must be involved for one to be tolerant. By definition,
> tolerance is accepting what you dislike.
>

So if I drank a lot of Diet Coke, I would become more tolerant. Or I endure
a lot of sadistic games by someone who enjoys them? Nah, I see tolerance
more as benevolent attitude, rather tha

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:33 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 10/13/2014 9:26 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't a
>>> very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where did God
>>> come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from the quest for
>>> knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.
>>>
>>
>>  That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my point to
>> Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about "why we are here" or "the
>> set of unprovable truths", but they respect common usage of language enough
>> not to call it "thinking about God", or "theology", as Bruno would have
>> them do.
>>
>
>  I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's alleged
> "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been introduced to a
> few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier, I've had a few
> discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not considered
> non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable, collection of all
> sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason or foundation/reality,
> god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if you're vain enough and want to
> distinguish yourself and your usage from the common folk, if you need to.
> Same difference.
>
>  And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms even to
> conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not the more
> traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't seem to be a
> problem.
>
>  Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard
> should therefore point to some evidence
>
>
> Exactly what I did.  I pointed to an interview between academic
> philosophers of religion who opined that the the problem of evil was the
> most convincing argument against the existence of God.  This clearly
> assumes that "God" does NOT refer to some ineffable collection of sets or
> foundation of reason or all uncomputable truths.
>

Yes, to people more literal/naive than conservative catholic theologians in
Europe, who we all know as the grooviest bunch on earth. So what? That's
just bad personal craft. Anyway, who stated this should be subject to some
majority vote a la Brent. My point is simply that with this group of
academics, that use, particularly property of inconceivable with its
limited set of implications, is standard. PGC

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

I think it's a fools' task to try to speak for God. Unless, one has an 
unassailable truth behind them, one that is testable, in the falsifiable sense 
of the phrase. So far, one can believe in the rightness of religious texts but 
its a matter of subjective analysis. Try admitting that we don't know and then 
start with a conjecture. Like Greg Benford, retired physicist and scifi writer. 
This is what comes of invoking a physicist in the search for spiritual answes. 
Needless to say, I like it (subjective again).A description of the Omega Point 
as mechanism. 



 http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/benford20140930



Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler have pointed out that a new source of 
energy—so-called “shear-energy”—would become available if the universe expanded 
at different rates in different directions. This shearing of space-time itself 
could power the diaphanous electron-positron plasmas forever, if the imbalance 
in directions persists. To harness it, life (whatever its form) would have to 
build “engines” that worked on the expansion of the universe itself.
Such ideas imply huge structures the size of galaxies, yet thin and able to 
stretch, as the space-time they are immersed in swells faster along one axis 
than another. This motor would work like a set of elastic bands that stretch 
and release, as the universal expansion proceeds. Only very ambitious life that 
has mastered immense scales could thrive. They would seem like Gods to us.
As well, our universe could eventually be crushed by denser material not yet in 
view. Or the smoothing out of mass on large scales may not continue 
indefinitely. There could be a new range of structures, on scales far larger 
than the part of the universe that we have so far seen.
Physics can tell us nothing of these, as yet. These ideas will probably loom 
larger as we learn more about the destiny of all visible Creation.



 

 

-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 8:42 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God 
anymore?






On 14-Oct-2014, at 3:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:





On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:






On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:




On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:






On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:


Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the list, 
because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it occur that 
you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it was your Mummy 
and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray, giving you the overtone 
of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father 
was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 


Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) people - 
then the 
Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding Jesus-related 
stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking), while
 
some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran as the 
work of Allah. 


We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS 
restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe. 
Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 
What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite complexity of 
which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly understood. 



That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the perspective of 
the universal numbers.









Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we don't. 



Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.







We don't know what is good, or bad, 



I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but 
basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look at 
the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main things 
I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like eating, mating, 
dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning, etc.).
Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad divides 
into the good bad, and the bad bad.
Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.















what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in addition to 
those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our human logic 
asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally, but that would 
go into your prohibition of questioning God. 



Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? 
Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying? 




No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply. 
[3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of the 
heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

>
>
> On 14-Oct-2014, at 12:51 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is there something like an internet publicity chapter in the Qu'ran (I
> assume there must be some things related to men of fame who value
> appearances etc)?
>
> Or a chapter that tells us how to manage living in a world with billions
> of people who all have their own personal theologies in front of creation,
> and what to do when all the sacred scriptures, that everybody chooses to
> believe/disbelieve... what to do when all of these are interpreted, read,
> and understood partially differently and partially in agreement at the same
> time? Don't flood me with citations: Just give me one for these last 2
> points, if you have to. PGC
>
> Holy Quran 109:6
> --
> لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
>
> For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
>

Do you follow the book/scripture you preach sincerely?

Does speaking of god's majesty and the sanctity of personal religious
choice, while advertising an exclusive, literal, personal and concrete form
only, constitute a sincere approach to you. Sounds like "my interpretation
is the best... I am certain of it... but you can have an opinion, if you
stay away." Is this a genuine choice?

Your religion, as can be seen by all the quotes, makes prescriptions on
others' religion, so no, for me is "not my religion", as long as I am
forced to accept that "for you is your interpretation of religion, which
pretends to allow mine, but in authoritative manner does not". PGC

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Samiya Illias



> On 14-Oct-2014, at 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Samiya Illias  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 14-Oct-2014, at 3:28 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
 
 
 
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:
 
 Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the 
 list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW 
 did it occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I 
 suggested tha it was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you 
 were taught to pray, giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later 
 on you may have expanded into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I 
 am not a Bible-scholar, consider the 
 
 Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern) 
 people - then the 
 Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding 
 Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from 
 reform-thinking), while
  
 some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the 
 Quran as the work of Allah. 
 
 We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS 
 restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and 
 believe. 
 Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that. 
 What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a "WORLD" of infinite 
 complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not 
 correctly understood.
>>> 
>>> That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the 
>>> perspective of the universal numbers.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Of this 'treasure' of "knowledge" we THINK we know the World. Well, we 
 don't. 
>>> 
>>> Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 We don't know what is good, or bad,
>>> 
>>> I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but 
>>> basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we 
>>> look at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for 
>>> the main things I think all the mammals knows the difference between 
>>> good (like eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, 
>>> broken, burning, etc.).
>>> Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad 
>>> divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.
>>> Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in 
 addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' 
 teleology, our human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as 
 it is to be finally, but that would go into your prohibition of 
 questioning God.
>>> 
>>> Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God? 
>>> Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying? 
>> 
>> No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply. 
>> [3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of 
>> the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day 
>> are signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing 
>> or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of 
>> the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this 
>> aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from 
>> the punishment of the Fire. 
>> 
>> Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the 
>> following verses about him: 
>> [2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My 
>> Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not 
>> believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at 
>> ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline 
>> unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they 
>> will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise. 
>> 
>> [6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall] (Remember) when Abraham said unto his 
>> father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in 
>> error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and 
>> the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night 
>> grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Are you at war with Islam?
>

No, I'm not at war with anyone.

> Why should God put terror in your heart?
>

Because God is obviously a sadist and gets off on bondage. Why else would
God spend a infinite number of years happily disemboweling his victims and
then healing them so he can have the pleasure of disemboweling them again?
And this hideous demon you call "God" never EVER gets tired of it, He never
gets tired of hearing the screams of those in agony. And we are told by
both Christianity and Islam to love this revolting thing they call "God"
because if we don't this fiend will start disemboweling us too and He will
never stop.

Christianity and Islam are not only intellectually idiotic they are also
morally bankrupt.

> > He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you
> seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of
> circumstances
>

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town

> God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether
> we remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the
> oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat,
>

He also sent us the cancer that rots our children's bones and the typhoons
that drown us and the earthquakes that crush us. And if God didn't give us
food water and oxygen we wouldn't live long enough to sin and then God
wouldn't be able to engage in His hobby, torturing billions of people for
eternity.

> God keeps inviting to forgiveness.
>

Well I might be able to forgive God if He would change His ways, but He
won't, His compulsion to disembowel billions of people for eternity is just
too strong.

> > God will forget those who forgot God in this world, and so they will
> suffer in Hell with nothing but scalding water to drink and food that will
> not nourish.
>

Yep, that's your God alright,  that's the pervert we're supposed to love.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

John, 

Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the awful suffering 
you have accurately, cited? Marx said that religion is an opiate for the 
people, so what do you offer as a pain reliever? 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:01 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God 
anymore?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Are you at war with Islam?

No, I'm not at war with anyone.

 > Why should God put terror in your heart?

Because God is obviously a sadist and gets off on bondage. Why else would God 
spend a infinite number of years happily disemboweling his victims and then 
healing them so he can have the pleasure of disemboweling them again? And this 
hideous demon you call "God" never EVER gets tired of it, He never gets tired 
of hearing the screams of those in agony. And we are told by both Christianity 
and Islam to love this revolting thing they call "God" because if we don't this 
fiend will start disemboweling us too and He will never stop.

Christianity and Islam are not only intellectually idiotic they are also 
morally bankrupt.  

 > He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you 
 > seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of 
 > circumstances

He sees you when you're sleeping 
He knows when you're awake 
He knows if you've been bad or good 
So be good for goodness sake 

You better watch out 
You better not cry 
You better not pout 
I'm telling you why 
Santa Claus is coming to town 

He's making a list, 
Checking it twice; 
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. 
Santa Claus is coming to town

> God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether we 
> remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the oxygen we 
> breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, 

He also sent us the cancer that rots our children's bones and the typhoons that 
drown us and the earthquakes that crush us. And if God didn't give us food 
water and oxygen we wouldn't live long enough to sin and then God wouldn't be 
able to engage in His hobby, torturing billions of people for eternity.  

> God keeps inviting to forgiveness. 

Well I might be able to forgive God if He would change His ways, but He 
won't, His compulsion to disembowel billions of people for eternity is just too 
strong.  

> God will forget those who forgot God in this world, and so they will suffer 
> in Hell with nothing but scalding water to drink and food that will not 
> nourish. 

Yep, that's your God alright,  that's the pervert we're supposed to love. 

  John K Clark 

-- 
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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only way to
> keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.


I seem to be motivated to comment at some length on this topic! It must be
because of what I've been reading and thinking about recently. Graziano
writes, in an attempt to justify, in evolutionary terms, how the brain
might come to "believe" (incorrectly) that it is subjectively aware:

"...my colleagues and I have been developing the “attention schema” theory
of consciousness, which may explain why that computation is useful and
would evolve in any complex brain. Here’s the gist of it: Take again the
case of color and wavelength. Wavelength is a real, physical phenomenon;
color is the brain’s approximate, slightly incorrect model of it. In the
attention schema theory, attention is the physical phenomenon and awareness
is the brain’s approximate, slightly incorrect model of it. In
neuroscience, attention is a process of enhancing some signals at the
expense of others. It’s a way of focusing resources. Attention: a real,
mechanistic phenomenon that can be programmed into a computer chip.
Awareness: a cartoonish reconstruction of attention that is as physically
inaccurate as the brain’s internal model of color."

He's quite explicit here about the primacy of physical brain-based
explanation. But he also appeals to computation within this brain-first
explanatory schema, as in his distinction between wavelength as a "real,
physical phenomenon" and color as an approximate "model" of it. The problem
for this style of explanation is that, in terms of his explicit schema, any
"software" model is entirely reducible to primary brain "hardware". The
"real, physical phenomena" of the brain are fundamental and hence only
physical phenomena are accessible as objects of selection in any
evolutionary account, assuming physical primacy.

This distinction vitiates any attempt to justify the differential selection
of any particular "software" organisation since any such selection must
already be fully accounted for on the basis of "real, physical phenomena".
IOW, it actually provides no non-question-begging explanation of why there
would be any selective advantage for either "attention" or "awareness" per
se in this schema, as both would be equally subsumed in their "real"
physical implementation. Neither account could be more than an a posteriori
re-description of what had already been selected in the "real, physical"
regime, on the basis of purely "hardware" criteria. Properly understood,
such "soft" concepts must be seen as explanatorily redundant - as you imply
- if material explanation is accepted as primary.

In short: If Aristotle were right, there would be no need of dreams to
explain why there were machines. But if Plato is right, then we need
machines to explain why we are dreaming.

David

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Moreover, John-

What'dya think of Brian May?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11143875/Prof-Brian-Cox-Theres-a-naivety-in-saying-there-is-no-God.html

I don't know if he's right or way wrong, but I find his focus, interesting. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:01 am
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God 
anymore?

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Are you at war with Islam?

No, I'm not at war with anyone.

 > Why should God put terror in your heart?

Because God is obviously a sadist and gets off on bondage. Why else would God 
spend a infinite number of years happily disemboweling his victims and then 
healing them so he can have the pleasure of disemboweling them again? And this 
hideous demon you call "God" never EVER gets tired of it, He never gets tired 
of hearing the screams of those in agony. And we are told by both Christianity 
and Islam to love this revolting thing they call "God" because if we don't this 
fiend will start disemboweling us too and He will never stop.

Christianity and Islam are not only intellectually idiotic they are also 
morally bankrupt.  

 > He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you 
 > seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of 
 > circumstances

He sees you when you're sleeping 
He knows when you're awake 
He knows if you've been bad or good 
So be good for goodness sake 

You better watch out 
You better not cry 
You better not pout 
I'm telling you why 
Santa Claus is coming to town 

He's making a list, 
Checking it twice; 
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice. 
Santa Claus is coming to town

> God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether we 
> remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the oxygen we 
> breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, 

He also sent us the cancer that rots our children's bones and the typhoons that 
drown us and the earthquakes that crush us. And if God didn't give us food 
water and oxygen we wouldn't live long enough to sin and then God wouldn't be 
able to engage in His hobby, torturing billions of people for eternity.  

> God keeps inviting to forgiveness. 

Well I might be able to forgive God if He would change His ways, but He 
won't, His compulsion to disembowel billions of people for eternity is just too 
strong.  

> God will forget those who forgot God in this world, and so they will suffer 
> in Hell with nothing but scalding water to drink and food that will not 
> nourish. 

Yep, that's your God alright,  that's the pervert we're supposed to love. 

  John K Clark 

-- 
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.

Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

Ok. Have you ever given thought to a primal mind being a Boltzmann Brain? 

-Original Message-
From: David Nyman 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only way to keep 
the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.

I seem to be motivated to comment at some length on this topic! It must be 
because of what I've been reading and thinking about recently. Graziano writes, 
in an attempt to justify, in evolutionary terms, how the brain might come to 
"believe" (incorrectly) that it is subjectively aware:

"...my colleagues and I have been developing the “attention schema” theory of 
consciousness, which may explain why that computation is useful and would 
evolve in any complex brain. Here’s the gist of it: Take again the case of 
color and wavelength. Wavelength is a real, physical phenomenon; color is the 
brain’s approximate, slightly incorrect model of it. In the attention schema 
theory, attention is the physical phenomenon and awareness is the brain’s 
approximate, slightly incorrect model of it. In neuroscience, attention is a 
process of enhancing some signals at the expense of others. It’s a way of 
focusing resources. Attention: a real, mechanistic phenomenon that can be 
programmed into a computer chip. Awareness: a cartoonish reconstruction of 
attention that is as physically inaccurate as the brain’s internal model of 
color."

He's quite explicit here about the primacy of physical brain-based explanation. 
But he also appeals to computation within this brain-first explanatory schema, 
as in his distinction between wavelength as a "real, physical phenomenon" and 
color as an approximate "model" of it. The problem for this style of 
explanation is that, in terms of his explicit schema, any "software" model is 
entirely reducible to primary brain "hardware". The "real, physical phenomena" 
of the brain are fundamental and hence only physical phenomena are accessible 
as objects of selection in any evolutionary account, assuming physical primacy.

This distinction vitiates any attempt to justify the differential selection of 
any particular "software" organisation since any such selection must already be 
fully accounted for on the basis of "real, physical phenomena". IOW, it 
actually provides no non-question-begging explanation of why there would be any 
selective advantage for either "attention" or "awareness" per se in this 
schema, as both would be equally subsumed in their "real" physical 
implementation. Neither account could be more than an a posteriori 
re-description of what had already been selected in the "real, physical" 
regime, on the basis of purely "hardware" criteria. Properly understood, such 
"soft" concepts must be seen as explanatorily redundant - as you imply - if 
material explanation is accepted as primary.

In short: If Aristotle were right, there would be no need of dreams to explain 
why there were machines. But if Plato is right, then we need machines to 
explain why we are dreaming.

David

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014  spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> John,  Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the
> awful suffering you have accurately, cited?

That's asking a awful lot of me, I don't have a solution that will
eliminate the suffering in the world. I wish I did.  If I were God I would
have made extreme pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately I didn't
get the job.

> Marx said that religion is an opiate for the people,
>

And like opium religion is not a good long term solution to sorrow; for
every person who is made happier contemplating the pleasures of heaven
there are 10 made more unhappy contemplating the tortures of Hell. And then
you've got millions of people saying they will kill you right now if you
don't love God X and renounce all other Gods, and millions more saying they
will kill you right now if you don't love God Y and renounce all other
Gods. And both are saying their kind and merciful God will torture you for
all of eternity if you don't love Him, even though there is absolutely
nothing lovable about either of them.

> What'dya think of Brian May?
>

I think you mean Brian Cox, he said " There is naivety in just saying
there’s no God" but he doesn't say why it's naive except to say that some
very very smart people have believed in God; and that's true. I think it's
true because most people, perhaps even most very smart people, tend to
believe what their mommy and daddy told them into adulthood, stuff they
were told before they were potty trained. There is no other explanation for
the enormously strong correlation between deeply held religious belief and
geography.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

Very Good.

Thanks

Mitch

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God 
anymore?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014  spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

> John, Instead of God, what do you propose as a substitute for all the awful 
> suffering you have accurately, cited? 

That's asking a awful lot of me, I don't have a solution that will eliminate 
the suffering in the world. I wish I did.  If I were God I would have made 
extreme pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately I didn't get the job.  

> Marx said that religion is an opiate for the people,

And like opium religion is not a good long term solution to sorrow; for every 
person who is made happier contemplating the pleasures of heaven there are 10 
made more unhappy contemplating the tortures of Hell. And then you've got 
millions of people saying they will kill you right now if you don't love God X 
and renounce all other Gods, and millions more saying  they will kill you right 
now if you don't love God Y and renounce all other Gods. And both are saying 
their kind and merciful God will torture you for all of eternity if you don't 
love Him, even though there is absolutely nothing lovable about either of them.

> What'dya think of Brian May?

I think you mean Brian Cox, he said " There is naivety in just saying there’s 
no   God" but he doesn't say why it's naive except to say that some very very 
smart people have believed in God; and that's true. I think it's true because 
most people, perhaps even most very smart people, tend to believe what their 
mommy and daddy told them into adulthood, stuff they were told before they were 
potty trained. There is no other explanation for the enormously strong 
correlation between deeply held religious belief and geography.  

  John K Clark 

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?



On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 2:17 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 10/12/2014 2:35 PM, LizR wrote:
I imagine most philosophers don't think about God because God isn't  
a very good explanation for anything. You just have to ask "where  
did God come from?" so see that you've just been diverted away from  
the quest for knowledge of ultimate (or original) causes.


That's true of the Arbrahamic, theist kind of God, which was my  
point to Bruno.  Philosophers may very well think about "why we are  
here" or "the set of unprovable truths", but they respect common  
usage of language enough not to call it "thinking about God", or  
"theology", as Bruno would have them do.


I just wanted to comment on all the sniping concerning Bruno's  
alleged "unusual use of the terms theology/belief/god": Having been  
introduced to a few members of catholic theology faculty of Trier,  
I've had a few discussions concerning the topic, and the use is not  
considered non-standard, when equated with ineffable, inconceivable,  
collection of all sets, transcendence/transcendental entity, reason  
or foundation/reality, god etc. Call it "working hypothesis" if  
you're vain enough and want to distinguish yourself and your usage  
from the common folk, if you need to. Same difference.


And I think it should raise an eyebrow, that this usage conforms  
even to conservative German Catholic theologian use, admittedly not  
the more traditional ones among them, but to academics, there didn't  
seem to be a problem.


Philosophers and members of this list who consider this non-standard  
should therefore point to some evidence instead of the constant  
whining/sniping/policing without backup (which includes begging with  
"popular use" justifications; since when is this equated with  
serious evidence?). Catholic theologian are ahead of you + you guys  
don't offer any alternative, therefore you bore chanting this  
nonsense again and again, that not only exhibits consistency with  
neo-platonist (or Brent's "old Greeks") but with confessional  
Catholic theologians today, so get over it. PGC





Well said.

I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at  
the origin of the physical universe, or what is at the origin of the  
conscious belief in the physical universe".


With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible, and  
we can proceed in trying to figure out the plausibility of more  
detailed notion, maybe by adding theological axioms like  
computationalism: the soul incarnation is invariant for a digital  
substitution made at some level.


Making clear the assumptions, you can get theorems, and gives good or  
bad notes to other religion, where "good" mean here "correct or  
consistent with comp", and "bad means false or inconsistent with comp".


For example many atheists believes that their present incarnation is  
unique, when arguing that there is no afterlife. But comp is closer to  
Hinduism and buddhism, here, where incarnation implies reincarnation,  
in your usual most probable Turing universal environment, or in others.


At no point we need to assert that we are true or false. But we can  
better analyse the consistencies and plausibilities of the ideas.


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.

Re: generalizations_of_islam

On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:48, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> what a things is and what a thing does: is basically the same  
things.

So you think there is no difference between nouns verbs and  
adjectives.

Wrong inference, which is clear in what you just don't quote.  
Dishonest way to argue.

I think there are.

Of course.

> That follows from determinacy.

There is no logical reason to believe that everything in the world  
must be deterministic, nor is there any experimental evidence that  
every event has a cause.

I don't do philosophy. Just science. I have no opinion, just theory  
and argument. I made a point. I did not defend a point. You distract  
us from the line.

> Most religion accept that God has some relation with Truth,

Not exactly. I prefer that my beliefs be true, or at least as true  
as I can get them, but others have a different preference. For the  
religious the most important part of a belief isn't it's truth but  
how good it makes you feel or how well the belief binds the  
community together. But there is no disputing matters of taste.

You are dreaming. The believer in all religion believe them because  
they think they are true. You confuse religion and tradition. We are  
doing theoretical analysis, not sociological analysis.

Are you OK with my "new" definition of God?

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
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.

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter



On 13 Oct 2014, at 18:56, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


> You confirm all the time the theory that atheists are the best  
defenders of the christians dogma.


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


This is an evidence that you are a bot.

But it is just a fact. By believing and defending the idea that  
"theology" can't be handled by the rationalist, you give it to the  
local irrationalists and other people using war instead of logic, or  
dogma instead of hypotheses.


By insisting that God does not exist, you insist that the Christians/ 
Muslims/Jews have the correct notion of God.
You kill all competitors possible, and you abstract out all nuances  
brought by different movements, even among the jews/christians/muslims.



Bruno






  John K Clark





--
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On 14 Oct 2014, at 09:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias > wrote:

On 14-Oct-2014, at 5:03 am, John Clark  wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 Samiya Illias  wrote:

>> If the Quran has told Muslims to "put terror into the hearts of  
the unbelievers" and if the Quran really is the word of God then  
you will be in a constant state of war until the last unbeliever  
has been converted or murdered.

> Incorrect. God and his angels will put terror in the hearts.

Then God isn't doing a very good job, I guess He needs  
reinforcements. Neither God nor His angels puts terror into my  
heart, but religious nincompoops with a fetish for dynamite do.

Are you at war with Islam? Why should God put terror in your heart?  
He knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise  
you seek to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set  
of circumstances He put you in the world with, including your family  
and education and other influences, and He knows and understands  
what and how you think and react and why. We do not know whether  
your heart is one day meant to acknowledge and appreciate God or  
not. It's between you and God.

It is important to also keep in mind that the Messengers were sent  
to people who not only did not believe in monotheism, but as a  
nation these people were committing many transgressions and sins,  
and some of the greatest of Muslims were from people with such  
backgrounds.

If I were to cite an example from Prophet Mohammad's time, Omar was  
an ardent disbeliever in the message, very angered by the prophetic  
mission and was on his way to murder the prophet. Yet, God saw good  
in him and guided him to faith. He went on to become the second  
leader of the Muslims after the prophet's death. There are many  
historical records about him, both pro and anti, depending on who  
wrote it,  you may wish to look them up.

> Muslims are not asked to do that.

And yet Muslims are told to:

"Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into  
Hell--an evil resting place!'" .

And

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They  
will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your  
ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their  
mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" .

And

"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"

> According to the Quran [...]

Samiya, this is 21st century, other than the fact that you mommy  
and daddy told you it was true why would you care what the Quran  
said?

> God doesn't force faith on anyone.

But Muslims and Christians do.

> In fact, on the contrary, those who do not want to believe, God  
withholds guidance from them.

What I want to know is why a omnipotent being would consider a  
belief (or the desire to have a belief) in something for which  
there is no evidence a virtue, in fact the very greatest virtue  
there is. It's childishly easy to understand why a bipedal hominid  
like Jesus or Mohamed or any mountebank who wished to gain some  
control over his fellow hominids would push this idea, but I don't  
see why a omnipotent being would.

> if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in  
ways beyond imagining for a infinite number of years.

> Well, if you do not believe in God or after-life, why do you  
worry about it?

I worry that God will torment me in the afterlife about as much as  
I worry that the big bad wolf will huff and puff and blow my house  
down, however I do worry that other people worry about it because  
nothing in human history has causes people to do more stupid and  
destructive things than religion.

>> I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant  
character in all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is  
worse.

> I think Allah ( The Deity) is the most loving and compassionate.

Well you'd better think that God is most loving and compassionate  
because if you don't your religion says that most loving and  
compassionate being will torture you in ways too horrible for our  
present human minds to contemplate. And a most loving and  
compassionate God will continue performing His butchery on you not  
for a million years, or a billion years or a trillion years but for  
a INFINITE* number of years.

God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us  
whether we remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless  
ways: the oxygen we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat,  
the education that feeds our minds, the knowledge and feelings that  
nourish our hearts, the natural beauty that provide for our senses  
of sight and hearing and so on. God also provides wealth and comfort  
in varying degrees. God does not discriminate on the basis of faith  
in this world, as here we all have equal opportunity to believe or  
reject. And God keeps inviting to forgiveness. However,

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?



On 13 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias > wrote:


> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19	Stir not thy  
tongue herewith to hasten it.	 Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting  
together thereof and the reading thereof.	And when We read it,  
follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the  
explanation thereof.


As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about  
it are in extreme schism" .


READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already  
= Truth).


Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.





or 2:190-93

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places  
from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . .  
if they attack you put them to the sword".


Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit  
theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this  
during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he  
is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would  
guess.


Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions  
during war.


OK. Sorry.



All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any  
changes by Mohammed or anyone else.


The problem for me, is that, if I open my mind up to accept this  
literally, then I automatically open my mind to the possibility that  
Satan made some changes in it.


Are you willing to try this exercise? Find the verses added by Satan.   
(assuming all this)


Mohammed is a human.

You attribute him an implicit deity character when you believe he is  
not fallible, as all humans are.












or 3:12:

"Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into  
Hell--an evil resting place!'" .



Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those  
who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...





Or 3:118

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They  
will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your  
ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their  
mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" .


Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try  
to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would  
consult many translations.







Or 5:57

"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"


Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5.

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the  
Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".


That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries,  
among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real"  
debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was  
still discussed.






or 5:80-82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to  
the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in  
affection to them are those who say: 'We are Christians'"


Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad  
hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.


Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of  
the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of  
individuals and nations towards/against Muslims.


OK. The bible does that too, like the gospels. No problem with non  
literal interpretation of the sacred text, and historical perspective,  
but beware those who will take some verses literally.









It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the table.

I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the  
fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can  
always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.


If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge of  
the author of the Quran.


I guess. But as wise and knowledgeable he was, he was a human, and all  
humans are fallible.


I can accept as axiom for God that God is not fallible.

It is about infinitely harder to accept that a human is not fallible,  
or that you can know that he has not failed.




Rather, you would try to understand why is it so.


For the pagans, I understand, but with comp, paganism and  
resistance to the argument-per-authority seems to be encouraged.





Or 6:49:

"Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their  
misdeeds" .


This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement  
that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more  
translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an  
assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical assertion  
o

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?



On 13 Oct 2014, at 20:19, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 13-Oct-2014, at 10:37 pm, Samiya Illias   
wrote:





On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias > wrote:


> Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19	Stir not thy  
tongue herewith to hasten it.	 Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting  
together thereof and the reading thereof.	And when We read it,  
follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the  
explanation thereof.


As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176

"God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about  
it are in extreme schism” .


READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God  
already = Truth).


Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.





or 2:190–93

“Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places  
from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . .  
if they attack you put them to the sword".


Defend yourself against the liars.

Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit  
theologically problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this  
during a war, and can't concentrate enough on what God told him.  
he is human, and probably influenced by temporal problems, I would  
guess.


Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions  
during war. All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words  
without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else.






or 3:12:

“Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven  
into Hell—an evil resting place!’” .



Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those  
who lie about petrol and cannabis.

Unfortuanetly that can take time ...





Or 3:118

“Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people.  
They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but  
your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with  
their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts  
conceal” .


Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try  
to convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would  
consult many translations.







Or 5:57

“Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"


Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5.

The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the  
Quran, it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".


That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries,  
among serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real"  
debate (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was  
still discussed.






or 5:80–82

"You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to  
the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in  
affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”


Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad  
hominem statement has no place in a sacred text.


Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule  
of the thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of  
individuals and nations towards/against Muslims.



It contradicts also the surat of the poet and the surat of the  
table.


I have no problem. I would be Muslim I would explain this by the  
fact that Muhammad is a human being, or Löbian entity, which can  
always get wrong, or that someone added this, perhaps a Christian.


If you were a Muslim you would not doubt the wisdom and knowledge  
of the author of the Quran. Rather, you would try to understand why  
is it so.
When God sends revelation, God ensures that it is delivered  
verbatim. Consider the following verses:

Holy Quran 72:27
--
إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِنْ رَسُولٍ  
فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِنْ بَيْنِ  
يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَدًا


Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends  
before each messenger and behind him observers

Holy Quran 72:28



You cannot quote the text as an evidence for the authority of the text.







--
لِيَعْلَمَ أَنْ قَدْ أَبْلَغُوا  
رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ وَأَحَاطَ بِمَا  
لَدَيْهِمْ وَأَحْصَىٰ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ  
عَدَدًا


That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of their Lord;  
and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has enumerated all  
things in number.







That might be a part of some good argument, only if that was not part  
of the Quran.



Bruno




to be encouraged.




Or 6:49:

“Those that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their  
misdeeds” .


This is either an argument-per-authority, or a trivial statement  
that departing from truth leads to catastrophes. We need much more  
translation to judge this, especially that in those time, such an  
assertion apparently irreligious might only be a poetical  
assertion on some acceptable axiomatic of truth.







or 3:149–51

"We will put terror in

Re: dot dot dot

On 19 Aug 2014, at 02:18, meekerdb wrote:

Are you aware of the research by the dating website OKCupid that
showed that the best way to find out if your date believes in God,
without asking directly, is to ask if they are persnickety about
spelling and grammar. "No" indicates a likely believer. "Yes"
means a likely atheist.

Nice. Agnostic says "it depends on what is written"

It's purely a statistical correlation, but one based on a large
sample.

It shows perhaps that believers believe that taking care of the sense,
the sounds will take care of themselves.
The atheists believe that by taking care of the sounds, the sense will
take care of themselves.
But that's mechanism, I think, the duality top down/bottom up, or
syntax-semantics, theory-models, machine-realities, etc.

Bruno

Brent

On 8/18/2014 5:10 PM, LizR wrote:
I wish that often, but then I'm (a) pernickety* about grammar and
spelling, and (b) generally in a hurry!

*Or a word spelled something like that!

On 18 August 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote:

PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't you?

But not from the mail boxes. Besides, I am against all post
deletions, except on facebook when people use your wall for
advertising, or when they repeat insults.

What would be nice is an ability to edit mails, for the typo.

Bruno

On 17 August 2014 17:23, LizR wrote:
Never mind, you stated your position nice and clearly, perhaps
more clearly than you normally do on the EL.

(...or is that why you're saying "OOPS!" ? :-)

On 17 August 2014 16:54, meekerdb wrote:
OOPS! I didn't intend to post this to the everything-list;
although it may serve as an introduction for James Lindsay if he
decides to join the list. I wrote to him after reading his book
"dot dot do" which is about infinity in mathematics and philosophy.

Brent

On 8/16/2014 9:28 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/16/2014 4:57 PM, James Lindsay wrote:

Hi Brent,

Thanks for the note. I like the thought about mathematics as a
refinement of language. I also think of it as a specialization
of philosophy, or even a highly distilled variant upon it with
limited scope. Indeed, I frequently conceive of mathematics as a
branch of philosophy where we (mostly) agree upon the axioms and
(mostly) know we're talking about abstract ideas, to be
distinguished from what I feel like I get from many philosophers.

I am not familiar with Bruno Marchal,

Here's his paper that describes his TOE. It rests on two points
for which he gives arguments: (1) If consciousness is
instantiated by certain computational processes which could be
realized in different media (so there's nothing "magici" about
them being done in brains) then they can exist the way arithmetic
exist (i.e. in "platonia"). And in platonia there is a universal
dovetailer, UD, that computes everything computable (and more),
so it instantiates all possible conscious thoughts including
those that cause us to infer the existence of an external
physical world. The problem with his theory, which he
recognizes, is that this apparently instantiates too much. But
as physicist like Max Tegmark, Vilenkin, and Krause talk about
eternal inflation and infinitely many universes in
which all possible
physics is realized, maybe the UD doesn't produce too much. He
thinks he can show that what it produces is like quantum
mechanics except for a measure zero. But I'm not convinced his
measure is more than wishful thinking.

He's a nice fellow though and not a crank. So if you'd like to
engage him on any of this you can join the discussion list everything-list@googlegroups.com
.

and I am not expert in theories of anything, much less
everything, based upon computation or
even
computation theories. I remain a bit skeptical of them, and
overall, I would suggest that such things are likely to be
theories of everything, which is to say still on the map side of
the map/terrain divide.

I agree. But some people assume that there must be some ultimate
ontology of ur-stuff that exists necessarily - and mathematical
objects are their favorite candidates (if they're not
religious). I don't think this is a compelling argument since I
regard numbers as inventions (not necessarily human - likely
evolution invented them). I think of ontologies as the stuff
that is in our theories. Since
theories are
invented to explain things they may ultimately be circular, sort
of like: mathematics-> physics-> chemistry->biology->
intelligence-> mathematics. So you can start with whatever you
think you understand. If this circle of explanation is big
enough to include everything, then I claim it's "virtuously"
circular.

Brent
"What is there?

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi Brent,

   I have had a couple of experiences that proved to me that there exists 
something like the theist God. Things that I can not explain otherwise are 
some kind of "divine intervention" that saved my life. Could there be an 
explanation that is completely secular? I am open to such, but its like 
arguing that something like the spontaneous unscrambling of an egg actually 
happened but one does not have a collection of unimpeachable witnesses 
available.
   
   Ever you have an experience that is like Mitra's history rewrite idea 
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3825? I have!

On Monday, October 6, 2014 2:15:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> Here's an interesting interview of a philosopher who is interested in the 
> question of 
> whether God exists.  The interesting thing about it, for this list, is 
> that "God" is 
> implicitly the god of theism, and is not "one's reason for existence" or 
> "the unprovable 
> truths of arithmetic". 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>  Original Message  
>
>
>
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/can-wanting-to-believe-make-us-believers/
>  
>
>
> Gary Gutting: "This is the 12th and last in a series of interviews about 
> religion that I 
> am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is 
> Daniel Garber, a 
> professor of philosophy at Princeton University, specializing in 
> philosophy and science in 
> the period of Galileo and Newton. In a week or two, I’ll conclude with a 
> wrap-up column on 
> the series." 
>
> ... 
>
> Daniel Garber: "Certainly there are serious philosophers who would deny 
> that the arguments 
> for the existence of God have been decisively refuted. But even so, my 
> impression is that 
> proofs for the existence of God have ceased to be a matter of serious 
> discussion outside 
> of the domain of professional philosophy of religion. And even there, my 
> sense is that the 
> discussions are largely a matter of academic interest: The real passion 
> has gone out of 
> the question." 
>
>

-- 
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.

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> By insisting that God does not exist, you insist that the
> Christians/Muslims/Jews have the correct notion of God.


Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at
> the origin of the physical universe,
>

Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.

> or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe
>

Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical
universe but you have said on this list that you don't.

> With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible
>

If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race
every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.

  John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi John,

   Yo wrote: "God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
full of doorknobs." Indeed, your existence is proof of this claim!

   Try harder not to project the consequences of being finite and human
onto something that you will never understand. Too be sure, I find that
those that religionists that push their personal beliefs onto others are
reprehensible, but it is the "pushing" and attempts to control the minds of
others that is evil, not the belief in what can not be "rationally"
explained.

   There is no replacement for 1p definiteness.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:30 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> > I suggest to define God by "either the physical universe OR what is at
>> the origin of the physical universe,
>>
>
> Then if modern cosmologists are even close to being correct God is not
> omniscient, God isn't even very smart, in fact God is as dumb as a sack
> full of doorknobs. And that is a great example of someone more than willing
> to abandon the idea of God but not the English word G-O-D.
>
> > or what is at the origin of the conscious belief in the physical universe
>>
>
> Then my brain is God but your brain is not because I believe in a physical
> universe but you have said on this list that you don't.
>
> > With that definition of God, God's existence is quite plausible
>>
>
> If you redefine dragons as the animals the run in the Kentucky Derby Race
> every year then the existence of dragons is quite plausible.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/uxC9vWWQ0Ss/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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.

Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-10-14 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi,

   I re-read S. Mitra's paper  again
and it made more sense than before if I assumed that the reversible
measurement idea is to be taken as a local reversal to the "direction of
entropy flow" in an area and not the entire universe.
   The trouble is this notion of locality. Are there any favorite
definitions of "locality" out there? AFAIK, it does not have a fixed size
in space, but may have a fixed size in "space-time" as location information
expands at the speed of light if we ignore the effects of local structure
that would modulate decoherence. This "decoherence" thing, IMHO, needs to
be looked at carefully.
   In deference to Bruno, I should ask a question relevant to the ongoing
discussions. Is a finite universe with locally reversible time consistent
as a 1p world?

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

-- 
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.

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Samiya Illias



> On 14-Oct-2014, at 11:24 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 13 Oct 2014, at 19:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 13-Oct-2014, at 8:54 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:36, John Clark wrote:
 
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Samiya Illias  
> wrote:
> 
> > Consider the following verses of Chapter 75:16-19   Stir not thy 
> > tongue herewith to hasten it.   Lo! upon Us (resteth) the putting 
> > together thereof and the reading thereof.And when We read it, 
> > follow thou the reading; Then lo! upon Us (resteth) the explanation 
> > thereof. 
 
 As long as we're quoting the Quran how about  2:176
 
 "God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in 
 extreme schism” .
>>> 
>>> READ: God obeys to truth if God is some maw in reality, God already = 
>>> Truth). 
>>> 
>>> Then it just say that liar and wrong people are in trouble.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 or 2:190–93
 
 “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which 
 they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . if they attack you 
 put them to the sword".
>>> 
>>> Defend yourself against the liars.
>>> 
>>> Something like "slay them wherever you find them" is a biit theologically 
>>> problematic, and as samiya said, Muhammad wrote this during a war, and 
>>> can't concentrate enough on what God told him. he is human, and probably 
>>> influenced by temporal problems, I would guess. 
>> 
>> Correction: I wrote that these verses were revealed as instructions during 
>> war.
> 
> OK. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
>> All verses in the Quran are the exact revealed words without any changes by 
>> Mohammed or anyone else. 
> 
> The problem for me, is that, if I open my mind up to accept this literally, 
> then I automatically open my mind to the possibility that Satan made some 
> changes in it. 

How? If you literally open your mind to accept that the Quran is 'exact 
revealed words without any changes by Mohammed or anyone else ' , then  are you 
not contradicting yourself when you say that 'then I automatically open my mind 
to the possibility that Satan made some changes in it ' ??? 

> 
> Are you willing to try this exercise? Find the verses added by Satan.  
> (assuming all this)
> 
> Mohammed is a human. 
Yes Muhammad is a human and we bear witness to that. 

> 
> You attribute him an implicit deity character when you believe he is not 
> fallible, as all humans are. 

I say that he did not fail in his mission of communicating the message because 
God made foolproof arrangements to ensure its communication to Muhammad's 
people through Muhammad, and through his companions and other Muslims to the 
rest of the world. The responsibility of ensuring that the Quran stays free if 
changes is not left upon us humans. If it had been left to humans, it would 
have suffered changes just as much as any other scripture. 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
 
 or 3:12:
 
 “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an 
 evil resting place!’” .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, those who mock truth build their own destructions, like those who lie 
>>> about petrol and cannabis. 

Your passion for cannabis is amusing :) 

>>> Unfortuanetly that can take time ...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Or 3:118
 
 “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will 
 spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their 
 hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is 
 the hatred which their breasts conceal” .
>>> 
>>> Maybe Muhammad get paranoid. Or you can interpret it by "don't try to 
>>> convince the studdborn". Here, I would have more time, I would consult many 
>>> translations.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Or 5:57
 
 “Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels"
>>> 
>>> Don't try to make dialog with people coming up with 2+2=5. 
>>> 
>>> The question is not "is this the most common interpretation of the Quran, 
>>> it is "is this the correct interpretation of the Quran".
>>> 
>>> That very crucial point was debated by the 8-9-10-11th centuries, among 
>>> serious theologians and philosophers, at the time the "real" debate 
>>> (between Plato's and Aristotle's conception of reality) was still discussed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 or 5:80–82
 
 "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the 
 faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to 
 them are those who say: ‘We are Christians’”
>>> 
>>> Well, not sure Samiya will agree with me, but this type of ad hominem 
>>> statement has no place in a sacred text.
>> 
>> Well as it is mentioned in the Quran, it must be the general rule of the 
>> thumb. Will need to study the historic general trend of individuals and 
>> nations towards/against Muslims. 
> 
> OK. The bi

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?