On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases.
It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear
two times.
On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno,
...
I believe the answer to the question, What is Truth? which Pilate asked
Jesus, was standing
Thanks for the explanations. I am astonished about all children being
psychopathic: I guess you mean very young one?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
To be fair that term isn't normally used for children due to its pejorative
connotations, but I think it is close to the truth.
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of
Tom Caylor writes:
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian
Tom Caylor writes:
It is the ultimate irony that Jesus was taken to be blaspheming when he
said he was one with the Father and before Abraham was, I AM, for
no one can say that they are God. the mistake is the missing
phrase at the end: ...except God.
Yes, but what if Jesus was not God?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts
on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
It is the ultimate irony that Jesus was taken to be blaspheming when he
said he was one with the Father and before Abraham was, I AM, for
no one can say that they are God. the mistake is the missing
phrase at the end: ...except God.
Yes,
Brent Meeker wrote:
That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's
true? Of course in general we don't know what's true and we
never know it with certainity. But we do know some things,
in the scientific, provisional sense. And we also have
certain values which, as Jef
Jef Allbright wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's true?
Of course in general we don't know what's true and we never know it
with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific,
provisional sense. And we also have certain
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jef Allbright wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That raises a fundamental question - should we believe
what's true?
Of course in general we don't know what's true and we
never know it
with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific,
provisional sense.
Bruno marchal writes:
Even if it is presented as good for society, the child may accept that
because of feelings of empathy for others.
OK. Note that such an empathy is hard wired in our biological
constitution. Many mammals seems to have it at some degree. Some form
of autism are
Le 20-déc.-06, à 19:06, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my
methodology
to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is
famous for its
Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my
methodology
to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is
famous for its many paradoxical thoughts.
It is certainly not a reductio against comp,
Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other
ethical principles or commandments from God:
With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp
(and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other
ethical principles or commandments from God:
With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp
(and God = +/-
Le 17-déc.-06, à 03:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Democratic system are
more
efficient to explore the political landscape and thus more efficient
in
probability to satisfy soul's natural attraction toward the
good.
The soul's natural attraction towards the good might be compared
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other
ethical principles or commandments from God:
With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp
(and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify that any *action* made in
the name of God is
Bruno Marchal writes:
The analogous statements are:
a1. umbrellas keep you dry
a2. feeding the poor reduces their suffering
We can agree on the definition of the words and on the facts asserted.
If
there is disagreement on the definition, for example if you were
thinking of
Le 16-déc.-06, à 03:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good?
I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were
bad.
Who says this? All
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-déc.-06, à 03:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
...
We could look at a particular incident where capital punishment was
proposed, let's say
for murder. Everyone might agree on the
Brent,
now that Wei Dai reincarnated me to the list, I hurry to agree with you
(almost).
Good/bad is not only a personal Whahooh (Yahoo??) but it is a culture
related (changeable) set of value-judgments.
*
Re: capital punishment:
1. it is not a punishment because after the fact the punished has
John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
now that Wei Dai reincarnated me to the list, I hurry to agree with you
(almost).
Good/bad is not only a personal Whahooh (Yahoo??) but it is a culture
related (changeable) set of value-judgments.
*
Re: capital punishment:
1. it is not a punishment because
December 2006 23:27
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Evil ?
John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
now that Wei Dai reincarnated me to the list, I hurry to agree with you
(almost).
Good/bad is not only a personal Whahooh (Yahoo??) but it is a culture
related (changeable) set of value
Democratic system are
more
efficient to explore the political landscape and thus more efficient
in
probability to satisfy soul's natural attraction toward the good.
The soul's natural attraction towards the good might be compared to
the body's
natural attraction to keep dry.
John Mikes writes:
Re: capital punishment:
1. it is not a punishment because after the fact the punished has no way to
be sorry or to improve.
2. punishing is a vengeance-related hypocritical self-aggrandisement assigned
to gods and god-like feelings in humans.
3. I agree to discontinue
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other.
One is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the
same rules
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good?
I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad.
Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich
to prove elementary theorems in
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other.
One is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good?
I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad.
Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:10:43 -0800
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and stronger one is just the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary.
So you say. I don't agree.
I believe that capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
Le 14-déc.-06, à 11:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But there is no true/false in saying that torture is bad, unless there
is another
hidden assumption such as causing gratuitous suffering is bad, in
which case
the question becomes, why is causing gratuitous suffering bad?
Ultimately
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it is
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:59 -0800
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject
Bruno Marchal writes:
Not in any normative sense. But once we bet on a theory (like comp),
then we get mathematical tools which can provide general explanation
of
what is bad, and also explain why such definition cannot be normative,
making the bad/good distinctions an ideal goal for
Brent Meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the
problem is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the same
rules
of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and stronger one is just the
falsity f. Then Bf, BBf, BBBf,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It might seem
that there would be some consensus, for example that torturing
innocent people
is an example of bad, but it is possible to assert without fear of
logical or
empirical contradiction that torturing innocent people is good.
I disagree. Mainly for
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real problem of
evil is solved or even really addressed with comp. This is because
comp cannot define evil correctly.
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory.
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
current theories of everything: Loop gravity
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
current theories of everything: Loop gravity and
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real problem of
evil is solved or even really addressed with comp.
Le 12-déc.-06, à 13:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 03:58, 1Z a écrit :
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem
of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
by a problem: the problem of evil. I don't think the real problem of
evil is solved or
Bruno Marchal writes:
I don't see how it's such a big problem. Consciousness exists,
therefore feelings exist,
and some of these feelings are unpleasant ones. Explaining
consciousness is difficult,
but once granted, you don't need an extra theory for every different
type of
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory.
!!
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that the problem of evil (and thus the equivalent problem of
Good) is interesting. Of course it is not well addressed by the two
current theories of everything: Loop gravity and String theory.
!!
To expand a bit, both of these
101 - 159 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
