Hi Russell and the list:
I have been very distracted and am trying to catch up on the discussions.
At 01:35 AM 2/1/2006, you wrote:
>I don't agree with equating the vacuum with "Nothing", although I know
>a few people do. The vacuum still has a wealth of information
>associated with it.
>
>In t
Le 25-févr.-06, à 21:03, uv wrote:
> "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on February 25, 2006,
> amongst a lot of other things
>
>> The practical, terrestrial act of faith consists to say "yes"
>> to a surgeon which proposes you an artificial digital brain/body.
>> It is a belief in a for
Le 25-févr.-06, à 12:22, uv a écrit :
> "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on February 23, 2006
>
>> The loebian machine knows that there are some truth which would be
>> wrong once she takes it as axiom. "comp" belongs to that type, and
>> that is why I insist that "comp" is more than jus
Bruno:
how does Mrs. Loeb (La Machine) distinguish between
'truth' and 'not truth'? What is truth for Paul is a
lie for Peter and vice versa. Is 'she' Mrs Peter or
Mrs. Paul?
Truth is not better identifiable than reality. Or:
'quality', which aslo may be bad or good, depending on
the special inter
Le 23-févr.-06, à 07:32, Kim Jones a écrit :
The Loebian machine only believes the truth, yes? Not a pack of
Biblical lies, surely?
Not necessarily, or ... Well, not so easy to describe in few words. The
sound loebian machine believes the truth. True. But then the *sound*
only believes t
This is in fact the point of view of the book. The book teaches that
humanity has no need of the concept of God because we are all God
anyway so we must simply be describing ourselves when we mention God.
Theology says that Man was created in God's image
It is in fact the other way around -
Le 20-févr.-06, à 21:00, uv a écrit :
"Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and
Stoughton
1995) is "a bloddy good read" as we like to say here in Australia
I think myself that one problem with such books is that they are very
Christian oriented.
This is perhaps already
Le 21-févr.-06, à 05:50, danny mayes a écrit :
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides some explanation for the 1-in
Bruno,
Going back to the discussion a few days ago, I agree with the value of
the UDA as an idea worthy of development, as you are doing. In fact it
seems to be the only idea on the table that I'm aware of that provides
some explanation for the 1-indeterminacy of QM and also gives insight
into
"Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
> "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and
Stoughton
> 1995) is "a bloddy good read" as we like to say here in Australia
I think myself that one problem with such books is that they are very
Christian oriented. I recently heard a lecture by
Hi John,
If I remember correctly Robert Rosen does not accept Church Thesis.
This explains some fundamental difference of what we mean respectively
by "machine".
I use the term for digitalizable machine, which, with Church thesis, is
equivalent with "programs", or with anything a computer can
"Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch (Hodder and Stoughton
1995) is "a bloddy good read" as we like to say here in Australia. It
is, in some ways the *kind* of revisionist theological tome the
modern world badly needs. For this reason, God speaks in a language
that any idiot can
Le 18-févr.-06, à 01:05, Kim Jones a écrit :
Which is very interesting, isn't it? People do seem want the kind of
modelled structure for their existence that theology projects. Even
though G means we can never know the truth of it, theology tells us it
is nonetheless there.
Like G*.
Has
Hi Ben,
Le 13-févr.-06, à 21:18, Benjamin Udell a écrit :
Hi, Bruno,
You're tending -- too selectively, arbitrarily -- to try to go by what
was meant by words many hundreds and even some thousands of years ago.
Plotinus appears to be a rationalist. I don't care what he means by the
terms
Which is very interesting, isn't it? People do seem want the kind of
modelled structure for their existence that theology projects. Even
though G means we can never know the truth of it, theology tells us
it is nonetheless there.
Has anyone on this list read Neale Donald Walsch's "Conversat
"Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on February 17, 2006
> Do you have the little book by Smullyan "Forever Undecided"? It is
> a very cute introduction to the logic G. Once you understand what
> is G, > you can understand all the other arithmetical hypostases
> (effective and > non effec
Le 14-févr.-06, à 05:19, danny mayes wrote (to Ben):
I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized in
the foreseeable future.
This looks like an encouraging statement :-)
The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or with any problem
with Bruno per se beyond
t
Ben, Danny (and list),
Thanks for your interesting last posts, which I think I need to digest
so as to been able to answer them synthetically for avoiding
repetitions or too much awkwardness. So I will answer them at ease, and
send comments as soon as possible.
The posts are:
http://www.mail
Le 14-févr.-06, à 16:20, uv a écrit :
Bruno said
For me, all questioning is amenable to science, or put in another
way, we can kept a scientific attitude, in all fields, including
those
asking for faith.
Fair enough, as long as we all know what a 'scientific attitude' is.
Kuhn, Popper, W
Bruno said
> For me, all questioning is amenable to science, or put in another
> way, we can kept a scientific attitude, in all fields, including
those
> asking for faith.
Fair enough, as long as we all know what a 'scientific attitude' is.
Kuhn, Popper, Wittgenstein, Derrida ???
> Correct mach
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
I doubt Marchal's ideas will be made widely known or popularized in the
foreseeable future. The problem isn't with the name of his theory, or with any
problem with Bruno per se be
t machines as metaphysicians, maybe there's some way to coin a word there.
"Metaphysicianology" sounds & looks awful.
"Metaphysicistics." Better, but not much better.
"Machine metaphysicisms."
"Metaphysicology." "Metaphysicalistics." Th
metaphysicisms."
"Metaphysicology." "Metaphysicalistics." Those are, at least, pronounceable.
I'm not doing too well. It's definitely easier to criticize your word choice
than to supply you with a better word choice. Still, if plain old "metaphysics"
is
Le 30-janv.-06, à 22:07, Benjamin Udell wrote, in part, sometimes ago
(30 January):
Most people, however, do have some sort of views, which are or have
been significant in their lives, about what are traditionally called
metaphysical questions -- God, freedom, immortality, psycho-physical
r
Le 09-févr.-06, à 07:22, Kim Jones a écrit :
I was just about to ask what an angel was! You must have read my mind,
Bruno.
Non-machine-emulable is angel. OK.
Why do they(?) have to be called "angel"? Can one liken them(?) to the
theological description of an angel or is there some other r
Tom Caylor writes:
We can't JUST DO things (like AI). Whenever we DO things, we are THINKING
ABOUT them. I'd venture to say that HOW WE THINK ABOUT THINGS (e.g.
philosophy, epistemology, etc.) is even MORE important that DOING THINGS
(engineering, sales, etc.). That is one way of looking at
I was just about to ask what an angel was! You must have read my
mind, Bruno.
Non-machine-emulable is angel. OK.
Why do they(?) have to be called "angel"? Can one liken them(?) to
the theological description of an angel or is there some other reason?
regards
Kim Jones
On 08/02/2006, at
Le 06-févr.-06, à 18:54, Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
My answer is probably too short, but I want to take the risk of being
misinterpreted in order to be plain:
OK, I will take the risk of misinterpreting you.
We can't JUST DO things (like AI).
Actually a Universal Dovetailer do not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest,
and I
hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in
order
to enhance my own understanding.
There is an emphasis on AI running through these disc
To realize that we are "just" machines in a physical world, and that
this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the
meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering
conceptualization.
To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then
to e
Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest,
and I
hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in
order
to enhance my own understanding.
There is an emphasis on AI running through these discussions, yet
you
seem to del
Le 05-févr.-06, à 17:38, Jeanne Houston a écrit :
I am a layperson who reads these discussions out of avid interest,
and I
hope that someone will answer a question that I would like to ask in
order
to enhance my own understanding.
There is an emphasis on AI running through these discu
Le 05-févr.-06, à 03:07, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species.
Norman,
As far as I understand you, we agree (on this a t least). The explanation on the list that I was alluding toward, is here, so you could perhaps verify:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html
Bruno
Le 05-févr.-06, à 00:51, Norman Samish a écrit :
Bruno,
tures which have them, into yielding information about
the "big questions." Anthropic principles, quantum immortality debates, etc.,
seem among examples of such efforts.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Jeanne Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brent M
Houston
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Danny Mayes writes:
Norman, Bruno and List:
In #2 I vote for Bruno: 'Nescio no est argumentum',
the fact that we "don't know about..." is not
applicable as an argument.
*
In the question of a 'simulation', however, I find a
more intrinsic point: (IN MY VOCABULARY) information
means "difference acknowledged". So what
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:30:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I agree. I guess in our local and sharable past, humans reached
> loebianity 200,000 years ago.
I'm not sure why you say 200Kya, other than it being the origin of our
species. There is a fair bit of evidence that something significa
Bruno,
Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say
my argument is not valid. Granted, much of what you write is
unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know
little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've
said so far:
(Norman
John,
Le 04-févr.-06, à 17:20, John M a écrit :
Bruno, You missed my point: whatever you want to test
is still WITHIN the - I condone - HALF which you deem
true. But it is perfectly circular: you test our human
logic/understanding within human logic/understanding.
I don't think so. I test
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
>
> > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
> > 3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and
> >you can agree that ALL OF THEM c
John,
Le 03-févr.-06, à 23:45, John M a écrit :
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just compare past systems of 'logic' - say back to
3000 years, about "the same nature (world)" and you
can agree that ALL OF THEM cannot be true.
I agree. I would say HALF of them are true. My
Bruno:
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
>
> > Bruno and list:
> >
> > We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
> > "understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow
> all
> > existence (whatever you may call it) by our human
> min
Le 02-févr.-06, à 08:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote:
Bruno:
>To believe in something in spite of refutation is "bad faith".
>To believe in something in spite of contrary evidences ? It depends. I
>can imagine situations where I would find that a remarkable attitude,
>and I can imagine other
Le 03-févr.-06, à 00:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I would like to think there is a qualitative difference between
scientific belief and religious belief: scientific belief is adjusted
in the light of contradictory evidence, while religious belief is not.
The problem is that we are bia
Le 02-févr.-06, à 17:31, Norman Samish a écrit :
My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible. If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible.
This could be a reasonable
Brent, list,
I've edited my previous post, added some corrections & notes, and pared down a
lot of the stuff from previous posts. At this point I'm sending it on a "for
what it's worth" basis -- I'm a little tired of it myself!
I've also thought to try to put this back in its original context b
That's very good, Tom! It's the conclusion I arrived at a few years ago, and
I don't see why you describe it as an abandonning of truth. I think being
upset at this conclusion is like reaching for the nearest nailed-down object
when you first learn that the Earth is a sphere: if you didn't fal
I would like to think there is a qualitative difference between scientific
belief and religious belief: scientific belief is adjusted in the light of
contradictory evidence, while religious belief is not. At the very least,
there is a quantitative difference: religious belief is adhered to more
- Original Message -
From: "Quentin Anciaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman
Samish a écrit :> (NS) I
Hi Norman,
Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit :
> (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate
> my brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. But
> even if it did,
> this would not be "me" returning from the dead - it woul
Brent Meeker wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>> Bruno wrote:>>
>>> I think everyone has religious faith...>>
>> >> Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a
searing statement, which >> goes back to why the word "theology" is
taboo. As it's commonly said, >> the two topics to stay away
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit :>> Bruno
Marchal wrote:>>> Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit
: I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle
difference in language between Danny and Stathis.
Danny refers to "believe in". I don
Norman wrote:
> I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if
there
> is no God, those that decide to have faith,
and
> have the ability to have faith, in a benign
God
> have gained quite a bit. They have faith in
an
> afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of
good
> over evil, etc
y have faith in
an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over
evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be
intolerable.
If there is no God, there is no afterlife and
they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life
and th
#x27;s Wager deserves more consideration.
Norman Samish
~~
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is
fallacious. If you w
capacity is what would generally be considered God.
Even though I don't think that personal gods
exist, there are benefits to having faith that they do. As Kevin Ryan
said, there is comfort in submission.
Norman
~
- Original Mes
Brent, list,
>>[Ben] At this point I'm not talking about aspiring. I'm talking
>>straightforwardly about being in control, making decisions -- at least for
>>oneself. Some want more power than that. Some have more power than that and
>>don't want it. Some have all that and want still more. Pare
Le 01-févr.-06, à 16:11, John M a écrit :
Bruno and list:
We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
"understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow all
existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind
and logic...
Who can be sure of that?
I like to leave a 'slot' open (may
Le 30-janv.-06, à 17:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote :
Bruno wrote:
I think everyone has religious faith...
Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement,
Its consequences are no less searing I'm afraid. It means that an
atheist is someone who has some religious
Bruno and list:
We are so sure about our infinite capabilities to
"understand" the entirety (wholeness) and follow all
existence (whatever you may call it) by our human mind
and logic...
I like to leave a 'slot' open (maybe WE are in the
restricted slot?) which is not accessible by our
idideationa
Le 30-janv.-06, à 18:49, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in
language between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to "believe in".
I don't think a scientist ever "believes in" a
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:15:59PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> >
> >If you have an answer to "Why does anything exist?" I'd be glad to hear it.
>
> OK, here are a few answers.
>
> "What is there? Everything! So what isn't there? Nothing!"
> --- Norm Levitt, after Quine
>
> "The r
Norman Samish wrote:
Hi John,
Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the
concept is - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely
likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be
congnizant.
The thing I'm agnostic about (defining
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Norman Samish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Norman:just imagine a fraction of the infinite
afterlife: to sing the pius chants for just 30,00
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense
because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and
die..."
Tom
Thats funny stuff. And true!
Danny Mayes
had simply believed some ancient doctrine.
That's no fun.
-Kevin
From: John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Norm
John M wrote:
Norman:
just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife:
to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by
'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain
and senility?
Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial
life for the introduction in heaven: let us say: th
can they lose?
> Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration.
>
> Norman Samish
> ~~
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: belie
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Brent, list,
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. "End" as something of value
doesn't imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning.
A person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does
have to confr
Brent, list,
>>> Your explication seems to turn on a pun. "End" as something of value
>>> doesn't imply a beginning.
>> To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
>> person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
>> confront that.
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Brent, list
Your explication seems to turn on a pun. "End" as something of value
doesn't imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
confront
Brent, list
> Your explication seems to turn on a pun. "End" as something of value doesn't
> imply a beginning.
To the contrary an end or goal or terminus generally entails a beginning. A
person interested in this subject from a theoretical viewpoint does have to
confront that. It may help to
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Tom, Brent, Bruno, list,
Bruno wrote & Brent agreed,
> I think everyone has religious faith...
I don't think that I could go along with that, at least not in the
strict sense of "religion" -- true enough, religion has, at its core,
valuings with regard to power and s
Tom, Brent, Bruno, list,
Bruno wrote & Brent agreed,
> I think everyone has religious faith...
I don't think that I could go along with that, at least not in the strict
sense of "religion" -- true enough, religion has, at its core, valuings with
regard to power and submission, ruling and b
"...even the statement 'I am not making sense' does not make sense
because I don't believe in sense. I'll shut up... and be alone... and
die..."
Tom
Tom wrote:
what are we left with?
To make my point more plain, I will give my own answer to this
question. If we abandon a belief in truth, or if we totally separate
truth from our lives, then what are we left with? We are left devoid
of meaning in our lives. We would end up with som
Bruno wrote:
I think everyone has religious faith...
Amen, Bruno, and Ben also! This is of course a searing statement,
which goes back to why the word "theology" is taboo. As it's commonly
said, the two topics to stay away from in conversation are religion and
politics.
But, without usin
also differences.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: belief
Le 29-janv.-06, à 20:02, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I largely agree with Stathis. I note a subtle difference in language
between Danny and Stathis. Danny refers to "believe in". I don't
think a scientist ever "believes in" a theory.
All right, you use "believe in" (quote included!) for the "
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is
fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and the
Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship
the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought,
you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied
yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures o
That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, the real
God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a few dozen people,
or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and may punish you. An
analogous situation arises when creationists demand that the Biblical
ver
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> [Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described
> above?]
>
I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God and
Heaven that was relevant.
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about t
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Danny Mayes writes:
My belief is that in matters of faith, you can choose to believe or
not believe based on whether it suits your personal preferences. Your
example of the Nazis would not apply because there is overwhelming
evidence that the Nazis existed. Perha
Danny Mayes writes:
My belief is that in matters of faith, you can choose to believe or not
believe based on whether it suits your personal preferences. Your example
of the Nazis would not apply because there is overwhelming evidence that
the Nazis existed. Perhaps it can be argued that the
86 matches
Mail list logo