Temporary Reality

[Kim Jones-2]

Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct  
theology? Materialistic atheism is not irrational, being on the side  
of reason, but it may be illogical, given the advanced view of reality  
we are adopting on this list that challenges the myth of a hard  
material substratum.

Nevertheless

I can see a distinct need for this illogicality.

de Bono says that the mind goes from equilibrium to equilibrium which  
means we only ever see/perceive what the mind is prepped by belief to  
see.

The mind craves stable states - we cope very badly with change we  
ourselves are not controlling or desiring

We literally cannot see what we do not already possess some kind of  
belief/theory/hypothesis/guess etc. about

that's the magnificent thing about hominid minds - they're able to  
"make sense" of anything at all; without this faculty we wouldn't have  
gotten this far


But it's also a worry


We find it extremely difficult to switch our perception away from our  
favourite, automated patterns of recognition
Anything new will only be judged by the knowledge of the past i.e. the  
sequence of arrival of all information converted to knowledge up to  
that point. Anything truly new cannot therefore be understood easily.

This is the "mathematical necessity" for Lateral Thinking and other  
disruptive mental operations that reboot perception so that previously  
hidden realities come into purview.

It's also how humour works, another reason humour is an incredibly  
significant part of thinking.


This would mean that atheism would be like a provocative operation  
designed to perturb the fake certainty of most religion so that  
perhaps a new appreciation based on renewed and broader perception  
comes about.


as de Bono says "it can be perfectly logical to be illogical at times."


Kim




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 May 2009, at 08:53, Kim Jones wrote:

>
> Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
> theology?



Ah ah, I see that you want to provoke me :)

Hard to say, I am discovering that many atheist websites adopt a new  
definition of atheism, making it a form of agnosticism. This differs  
from the atheist living in my neighborhood who dismiss agnosticism as  
a coward form of atheism.

So just to fix the thing, I assume you are talking on the real  
atheist, those who have the faith in the non existence of God. OK.
And by God I assume the Judeo-Islamo-Christiano God, to fix the thing,  
all right? (obviously there are nuances there)




> Materialistic atheism is not irrational, being on the side
> of reason,



Who says that?




> but it may be illogical,


It may be wrong. Because it is an assertion. (Illogical or invalid  
bears on reasonings or proofs)

> given the advanced view of reality
> we are adopting on this list that challenges the myth of a hard
> material substratum.
>
> Nevertheless
>
> I can see a distinct need for this illogicality.
>
> de Bono says that the mind goes from equilibrium to equilibrium which
> means we only ever see/perceive what the mind is prepped by belief to
> see.
>
> The mind craves stable states - we cope very badly with change we
> ourselves are not controlling or desiring
>
> We literally cannot see what we do not already possess some kind of
> belief/theory/hypothesis/guess etc. about
>
> that's the magnificent thing about hominid minds - they're able to
> "make sense" of anything at all; without this faculty we wouldn't have
> gotten this far

In Hobson theory of dream, the dreams result from quasi random  
information generated by the cerebral stem into the cortex, and the  
cortex would just create meanings from that information. The Ganzfeld  
procedure shows also how much the brain can generate meaning from  
random inputs:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/graphics/011109_hacking_your_brain/

You are right I think, it is a fundamental ability. Note also the  
experiments made by Penfield: you can't trig (electrically) a brain so  
that someone loose its identity in any first person way. It looks like  
some fixed theorem in computer science. Drugs confirms that too.

>
>
>
> But it's also a worry
>
>
> We find it extremely difficult to switch our perception away from our
> favourite, automated patterns of recognition
> Anything new will only be judged by the knowledge of the past i.e. the
> sequence of arrival of all information converted to knowledge up to
> that point. Anything truly new cannot therefore be understood easily.

Sure.


>
>
> This is the "mathematical necessity" for Lateral Thinking and other
> disruptive mental operations that reboot perception so that previously
> hidden realities come into purview.


I think the brain does already this during the night.




>
>
> It's also how humour works, another reason humour is an incredibly
> significant part of thinking.



Humour, and many other art. Dreams are also forms of self-made art.  
Sometimes I make comical dreams, full of jokes.




>
>
>
> This would mean that atheism would be like a provocative operation
> designed to perturb the fake certainty of most religion


Science is agnostic, and cannot do any absolute ontological  
commitment. Atheists give a wrong idea of science, and that is worst  
than simply provoke. For me Atheism is really just a variant of  
Christianism. They both believe in one of the Aristotelian God, a  
material nature. They both fight against agnosticism and any form of  
return to rationalism in the field. At least, like in the ex-Soviet  
Union, good christian theologians continue discretely the serious  
research, despite and through the authoritative arguments.




> so that
> perhaps a new appreciation based on renewed and broader perception
> comes about.
>
>
> as de Bono says "it can be perfectly logical to be illogical at  
> times."

That's what the guardian angel G* tells to the machine G, but it adds,  
like Sally apparently, that you have to keep your mouth close here. It  
is once more again a truth which transforms itself into a falsity when  
made explicit. It belongs to the corona G* minus G. You can teach  
those Protagorian virtue only by example and practice, never by  
assertions. Sorry for being so literal, I just like so much the case  
of ideally correct machine. And you help me to put the finger on what  
disturbs me a little in de Bono. It is like he tries to teach G* minus  
G (in comp-auda terms). Perhaps. It is really the non emptiness of G*  
minus G which makes the good intentions paving the road to hell.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
go?

But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
result in expanding our consciousness?

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/5/4  <daddycaylor@...>:
>
> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
> go?
>
> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> result in expanding our consciousness?

Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kim Jones-2]

On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycaylor@... wrote:

> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> Tom


What particular (and verifiable) personal interactions with God would  
you be able to claim Tom?

Many people make this stupefying claim from time to time, but none  
have ever been independently verified to my knowledge.

But then I guess it would no longer be "personal". That's the trouble  
with "experiences of God". Being so personal, you can only wait for  
your own personal experience to turn up. What if it doesn't?

Best regards,

Kim Jones





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

On May 5, 1:27 am, Kim Jones <kimjo...@...> wrote:

> On 04/05/2009, at 12:57 PM, daddycay...@... wrote:
>
> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> > person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> > result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> > Tom
>
> What particular (and verifiable) personal interactions with God would  
> you be able to claim Tom?
>

If you look at what I wrote, I am not claiming anything.

> Many people make this stupefying claim from time to time, but none  
> have ever been independently verified to my knowledge.
>
> But then I guess it would no longer be "personal". That's the trouble  
> with "experiences of God". Being so personal, you can only wait for  
> your own personal experience to turn up. What if it doesn't?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kim Jones

If you look at what I wrote, I am simply asking about two logical
implications.

The first question is in the form of, "Does A imply B?":

> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of  fake
> Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to go?

The second question is in the form of, "Doesn't C imply D?":

> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> result in expanding our consciousness?

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 May 2009, at 18:19, daddycaylor@... wrote:



>
> The second question is in the form of, "Doesn't C imply D?":
>
>> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
>> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
>> result in expanding our consciousness?


It makes sense for me. But I must add it could make sense also, for  
me,  with an impersonal God (like a priori the "aritmetical truth", or  
the "usual aristotelian cosmos", or the Chinese TAO). Looking at the  
stars for example  can result in expanding consciousness.
And many things can expand consciousness (learning math, wandering in  
Mountains, meditations, taking some drugs, meeting nice people, etc.)
Somehow life expand consciousness, despite the blind alleys. But the  
blind alleys result themselves from the existence of consciousness.

Currently I don't think we can decide if "God" is a person or a thing,  
just from comp. Even assuming the arithmetical intepretation of the  
hypostases. Open problem, but I am interested. Actually I don't really  
decipher Plotinus on that question, but I keep trying.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:

> 2009/5/4  <daddycay...@...>:
>
>
>
> > I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> > fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
> > go?
>
> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> > person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> > result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
> bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou

The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
universe [by a person].  As part of the process of calling Kim's
suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Jesse Mazer]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

> Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700
> Subject: Re: Temporary Reality
> From: daddycaylor@...
> To: everything-list@...
>
>
> On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:
>> 2009/5/4  <daddycay...@...>:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
>>> fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
>>> go?
>>
>>> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
>>> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
>>> result in expanding our consciousness?
>>
>> Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
>> bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> universe [by a person]. As part of the process of calling Kim's
> suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.
>

What do you mean when you say that *we* are "persons", though? The word can carry different hidden connotations for different people. Would you say that a deterministic A.I. computer program could be a "person" or does the word suggest free will or a soul? Does the word suggest we have some sort of essential self that remains unchanged over time, in contrast to the view of the self as an ever-changing dynamical process that's suggested by modern neuroscience (and perhaps also by Buddhism)? Do "persons" have natural boundaries or can there be something subjective about where one person ends and another begins--for example, would it be wrong in any absolute sense to view my left and right brain as two separate persons cooperating and sharing information by a high-bandwidth channel? If technology allowed different human brains to share information in the same way, a la the "Borg" in Star Trek, could the resulting collective mind be seen as a single person? Some mystical/idealist philosophies might say that our minds are already all connected on a sort of subconscious or implicit level, and that "God" is a name for this sort of collective self shared by all of us...I sometimes think that something like this could be true in some sort of transhumanist "Omega Point" theory in which intelligence is destined to expand towards infinite complexity, with every "smaller" mind existing both as an entity in itself but also recreated within "larger" minds further in the future (I offered some speculations about this in the context of reconciling the ASSA with quantum immortality at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/988c1148d589747d )

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kim Jones-2]

On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycaylor@... wrote:

> The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> universe [by a person].


OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a  
"staging post" to a future, more "correct" theology. As such, atheism  
could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I  
refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be  
wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its  
habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to  
something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By  
being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the  
local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of  
"movement" can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God  
expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the  
conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN  
we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for  
"correct theology" to see the light of day. This process actually  
appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm  
talking about it.

Bruno's suggestions about the "nature of God" (a person, a thing, a  
mathematical "truth", an experience of altered states, a relationship  
etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an  
already-expanded consciousness.



>  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.


Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we  
are all of us "God". Religion says that Man was made in the image of  
God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the  
relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one.

K


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/5/7  <daddycaylor@...>:

>
> On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:
>> 2009/5/4  <daddycay...@...>:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
>> > fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
>> > go?
>>
>> > But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
>> > person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
>> > result in expanding our consciousness?
>>
>> Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
>> bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> universe [by a person].  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.

That we are persons, conscious, have feelings is an obvious truth and
an important truth, and maybe even a fundamental truth. But I don't
see how that leads to the idea of big, supernatural person. This is
the same sort of thinking that led more primitive people to the idea
of a sky god, or a fertility god, or a god for whatever else they
(quite legitimately) considered profound and important.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

On May 6, 3:14 pm, Kim Jones <kimjo...@...> wrote:

> On 07/05/2009, at 4:33 AM, daddycay...@... wrote:
>
> > The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> > using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> > universe [by a person].
>
> OK - the only advantage I am suggesting is that atheism be seen as a  
> "staging post" to a future, more "correct" theology. As such, atheism  
> could be serving a strictly beneficial purpose at this time. Why I  
> refer to it as temporary reality. It may actually be necessary to be  
> wrong about something to provoke the mind to jump off the rails of its  
> habitual patterns of recognition in order to open up the perception to  
> something hitherto unseen. This is what Lateral Thinking does. By  
> being openly wrong or outrageously inaccurate about something, the  
> local equilibrium of the mind is perturbed and the possibility of  
> "movement" can follow. Your suggestion that a relationship with God  
> expands consciousness is fine. IF such a thing were true THEN the  
> conclusion follows. I also offer the thought that IF God exists THEN  
> we may have to ditch all organised religion at some stage to allow for  
> "correct theology" to see the light of day. This process actually  
> appears to be underway in many parts of the globe which is why I'm  
> talking about it.
>

Yes, it seems to me that the process of relating to God as a person
and therefore expanding consciousness would result in continuously
"ditching all organized religion" as you put it, i.e. continously
having the old skins slough off to make way for the new.  Such is the
way of life.

> Bruno's suggestions about the "nature of God" (a person, a thing, a  
> mathematical "truth", an experience of altered states, a relationship  
> etc.) is the kind of thought that would probably only occur to an  
> already-expanded consciousness.
>
> >  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> > suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> > possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> > simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.
>
> Couldn't agree more. If you want my tuppence worth on this I say we  
> are all of us "God". Religion says that Man was made in the image of  
> God. Well, it could obviously be the other way around. Whatever the  
> relationship, it is clearly a symmetrical one.
>
> K

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

On May 6, 12:47 pm, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@...> wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Temporary Reality
> > From: daddycay...@...
> > To: everything-list@...
>
> > On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@...> wrote:
> >> 2009/5/4  <daddycay...@...>:
>
> >>> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> >>> fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
> >>> go?
>
> >>> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> >>> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> >>> result in expanding our consciousness?
>
> >> Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
> >> bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.
>
> >> --
> >> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> > The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> > using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> > universe [by a person].  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> > suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> > possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> > simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.
>
> What do you mean when you say that *we* are "persons", though?

I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what
consciousness is.  We just have to go right ahead and be a person and
relate to other persons, in faith.  Rather like relating to my wife.
I've given up trying to figure her out, draw up a theory on who she is
and why, and based on that theory algorithmically (is that word
allowed in here?) come up with what therefore I should do in each
situation.  I have to just be me and it seems to usually work out,
thankfully.  Sorry I can't be more precise.


> The word can carry different hidden connotations for different people. Would you say that a deterministic A.I. computer program could be a "person" or does the word suggest free will or a soul? Does the word suggest we have some sort of essential self that remains unchanged over time, in contrast to the view of the self as an ever-changing dynamical process that's suggested by modern neuroscience (and perhaps also by Buddhism)? Do "persons" have natural boundaries or can there be something subjective about where one person ends and another begins--for example, would it be wrong in any absolute sense to view my left and right brain as two separate persons cooperating and sharing information by a high-bandwidth channel? If technology allowed different human brains to share information in the same way, a la the "Borg" in Star Trek, could the resulting collective mind be seen as a single person? Some mystical/idealist philosophies might say that our minds are already all connected on a sort of subconscious or implicit level, and that "God" is a name for this sort of collective self shared by all of us...I sometimes think that something like this could be true in some sort of transhumanist "Omega Point" theory in which intelligence is destined to expand towards infinite complexity, with every "smaller" mind existing both as an entity in itself but also recreated within "larger" minds further in the future (I offered some speculations about this in the context of reconciling the ASSA with quantum immortality athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/988c1148d589747d)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kim Jones-2]

On 07/05/2009, at 3:43 PM, daddycaylor@... wrote:

I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what
consciousness is.  

Good. Have you ever had the feeling/hunch/thought/intuition/apprehension/revelation/vision (call it what you will) that you know a "person" to whom the best possible descriptive concept you could apply is "God"? I take it you are struck by the persona, the personability, the closeness, the life-like (in the human sense) character of what is called often "God"?

We just have to go right ahead and be a person and
relate to other persons, in faith.

Yes. But how could we be un-persons toward each other?

 Rather like relating to my wife.

I'd rather like to relate to your wife. 

I've given up trying to figure her out,

Have you ever wondered if she has given up trying to figure you out?

draw up a theory on who she is
and why, and based on that theory algorithmically (is that word
allowed in here?)

Of course

come up with what therefore I should do in each
situation.

But that's the only thing you could do if you feel you want to stay with your wife. Has she got algorithms locked in for dealing with you? It's the sensible thing for any "person" to do in dealing with another "person". Humans are pretty predictable machines after a while. 

The other thing you can do is an OPV (other person's viewpoint) and tell each other what you think the other knows or understands about you. When you do this you can either correct each other's faulty perceptions (not recommended - danger of argument) or listen awestruck (highly recommended) as your worst fears are confirmed OR you are amazed at how well your partner does understand you. 

 I have to just be me

When were you NOT yourself Dear Tom?

and it seems to usually work out,
thankfully.  Sorry I can't be more precise.

You've been perfectly precise

So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it

Hint:

If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:

1. God is a person (100% convinced)

2. There is a God (74% convinced)

best regards,

Kim

42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot. 

- Steven Wright

Email:

kmjcommp@...

kimjones@...

Web:

http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music

Phone:

(612) 9389 4239  or  0431 723 001 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[daddycaylor]

On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones <kimjo...@...> wrote:

> So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it
>
> Hint:
>
> If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:
>
> 1. God is a person (100% convinced)
>
> 2. There is a God (74% convinced)
>

People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
God is a person and/or that there is a God.  Let me give you a hint
that that's not the kind of thing that I would think is worthwhile to
try to "convince" people about my wife.  ("convince" Wow, we
westerners sure thing we have a lot of power.)  And even if I thought
that it was worthwhile, I certainly wouldn't go about try to
accomplish that by doing an OPV with that person about my wife.

But thanks, this brings up something I forgot to mention explicitly
about what I think is essential about being a person: relationship
with other people.  Not OPVs, too third-person for personhood.  It
takes two to tango.  Sorry to all of us who have been caught up in
individualism.  I am a rock, I am an island.  Islands do too die.
Perhaps this is what you were trying to get at with your own take on a
belief that God is a person, a feeling that it's somehow more
"symmetrical" than "organized religion" has tried to keep us
believing.

Tom

> best regards,
>
> Kim
>
> 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
>
> - Steven Wright
>
> Email:
> kmjco...@...
> kimjo...@...
>
> Web:http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music
>
> Phone:
> (612) 9389 4239  or  0431 723 001

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Jason Resch-2]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM,  <daddycaylor@...> wrote:

>
> On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones <kimjo...@...> wrote:
>> So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it
>>
>> Hint:
>>
>> If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:
>>
>> 1. God is a person (100% convinced)
>>
>> 2. There is a God (74% convinced)
>>
>
> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God.  Let me give you a hint
> that that's not the kind of thing that I would think is worthwhile to
> try to "convince" people about my wife.  ("convince" Wow, we
> westerners sure thing we have a lot of power.)  And even if I thought
> that it was worthwhile, I certainly wouldn't go about try to
> accomplish that by doing an OPV with that person about my wife.
>

If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything
with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe
that all possible gods exist.  Be they artificial intelligences that
occur in the universal dovetailer with access to unbounded computing
power and memory, an evolved species who reaches an omega point or
technological singularity, or anything else you might imagine.  What
can we say about the personalities, behaviors and abilities of these
gods?

It is said that when intelligent people disagree, it is often due to a
difference in available data.  Assuming these gods all possess
superior intellects, then they should all come to the same conclusion
when presented with the same data.  Mathematics, containing universal
truths and accessible regardless of the physical universe or
environment one finds his or her self in, might serve as a platform
for all gods to reach identical conclusions regarding everything.

Perhaps they would also conclude or even prove the existence of all
else as we on the everything list believe.  If it is possible, I would
expect those gods would develop a model for consciousness, which would
likely lead to the idea that other self-aware structures in math
exist, and perceive.  Though no god would have the power to eliminate
what inevitably exists in math (thus explaining the problem of evil),
they would still be able to run simulations of their own over which
they may exercise full control.  Perhaps the gods explore reality and
the limits of consciousness by instantiating universes and the
observers they contain, but for the god to really 'know' what it is
like to be someone else, that persons memories and experiences must
somehow be merged into the mind of that god, not simply simulated
(Like Mary the color scientist).

Thus whatever gods are simulating this universe (and inevitably some
explanations for our universe include a higher level simulation) then
we might be able to conclude some beliefs or properties of that god if
we assume that whatever truth we may find, the mind of God has already
come upon.

This is just one narrow definition of god as a creator, yet there are
certainly others.  A monotheistic God might have to be equivalent to
the everything, as it would be the only object for which there are no
others, and would be the ultimate source of the existence of all else
including the 'lesser gods' discussed above.  We could also choose to
define God as the collection of all first person experiences, meaning
each of us is a small part of God.  Interestingly you can somewhat map
these different god definitions to the trinity from Christianity.

Jason

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kim Jones-2]

On 08/05/2009, at 2:30 AM, daddycaylor@... wrote:

> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God.


OK - "we" will stop it! I don't really think that, but if you are  
anything like me Tom, you have gone through periods in your life where  
you believed, then you didn't believe, then you believed again, then  
you didn't believe again etc.


Then I ran into this guy called Richard Dawkins and I really really  
didn't believe after that.

Then I ran into this guy called Bruno Marchal and now I am sort of  
believing again although in what I would be rather hard put to say.


Sorry I can't be more precise....


As Edward de Bono says "Left to themselves things only ever get more  
and more complex. Simplicity has to be worked at."

I think the corollary of this is, the older you get, the more you know  
but the less you feel you understand. This whole issue sounds like  
nonsense when you are young but has become somewhat more important the  
older I get.


cheers,


K

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Kim Jones-2]

Fabulous post, Jason. Enthralling stuff.


Kim


On 08/05/2009, at 9:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
> If we on this list believe that everything (or at least everything
> with a self consistent definition) exists, then we must also believe
> that all possible gods exist.  Be they artificial intelligences that
> occur in the universal dovetailer with access to unbounded computing
> power and memory, an evolved species who reaches an omega point or
> technological singularity, or anything else you might imagine.  What
> can we say about the personalities, behaviors and abilities of these
> gods?
>
> It is said that when intelligent people disagree, it is often due to a
> difference in available data.  Assuming these gods all possess
> superior intellects, then they should all come to the same conclusion
> when presented with the same data.  Mathematics, containing universal
> truths and accessible regardless of the physical universe or
> environment one finds his or her self in, might serve as a platform
> for all gods to reach identical conclusions regarding everything.
>
> Perhaps they would also conclude or even prove the existence of all
> else as we on the everything list believe.  If it is possible, I would
> expect those gods would develop a model for consciousness, which would
> likely lead to the idea that other self-aware structures in math
> exist, and perceive.  Though no god would have the power to eliminate
> what inevitably exists in math (thus explaining the problem of evil),
> they would still be able to run simulations of their own over which
> they may exercise full control.  Perhaps the gods explore reality and
> the limits of consciousness by instantiating universes and the
> observers they contain, but for the god to really 'know' what it is
> like to be someone else, that persons memories and experiences must
> somehow be merged into the mind of that god, not simply simulated
> (Like Mary the color scientist).
>
> Thus whatever gods are simulating this universe (and inevitably some
> explanations for our universe include a higher level simulation) then
> we might be able to conclude some beliefs or properties of that god if
> we assume that whatever truth we may find, the mind of God has already
> come upon.
>
> This is just one narrow definition of god as a creator, yet there are
> certainly others.  A monotheistic God might have to be equivalent to
> the everything, as it would be the only object for which there are no
> others, and would be the ultimate source of the existence of all else
> including the 'lesser gods' discussed above.  We could also choose to
> define God as the collection of all first person experiences, meaning
> each of us is a small part of God.  Interestingly you can somewhat map
> these different god definitions to the trinity from Christianity.
>
> Jason
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stathis Papaioannou-2]

2009/5/7  <daddycaylor@...>:

> People here keep thinking that I am trying to "convince" people that
> God is a person and/or that there is a God.  Let me give you a hint
> that that's not the kind of thing that I would think is worthwhile to
> try to "convince" people about my wife.  ("convince" Wow, we
> westerners sure thing we have a lot of power.)  And even if I thought
> that it was worthwhile, I certainly wouldn't go about try to
> accomplish that by doing an OPV with that person about my wife.

The existence of your wife may at times may have to be proved
objectively, for example through presentation of a marriage
certificate for legal purposes. In any case, it's not something prima
facie incredible, like God is for everyone who doesn't have a belief
in that particular god. Someone who hates or is indifferent to your
wife might believe in her existence and her personhood as much as you
do, because the evidence demands it.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---