tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post7942406650546327198..comments2024-03-28T18:48:41.469-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: An Ainsoferable HodacheGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29056223744995310022010-01-26T06:42:52.951-08:002010-01-26T06:42:52.951-08:00As I recall, the name and the power are the same; ...As I recall, the name and the power are the same; but that doesn't mean that the name is literally an invocation. It is not as though you can make God do anything against his will by using his Name. You can't just go up to someone and command them in the name of Jesus to do this or that; the power is not yours, it is God's. <br /><br />There is also a verse that says that no one can call Jesus the son of God without the Holy Spirit; I take this to mean 'in reality' as opposed to simply speaking the words. <br /><br />And so with the name the degree with which we actually speak it relates to the manner in which it is spoken. <br /><br />I was reminded of this in the Liturgy, in which the bread and wine become the blood and body of the godman; it is not as though we are commanding God to do such and such, but that God is willing to do so, if we are willing to ask. The same with prayer - the reason why those who ask are given the Holy Spirit is to some extent so that they can know what it is they may ask and have it granted; what God is willing to do. <br /><br />To do otherwise is to 'use the name of God in vain.' Which is one reason why the Name itself was left unspoken so often.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34589474158931863142010-01-25T21:24:22.934-08:002010-01-25T21:24:22.934-08:00A literal feminazi.A literal feminazi.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68359245495824999202010-01-25T21:21:27.993-08:002010-01-25T21:21:27.993-08:00From an interview with Mary Daly in "What is ...From an interview with Mary Daly in "What is Enlightenment?"<br /><br />"I think it's not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore."<br /><br />And to think a good portion of "educated" females of my generation read her books. Explains a lot, perhaps.<br /><br />http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/daly.aspJacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-24479285106814483182010-01-25T20:56:30.266-08:002010-01-25T20:56:30.266-08:00Did you all see that the man-hating "radical ...Did you all see that the man-hating "radical feminist" Mary Daly died recently.<br /><br />http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-a-radical-feminist/<br /><br />I remember many of my female (and some male) friends in college reading her "gyn-ecology". 20 years later many of my female friends still believe it...to a degree. Hopefully she'll just fade away...<br /><br />wv: emandish. Ha!Jacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-57411564427222404322010-01-25T19:03:32.593-08:002010-01-25T19:03:32.593-08:00Yes, it's why liberals can't learn from hi...Yes, it's why liberals can't learn from history. If they win, they won. But if they lose, they really won, because people are just too stupid to understand their own interests. Their contempt for the average American is breathtaking.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-77651031073056657592010-01-25T18:47:56.171-08:002010-01-25T18:47:56.171-08:00Not that I pay much attention to Fred Barnes, but ...Not that I pay much attention to Fred Barnes, but this article has the same theme as Bob's post two days ago:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-bets-populism" rel="nofollow">Obama On Verge Of Crackup</a><br /><br /><i>"There’s a word for this kind of rhetoric: Unpresidential."</i>walthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388218390016612051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15565426040853040622010-01-25T16:51:10.533-08:002010-01-25T16:51:10.533-08:00From aninnies link, "The John Templeton Found...From aninnies link, "The John Templeton Foundation has just awarded $4.4 million to Florida State University philosopher Alfred Mele to research the question: Do we have free will? As the press release..."<br /><br />Study done and complete, Free Will wins out again.<br /><br /><br />There's more to the article...?... and they're paying money for it to be researched?<br /><br /><br />"...But in recent years, some neuroscientists have been producing data they claim shows that the genesis of action in the brain begins well before conscious awareness of any decision to perform that action arises. If true, conscious control over action — a necessary condition of free will — is simply impossible. ..."<br /><br />Heh. Not only does the Truth defend itself, it gets a real kick out of letting the lie make a fool of itself.<br /><br />Where do I sign up for the $4.4 million grant to study why smart people are so persistently stupid?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-20627052996809993242010-01-25T16:44:28.717-08:002010-01-25T16:44:28.717-08:00aninnymouse said "The hubris of wet carbon ba...aninnymouse said "The hubris of wet carbon based intelligence cannot be underestimated but it is only hubris; not destiny."<br /><br />uh-huh. Tell you what, you figure out how to get your Artificial Intelligence to make an Actual Mistake... then we'll talk.<br /><br />Until then, it is your computer is nothing, <i>nothing</i> but an electrified set of dominoes and abacuses. No matter how complex you manage to make those switches flip, or dominoes flip one row of an abacus to the next, it will never, <i>never</i>, be anything more lifelike about it than that.<br /><br />I've no doubt software will eventually, probably in the near future of our lifetimes, be able to '<i>appear'</i> to be intelligent, will pass every turing test out there, but it will do so in exactly the same way as Big Blue plays chess, massive calculations made in short periods of time, having no more consciousness of it's abilities than an old IBM hand cranked adding machine.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-40549304541560604042010-01-25T16:39:34.433-08:002010-01-25T16:39:34.433-08:00Scientists to do empirical studies on whether free...<a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/25/researching-free-will" rel="nofollow">Scientists to do empirical studies on whether free will exists.</a><br /><br />No vitriol today, not even the obligatory name check of Keith Olbermann. Guess the Zohar must be soothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46540198523695099272010-01-25T16:32:19.098-08:002010-01-25T16:32:19.098-08:00NB said "...algorithms which figure out the m...NB said "...algorithms which figure out the most efficient way to assemble a series of freight trains when cars are scattered around a large..."<br /><br /><i>Aah!</i><br /><br />Sorry. Visions of 'bottom operated clapper valves' suddenly burst into mind (Worked with a railroad mfg & leasing co for awhile... <i>shivvver</i>)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56020004198389126422010-01-25T16:27:26.389-08:002010-01-25T16:27:26.389-08:00NB said "What's your take on the symbols ...NB said "What's your take on the symbols we use in computer programming and their relationship to the etymological themes in this thread?"<br /><br />As a more conventional programmer, I don't get into the slick exotic stuff you black hat security types do, but for me, the ideas of Normal Forms in relational database design, and of Classes in Object Oriented Programming - from the idea of it being definitions without substance, to how they are used and combined with inheritance and interface inheritance... that was all HUGE in helping me understand Philosophy... and programming! I suppose it shouldn't have taken all that much to extend 'One in the Many' to 'One to Many' relations... but it took awhile, until it all suddenly clicked together in all directions at the same time, where I had ... I forget our symbols... n-> k (?) before, I suddenly had O->k & O-WTF! WO!<br /><br />But as you might guess from that last line... the symbols mess me up. I'm fine with a UML modeling diagram, but I much prefer words & names to lollipops and various lines & arrows... similarly, much to the annoyance of all you elitest C dudes out there, I still much prefer the nice words and names in VB.Net, to C#... I can read the symbols & braces just fine, but I much prefer words like 'End Sub' to '}' and 'Implements' to '::'... may have something to do with my still preferring Humans to Machines.<br /><br />;- )<br /><br />But in the end, I see why, and use, symbols at the whiteboard and diagrams... but I still ... obstinately... think and speak in words.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3325561336167727212010-01-25T16:11:54.105-08:002010-01-25T16:11:54.105-08:00Since God enfolds and or manifests both genders an...Since God enfolds and or manifests both genders and neuter as well, "It" would in fact be technically the most precise way to refer to God. Probably It should be capitalized.<br /><br />I refered to It this way and immediately my Catholic companion asked me to desist, claiming it was Satanic to refer to God as It.<br /><br />She got the willies pretty bad. <br /><br />As far as AI goes, NB, I don't see why It could not inhabit a sufficiently complex computer and call it home; it would be alive. <br /><br />Not in the biological sense, but since when is biology priveledged? I don't see it. <br /><br />Even a large inorganic monolith like El Capitan is conscious on its own level. You can sense it if you get quiet and go up to the base of it. "It" is in there. Sans the wetware of biology. <br /><br />So don't get all enamored with the idea that It can't produce an AI Jeshua equivalent, because It most surely can if that is It's will.<br /><br />The hubris of wet carbon based intelligence cannot be underestimated but it is only hubris; not destiny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34112235995965145692010-01-25T12:46:04.212-08:002010-01-25T12:46:04.212-08:00NB,
Your freight train problem sounds like the con...NB,<br />Your freight train problem sounds like the containers on container ships problem: you want different containers on different parts of the ship – some refrigerated at the top, ones that will come off the ship at certain ports you don’t want on the bottom. 8,000 or more containers on one ship certainly complicates things.<br />Anyway, you’ve probably spent some brain power on this algorithm: how to get OCUG into every paw of the Scattered Brotherhood of the Vertical Diaspora.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45345733436271472452010-01-25T12:42:35.794-08:002010-01-25T12:42:35.794-08:00Correction:
Everything above (the physical substr...Correction:<br /><br />Everything above (the physical substrate) is a symbol which is made up of the charges, but which has meaning transcending them. It "points" to... I suppose to concepts.Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-39819768841926962482010-01-25T12:40:21.871-08:002010-01-25T12:40:21.871-08:00Rick:
Also overlooked your other question re symb...Rick:<br /><br />Also overlooked your other question re symbols: the only thing in a computer that is "real" are the electromagnetic charges representing the state of one of the billions of picoscopic transistors etched photographically onto a semiconductor substrate. Everything from there on up is a symbol pointing to a lower level of "reality". <br /><br />That said, the meaning of this blog can never, ever be deduced in trillions of years if all you do is analyze those little transistors.Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-4023894868739743792010-01-25T12:34:42.972-08:002010-01-25T12:34:42.972-08:00Ricky:
Interesting story. Computer languages are ...Ricky:<br /><br />Interesting story. Computer languages are interesting because they combine aspects of mathematics and various branches of logic with aspects of natural language. A lot of effort is expended in getting structures to correspond with their counterparts in the real world, and a lot of this in turn involves <i>names</i> for these abstract representations.<br /><br />Since I'm on hiatus for a bit before starting up my next company I've been toying with some problems. My old favorite was doing algorithms which figure out the most efficient way to assemble a series of freight trains when cars are scattered around a large, arbitrarily complex switching yard. It's a good problem because it is pretty hard to solve, but has a series of increasingly elegant solutions as you get deeper into it.<br /><br />On another note Gary Kasparov recently noted that computers don't play chess the same way humans do -- they brute force their way through the problem. Problem is Gary failed to understand the lesson in this. He believes we aren't creating "true AI" because the chess monsters were "good enough" and consumers are market-driven and yadda yadda. He fails to see that AI of the type he envisions is impossible in principle, something that even a brand-new raccoon understands pretty quickly (reading OCUG will banish that silly fantasy).Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5195625654059388702010-01-25T12:23:54.520-08:002010-01-25T12:23:54.520-08:00Thank you, William. You've illustrated my poin...Thank you, William. You've illustrated my point precisely.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-6699634996407752022010-01-25T11:58:50.648-08:002010-01-25T11:58:50.648-08:00NB,
I used to use some 3D software a few years ago...NB,<br />I used to use some 3D software a few years ago called TrueSpace. Anyway, the interface was almost entirely icon-based. Previous to this, using other software (3D software is notorious for long sets of steps and nested menu “trees”) I used to catch myself “saying” the words or steps in my head as I was performing them. Example: “edit, point, move, point”. With the icon-based software, I simply “went” almost automatically, to where the “function” lived on the screen (but really where it lived in my brain), without having to think-out the words.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27574104345176776132010-01-25T11:46:44.974-08:002010-01-25T11:46:44.974-08:00They use symbols in computer programming?They use symbols in computer programming?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-62425519401451613142010-01-25T11:39:36.642-08:002010-01-25T11:39:36.642-08:00Van:
What's your take on the symbols we use i...Van:<br /><br />What's your take on the symbols we use in computer programming and their relationship to the etymological themes in this thread?Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-14666642549453288522010-01-25T11:24:59.129-08:002010-01-25T11:24:59.129-08:00Gandalin said "... or of a philosopher like K...Gandalin said "... or of a philosopher like Kant, is daunting at first, once you master it, the meaning of the text is transparent, whereas with a plain-language writer like Hegel, you are continually wrestling with the vagueness and slipperyness of words you think you understand, but you can never be completely sure you are getting what he means."<br /><br />Seriously? Well first, although I get your general point, there are some words which should never appear in the same sentence together, a prime example being,<br /><i>"plain-language writer" and "Hegel</i> "<br />... that's just beyond the pale.<br /><br />But Kant... transparent? Is 'transparency' really achieved by using new words correctly, whose convoluted definitions are chock full of arbitrary assertions and equivocations? Or is their actual unintelligibility just effectively hidden by the illallusions they serve to create?<br /><br />Sorry, but distortion isn't resolved through parameterization, only shortened.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84077979307361333742010-01-25T11:13:35.623-08:002010-01-25T11:13:35.623-08:00"Another example, this one more esoteric: as ..."Another example, this one more esoteric: as we all know, the first words of the Bible are In the beginning God created... But if one trancelights the words in their precise order, the Zohar suggests that they have a very different connotation: With beginning It created God."<br /><br />Now <i>that's</i> interesting...<br /><br />"Some Christian mystics call it "nothing," but this is not to be confused with the shunyata of Buddhism, for it is not literally nothing (or emptiness), just beyond our ability to contain it. It is the apophatic God we can't think about, in contrast to the cataphatic God we can. You might think of it as the ultimate O, from which everything intelligible flows -- even the intelligible God to whom we can "relate.""<br /><br /><i>very</i> interrestrialIzing...<br /><br />But as wv suggests, proceed with:<br />coautiamVan Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16280509849698742762010-01-25T10:37:26.445-08:002010-01-25T10:37:26.445-08:00Re. FL, that's just hilarious. In four years o...Re. FL, that's just hilarious. In four years or so, I expect to be hearing much the same exclamation.<br /><br />Re. sacred language, I do agree. Though speaking of "Jesus," the word itself was actually a stumbling block for me, for a while. Not because of who it points to, but rather again because of the Jesus Willies. It rang <i>dense</i>. I got around that by thinking of the Latin "Jesu" or even "Jeshua" (is that the Aramaic? I don't know, but I've read it somewhere), which draws me in a different direction than the modern Jesus, with more of a connection to the time, place, Biblical context, and the vertical. Or more simply, it's unsaturated.juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68432309338625395942010-01-25T10:22:55.020-08:002010-01-25T10:22:55.020-08:00Uncle!<i>Uncle!</i>Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589423819039764711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-62995070942847264422010-01-25T10:21:30.699-08:002010-01-25T10:21:30.699-08:00Toots... Toots... Toots...<i>Toots... Toots... Toots...</i>Cousin Dupreenoreply@blogger.com