what should i say, another delightful reaction by you.

On Fri, 23 May 2003 10:24:11 +0000, Sean Charles wrote
> > you have paralized my questions by talking about something other...but 
> > this
> > was your aim i think.
> >
> Yes but not in a hostile way, my brain just shot off that way at the 
> time.  From your original message I knew this was going to be 
> Philosophy 101 for a while. ENJOY!
> >
> > my opinion is that God is one of the categories we recognize...
> Hmmmmm.....what if you 'don't believe' in a 'god' as such. Does he 
> still exist then? To whom does the term 'we' refer to, define 
> terms...'we' is a notional grouping in *your* mind based upon *your* 
> experiences. You cannot assume anything about anybody else's precise 
> background, you can only rely upon common shared experiences. As I 
> quite often say, "The trouble with averages is we are all individuals."
> 

i ment, a lot of people above some age recognize that there is 
something "hidden" in the nature and refer to this common term as: "god".

i do not know whether is still exists then - such a question is god-like, i 
am unable to answer it, its meaning is "hidden" to me. it is god ?

note: i do not believe in god (like christians do).

> >>>
> >> I have never found a satisfactory answer as to *why* computers work.
> >> Sure,  I know how they work, but *why* do they work. Anybody ever
> > you are lucky if you think *how* computers work.
> Believe me it's not *lucky*, it hurts my head every time I use one. 
> Essentially, a computer is a device that allows / enables physical 
> beings to manipulate the non-physical and then some! Ouch!!
> 
> > anyway "why" and "how" are
> > just two words so there is surely no harm if we exchange the "why"
> > with "how", or whatever word with whatever other word.
> Oh boy oh boy oh boy! You can't just swap words around like that and 
> expect it not to do harm! Next time I shake hands I shall say "Why 
> do you do?" and see what happens.
> 
> Oranges pain dribble wobbly woobly frooboids. Dingo you never car 
> marmalade???
> 
> That last sentence was in fact the opening line of UK national 
> anthem but I just swapped words about. I am sure you understood that 
> it was the UK national anthem didn't you. I am not going to 
> eleborate further as that remark about being able to swap words, was,
>  quite frankly, surprisingly dumb from a smart guy. Oh hell, I can't 
> resist...words are only sounds attached to repetitive associations 
> of experiences as you grow up. My son is 19 months and really 
> getting the hang of talking now and it is a real eye-opener for me 
> to see how he's piecing it all together. If I tell him that the door 
> is called a grapefruit, consistently, he will (a) beleive me and (b) 
> get me into trouble when he starts attending play-school!
> 

i have never heard nor read the text of UK national anthem ...

> >
> > i have read GEB too and must say that the impact was decisive. people who
> > read that book usually end in the same way - wondering about the littlest
> > things around them.
> Yup! I've not been 'normal' since then! It is a profound book and I 
> am glad that in my existence in this world I encountered it and 
> understood large parts of it. I have my own copy and I always read a 
> bit when I think life is getting dull! It can be a very unsettling book.
> >
> > i heard a professor on my university saying that he believes universe is
> > discrete in its nature.
> 
> >
> > people nowadays just "pass" cinemas by. but there were times, in the
> > beginnings of cinematography, when people deeply wondered about how it 
> > can be
> > posible that they can see the past. philosophers have written essays
> > concerning the god-like magic behind the process of filming and repetitive
> > showing of the filmed. it has had something to do with time and space, 
> > their
> > interaction ....
> Given that space-time is considered to be 'all there at once' and 
> that we are merely 'moving through it', this is something that might 
> come back to shock us all! I often freak out at rewinding the video, 
> I mean, the timeline is going forward but the film is going 
> backwards. Maybe if we all got together one day and brought a video 
> each and all rewind it at the same time something quite profound 
> might happen...and somebody can film the whole thing and play that 
> backwards too to reset us all.
> 
> >
> > there are cases in which i am unable to preciselly reproduce the numbers 
> > i
> > have obtained. as a said it is because i am not perfect (just like anyone
> > else). you never enter the same river. development as such is a
> > unidirectional process, it recurs but never repeats.
> Hmmmmm. Depends what you mean here. You can *always* reproduce the 
> numbers,  what you may not be able to reproduce is the process that 
> generated them.  I think that's what you are trying to tell me!
> 
> Don't go too deep for an essentially simple process. Software is for 
> the most part mechanistic (calm down everybody!) in that, if I write 
> a function to return the sum of two numbers and hand it 2 and 2, I 
> expect to see the result 4 every time, regardless of language or 
> process. (Goidel, where are you!). I do agree however that there are 
> environmental considerations; yesterday it worked, today the disk is 
> full and it doesn't work. That's ok by me.
> 
> >
> > does it matter after i have read what you have written above ....
> Does any of it matter. Do we matter? What is matter?
> 
> >>> so, are we working with objects or just manipulating text ?
> >>>
> >> Yes and yes.
> >>
> >
> > glass and glass. water and water. and and and. everything is nothing.
> > (foolish, isn't it?) have we advanced ourselves?
> OOOOooooooooh! Cheeky, you know what I meant (Ooops! Hoisted by my 
> own petard!)...I simply meant that mentally, you are working with 
> objects while physically it happens to be 'text'. Whatever that is. 
> Sigh, I think I am losing it. What's it? Wotsit. A Cheesy snack.
> 
> >
> > names do differentiate, but spatial position does also.
> Agreed, but should you ever discover to a means to make two objects 
> co-exist in the same space at the same time then you will be a rich 
> man! Imagine a stack of oranges (don't anybody mention *that* 
> mathematical problem, I think it was solved recently) and you want 
> to green-grocer dude to give you the one from the middle. Surely by 
> saying 'I want the one in the middle' you have attached a naming 
> reference to that orange, sorry, thing you want to buy. You  *must* 
> name things. It all comes down to the minutae of the naming process. 
> Even if you just wave hand signals for up, down, left-a-bit, grab it 
> then those hand signals, in that sequence required to locate the 
> goal fruit constitutes a 'name' albeit a very long winded and long 
> one but a name nonetheless.
> 
> > Mescalin etc...
> > thanks, but i will not try it.
> Why not?> Look what it did for me! ;-)
> 
> Sean Charles.