Friam

Faith

Classic

List

Threaded

118 messages Options

123456

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

If it is true that,

"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take him
from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and belief
can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same proposition?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

It would take the inverse form

Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
acceptance.

So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.

eg.
"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

On 9/24/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Russ,
>
> I take your point, but still, I would have a hard time composing a
> sentence of the form, " Russ has faith in X but he doesn't believe in
> it." Can you compose such a sentence for me?
>
> N
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Russ Abbott
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:42 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms.
> I
> would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."
>
>
>
> Tory,
>
>
>
> Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.
>
>
>
> My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world.
> But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone.
> Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that
> believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of
> what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as
> different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was
> focusing on.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Russ wrote, in part-
>
>
>
> Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)
>
>
>
>
>
> is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world
>
>
>
>
>
> doesn't seem to me to require faith.
>
>
>
> Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I
> find this suspiciously tautological.
>
>
>
> Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient
> life
> forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance'
> cases
> can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you
> believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for
> others to believe, from your own beliefs.
>
>
>
> And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't
> believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.
>
>
>
> Eagleman's new book Incognito
> <http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/030738
> 9928/r
> ef=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348460523&sr=1-1&keywords=incognito+by+
> david+
> eagleman> offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that
> eagleman> may
> interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard
> questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie

programs'

> that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as
> simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'
>
>
>
> A review David Eagleman's
> <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglem
> ans.ht
> ml> "Incognito" - Brainiac
>
>
>
> Tory
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>

Russ Abbott

Re: Faith

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Sarbajit,

I don't claim to speak for Western Buddhism. I suspect, though, that most Westerners who identify with Buddhism do not include rebirth as a part of their view of the world. The focus is more on the present, on acknowledging the world (including himself or herself) as it is -- and as it changes.

-- Russ

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Russ

1. Religion / faith is not something which can be "bought", although
the US Televangelists who buy cheap advertising on my cable TV
channels to sell me JEEEESSSSSUSSS at 4:00 a.m may disagree.

2. "Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian sub-continent"
(per wikipedia).

3. BUDDHUISM is a religion exogenous to the Indian sub-continent.
(per Sarbajit)
(FYI - The word buddhu means "fool, "idiot" or "moron ")

4. Western Buddhists are buddhus who by doing deep scholarly research
on fragments of bark containing the secrets of the Wise (Amida )
Buddha allegedly written 600 years after his death in 500 BCE (or was
it 400 BCE ?) think they "know" everything. These are the same Buddhus
who after looking at a dinosaur's bones conclude that dinosaurs had a
brain in their butt.

5. A Religion / Faith has to be experienced in its setting. Shifting
the setting causes it to lose its essence in translation. In computer
terms, the software is non-portable.

6. Whatever you chose to call it, there is no such thing as "modern"
Buddhism. Western (presumably United States of America Western)
Buddhuism is the concoction of tripped out frauds (who "experienced"
India/Nepal) and ranks on the same ersatz plane as American Chopsuey
and Chicken Tikka Masala. .

PS: Does (your ?) Western Buddhism model include "rebirth" ?

Sarbajit

On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not really buying that. My sense of modern (and especially western)
> Buddhism seems pretty God-free.
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_____________________________________________*
> *** Professor, Computer Science*
> * California State University, Los Angeles*
>
> * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
> Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
> *_____________________________________________*
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Buddhism may not have "a God" but Buddhism belief has "gods" who are
>> superior beings existing at various planes of existence. Their gods,
>> called "Devas", apparently exist at the highest plane of existence
>> well above humans, and animals, and various beings condemned
>> in past lives to inhabit hell (the lowest planes). Buddhism's "demons"
>> called "Asuras" occupy another zone.
>>
>> However, in Zorastrianism, conversely the gods are called "Ahuras" and
>> the demons are called "Daevas" (root terms of devil):
>>
>> So it seems possible that all these zones / planes are actually
>> political statements referring to events in some hoary past at an
>> indeterminate location.
>> http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm
>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20583/20583-h/20583-h.htm
>> (page 287)
>>
>> Re: Buddhism as a religion:
>> BTW: Are we referring to "God" as "creator- God" ?
>>
>> On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Thanks, Sarbajit. As I understand it Buddhism does not have a God. Does
>> > that mean you would not classify it as a religion?
>> >
>> > -- Russ
>> >
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>

Russ Abbott

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I've never spent much time studying modal logic. The doxastic logic version of faith that I pointed to in the Stanford Encyc of Phil article is a model logic version. Your example sentences are overflowing with modal modifiers. Personally I don't see why I wouldn't agree to the sentences in your example. But as I've said before, we seem to be mixing a number of different senses of "faith." To have faith that P (is true) is different from to have faith that event E will happen.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

If it is true that,

"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take him
from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and belief
can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same proposition?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

It would take the inverse form

Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
acceptance.

So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.

eg.
"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

On 9/24/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Russ,
>
> I take your point, but still, I would have a hard time composing a
> sentence of the form, " Russ has faith in X but he doesn't believe in
> it." Can you compose such a sentence for me?
>
> N
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Russ Abbott
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:42 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms.
> I
> would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."
>
>
>
> Tory,
>
>
>
> Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.
>
>
>
> My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world.
> But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone.
> Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that
> believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of
> what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as
> different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was
> focusing on.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Russ wrote, in part-
>
>
>
> Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)
>
>
>
>
>
> is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world
>
>
>
>
>
> doesn't seem to me to require faith.
>
>
>
> Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I
> find this suspiciously tautological.
>
>
>
> Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient
> life
> forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance'
> cases
> can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you
> believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for
> others to believe, from your own beliefs.
>
>
>
> And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't
> believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.
>
>
>
> Eagleman's new book Incognito
> <http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/030738
> 9928/r
> ef=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348460523&sr=1-1&keywords=incognito+by+
> david+
> eagleman> offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that
> eagleman> may
> interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard
> questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie
programs'
> that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as
> simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'
>
>
>
> A review David Eagleman's
> <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglem
> ans.ht
> ml> "Incognito" - Brainiac
>
>
>
> Tory
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

John Kennison

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

There are some things we take so completely on faith that we have great trouble even realizing that we are making an assumption. For example, when I open my eyes, I take it on faith that I am seeing an actual physical universe, and not simply recording impulses that my eyes forwarded to my brain which then refined them, etc.

But religious faith is not at all like that. Religious people often have to fight doubts --they often have to attend weekly meetings where they chant or sing or pray or perform rituals to keep their faith --they may hear sermons on the dangers of backsliding, etc.

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:29 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

If it is true that,

"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take him
from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and belief
can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same proposition?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

It would take the inverse form

Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
acceptance.

So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.

eg.
"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

On 9/24/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

programs'

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

In his biography - Sonny Barger is quoted as saying he wished the Angels had not been so closely tied to Harley - that the Japanese cruisers in particular were more reliable and much faster. He said that before the rebirth of Harley - post AMF. My Crossbones has the same reliability and overall quality as the competitors but is not as fast. But I cruise for hours at 90 (Mph no Kph) and even my goldwing could not do that as comfortably or as well.

davew

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

Roger -

And I think that is why Doug chooses a sleek German-Engineered machine over one of those big-iron sculptures you used to see on the side of the road being fiddled with... (now that they cost more than a Prius and only Doctors and Lawyers own them, that has changed a little). I have mostly been a Honda man with a few Yamahas and Suzuki's thrown in for spice.... I came within an inch of buying a Ducati Elefant once, but I've never had any of my old, worn out Jap bikes fail me! Of course, it is harder to ignore warning signs of problems on a motorcycle... if you hear a noise or feel a shimmy, you just look down, it is all right there threatening to come apart in your lap... fluid leaks end up ON you... etc. And that paranoia Dave and Doug profess, it goes double for "I wonder if I should repack that wheel bearing?".

But your point is well taken. In this discussion of "faith" (still in the subject line!), I'm amazed at how much the most faithless take on "blind faith" about such things. I marvel at the strength of materials and quality of design and workmanship on the simplest things *all the time* and I know I'm missing most of it. That 5000 lb Camp Trailer hung off the back of your truck by a 2" ball (with a 1" neck)? Amazing! Truly Amazing! And we haven't even talked about light planes (recently) yet!

- Steve
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

My father bought a wartime surplus Harley when he returned from WWII, had a grand good time stripping the military paintjob and repainting it only to have two scary accidents within a few months (civilian turning left in front of him, mechanical failure in the drive sprocket) which put him off the whole business.

I was going to bring up our faith in machines to continue to work as intended, despite our contrary experience. There's nothing quite like a 2 wheeler that becomes a 1-1/2 or 1 wheeler at any velocity worth mentioning.

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: faith - take 2

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

The faith discussion seemed to fall apart, but might now be pulling itself back together - hence the slight subject change.

One variant of the pragmatic dictum, using James's catchy phrasing, is that "There is no difference that doesn't make a difference." In this particular situation, the there is no "I have faith that" which doesn't have imply "doing y will have z consequence". Now, it is certainly might be possible that the consequence of your faith do not include a particular type of outcome that someone else thinks should be logically consequent; i.e., it is possible your faith that P is true is separate from your faith that a particular event E will happen. However, it is not possible that your "faith that P is true" is completely disconnected from your faith that certain events will occur under certain circumstances. Perhaps the circumstances are unlikely to occur, perhaps the relevant circumstances are so far in the future or past as to be barely worth discussing in the present (outside of conversations like this), but ultimately "There is no difference that doesn't make a difference." People with Faith in P must be different in some set of circumstances from people without Faith in P, or there is no difference between having and not-having such faith.

By the way, one interesting move someone could make in this conversation would be to claim that the crucial difference is that they claim to have Faith in P when asked. (This is, for example, how a subset of Christian's understand their "forgiveness" clause.) If that were accepted as true, then we would have to accept that there was no difference between "having Faith in P" and "claiming-to-have Faith in P" - you know, because if there is no difference then there is no difference. Thus, though that move might be tempting, the consequence is probably unpalatable to most. .

Eric

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 01:20 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've never spent much time studying modal logic. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic" onclick="window.open('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic');return false;">doxastic logic version of faith that I pointed to in the Stanford Encyc of Phil article is a model logic version. Your example sentences are overflowing with modal modifiers. Personally I don't see why I wouldn't agree to the sentences in your example. But as I've said before, we seem to be mixing a number of different senses of "faith." To have faith that P (is true) is different from to have faith that event E will happen.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688" target="" onclick="window.open('http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977688');return false;">ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: <a href="https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/" target="" onclick="window.open('https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/');return false;">plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/" style="font-style:italic" target="" onclick="window.open('http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/');return false;">sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

<a href="http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/" target="" onclick="window.open('http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/');return false;">CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:
If it is true that,

"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take him
from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and belief
can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same proposition?

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

It would take the inverse form

Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
acceptance.

So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.

eg.
"Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from A
to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""

On 9/24/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:
> Russ,
>
> I take your point, but still, I would have a hard time composing a
> sentence of the form, " Russ has faith in X but he doesn't believe in
> it." Can you compose such a sentence for me?
>
> N
>
>
>
> From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:friam-bounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Russ Abbott
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:42 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> As I understand your position the words "faith" and "belief" are synonyms.
> I
> would prefer a definition for "faith" that distinguishes it from "belief."
>
>
>
> Tory,
>
>
>
> Thanks for you comment on my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them.
>
>
>
> My definition of faith makes use of the notion of the everyday world.
> But I'm not saying that the everyday world is the same for everyone.
> Your everyday world may be different from mine. I'm just saying that
> believing that the world will continue to conform to your sense of
> what the everyday world is like is not faith; it's simple belief.
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> I would take "having faith in something" in the colloquial sense as
> different from "faith" in a religious context, which is what I was
> focusing on.
>
>
>
>
> -- Russ
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Victoria Hughes
> <victoria@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Russ wrote, in part-
>
>
>
> Faith, I would say (in fact I did earlier)
>
>
>
>
>
> is believing something that one wouldn't otherwise believe without faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> Believing that the everyday world is the everyday world
>
>
>
>
>
> doesn't seem to me to require faith.
>
>
>
> Russ, with all due respect for the enjoyment I get from your posts, I
> find this suspiciously tautological.
>
>
>
> Who are you to define for the rest of humanity (and other sentient
> life
> forms) what 'the everyday world' incorporates? Numerous 'for instance'
> cases
> can immediately be made here. All you can do is define what you
> believe for yourself. You cannot extrapolate what is defensible for
> others to believe, from your own beliefs.
>
>
>
> And this statement ' Faith is believing something that one wouldn't
> believe without faith'. Hm and hm again.
>
>
>
> Eagleman's new book Incognito
> <<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/030738" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/030738');return false;">http://www.amazon.com/Incognito-Secret-Lives-David-Eagleman/dp/030738
> 9928/r
> ef=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348460523&sr=1-1&keywords=incognito+by+
> david+
> eagleman> offers fruitful information from recent neuroscience that
> eagleman> may
> interest others on this list. His ultimate sections bring up hard
> questions about legal and ethical issues in the face of the myriad 'zombie
programs'
> that run most of our behaviour. This looks like - but is not as
> simplistic as - 'yet another pop science book.'
>
>
>
> A review David Eagleman's
> <<a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglem" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglem');return false;">http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/david_eaglem
> <a href="http://ans.ht" target="" onclick="window.open('http://ans.ht');return false;">ans.ht
> ml> "Incognito" - Brainiac
>
>
>
> Tory
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Prof David West

Re: Faith

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

If people are really interested in the evolution of Buddhism - Jenny
Quillien and I are planning a "Buddha Tour" - a month long study trip
starting at Bodh Gaya (birthplace) then proceeding to Dharmsala (Tibetan
variation) - Bangkok (Hinayana variation) - shaolin (the Taoist
infusion) - Nara Japan (Zen) - then San Francisco (Watts and Suzuki).
The focus of the study will be on epistemology and metaphysics with a
small amount of critical examination of the "Tao of Physics" "Quantum
Consciousness" claim that Buddhism and Taoism anticipated quantum
physics.

Let me know - off-list - if you are interested in being kept current
with out plans. (It will be pricey because of all the travel, but it
should be a good month.) Asian Philosophy was my undergraduate major
and I have been studying it since 1968.

davew ([hidden email])

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 07:16 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

> Dear Russ
>
> 1. Religion / faith is not something which can be "bought", although
> the US Televangelists who buy cheap advertising on my cable TV
> channels to sell me JEEEESSSSSUSSS at 4:00 a.m may disagree.
>
> 2. "Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian sub-continent"
> (per wikipedia).
>
> 3. BUDDHUISM is a religion exogenous to the Indian sub-continent.
> (per Sarbajit)
> (FYI - The word buddhu means "fool, "idiot" or "moron ")
>
> 4. Western Buddhists are buddhus who by doing deep scholarly research
> on fragments of bark containing the secrets of the Wise (Amida )
> Buddha allegedly written 600 years after his death in 500 BCE (or was
> it 400 BCE ?) think they "know" everything. These are the same Buddhus
> who after looking at a dinosaur's bones conclude that dinosaurs had a
> brain in their butt.
>
> 5. A Religion / Faith has to be experienced in its setting. Shifting
> the setting causes it to lose its essence in translation. In computer
> terms, the software is non-portable.
>
> 6. Whatever you chose to call it, there is no such thing as "modern"
> Buddhism. Western (presumably United States of America Western)
> Buddhuism is the concoction of tripped out frauds (who "experienced"
> India/Nepal) and ranks on the same ersatz plane as American Chopsuey
> and Chicken Tikka Masala. .
>
> PS: Does (your ?) Western Buddhism model include "rebirth" ?
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I'm not really buying that. My sense of modern (and especially western)
> > Buddhism seems pretty God-free.
> >
> > *-- Russ Abbott*
> > *_____________________________________________*
> > *** Professor, Computer Science*
> > * California State University, Los Angeles*
> >
> > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
> > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105
> > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
> > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
> > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
> > *_____________________________________________*
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Buddhism may not have "a God" but Buddhism belief has "gods" who are
> >> superior beings existing at various planes of existence. Their gods,
> >> called "Devas", apparently exist at the highest plane of existence
> >> well above humans, and animals, and various beings condemned
> >> in past lives to inhabit hell (the lowest planes). Buddhism's "demons"
> >> called "Asuras" occupy another zone.
> >>
> >> However, in Zorastrianism, conversely the gods are called "Ahuras" and
> >> the demons are called "Daevas" (root terms of devil):
> >>
> >> So it seems possible that all these zones / planes are actually
> >> political statements referring to events in some hoary past at an
> >> indeterminate location.
> >> http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm
> >> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20583/20583-h/20583-h.htm
> >> (page 287)
> >>
> >> Re: Buddhism as a religion:
> >> BTW: Are we referring to "God" as "creator- God" ?
> >>
> >> On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Thanks, Sarbajit. As I understand it Buddhism does not have a God. Does
> >> > that mean you would not classify it as a religion?
> >> >
> >> > -- Russ
> >> >
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>
> >
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: faith - take 2

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Everybody,

Have a look at the link, doxastic logic, that Russ put in his note below. It’s a stunner. Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:39 AM
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith - take 2

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

programs'

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

------------

Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

In the context of religious faith.

doubt * belief = 1

If doubt = 0 then belief = 1/0 = singularity = God
If certainty = 0 then doubt = 1/0 = noGod

In most Eastern religions people are somewhere in between and see no
harm in (occasionally) worshiping things they don't always believe in
(sort of like insurance).

So yes, belief and doubt are normally present in varying degrees for
the same proposition in the vast majority of believers / doubters.

Sarbajit

On 9/26/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If it is true that,
>
> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from
> A
> to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>
> Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take him
> from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and belief
> can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same
> proposition?
>
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
> It would take the inverse form
>
> Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
> acceptance.
>
> So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.
>
> eg.
> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him from
> A
> to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>

Nick Thompson

Re: faith

Sarbajit,

Interesting. I am packing up and also somebody has suggested that I am
jamming the channel here, so I wont say more now, except to thank you for
your illuminating and throughtful posts. Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:38 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith

In the context of religious faith.

doubt * belief = 1

If doubt = 0 then belief = 1/0 = singularity = God If certainty = 0 then
doubt = 1/0 = noGod

In most Eastern religions people are somewhere in between and see no harm in
(occasionally) worshiping things they don't always believe in (sort of like
insurance).

So yes, belief and doubt are normally present in varying degrees for the
same proposition in the vast majority of believers / doubters.

Sarbajit

On 9/26/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If it is true that,
>
> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him
> from A to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>
> Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take
him
> from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and
belief

> can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same
> proposition?
>
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
> It would take the inverse form
>
> Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
> acceptance.
>
> So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.
>
> eg.
> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him
> from A to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: faith

http://www.nature.com has provoked its own discussion on faith. In August:

Sometimes science must give way to religion http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244 arguing "why it will always be necessary to have ways of understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational" and setting off a long chain of online comments. The author, an atheist, compared the Hindu cosmologies portrayed on friezes at Angkor Wat and the explanation of the Higg's Boson given in the New York Times.

This week: three short published responses:

Rationality: Evidence must prevail http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502d.html "[...] the rational thought that underpins science provides us with a system that works."

Rationality: Science is not bad faith http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502e.html "Viewing temples and falling in love can be moving experiences, but they don't reveal a hidden reality whose articulation eludes science."

Rationality: Religion defies understanding http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502f.html "Our species has derived many things from its various religions — some fair and noble, others foul and destructive — but understanding is not one of them."

-- rec --

Steve Smith

Buddha Tour.

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave and Jenny -

In the spirit of living vicariously, I took a moment to map a presumed route (by Nissan Patrol, Jeepney, Motorcycle and/or foot)...   with the help of course, of Google (long name for an all-knowing God?) Acquiring a "Seep" like this modified one, might save some $$ on ocean transport.

Over 37K kilometers (37Megalometers?) and a suggested 633 hours of riding... which I think would include sitting on the bike while on the ship from Japan to Hawaii to Seattle... not required I don't think, though "sitting" is an important part of Buddhist practice isn't it?

At the risk of experiencing the locations out of chronological order, this could be cut by about 6M and 70 hours?

Google is not quite all-knowing enough yet to give us public transportation directions... but prescribed walking route is similar to the driving one... slowing you down from 50kph to more like 5kph and 6100 hours.   Walking meditation is a higher form than sitting isn't it? 254 days nominally... if you choose to walk it, maybe Google will equip you with a ladybug and underwrite your expenses in return for a complete Streetview sequence of the whole route. Or bring Microsoft into the discussion and start a bidding war?

Ironically Google Warns:

Walking directions are in beta.
Use caution – This route may be missing sidewalks or pedestrian paths.

Google is like the Roman or Norse God of navigation, inheriting many characteristics from the Greek version known as AAA, presumably upgraded with modern features but lacking some of the old school charm?

If you meet the Buddha (or Marco Polo) en route it is conventional to kill him... good luck or karma or something. But I think you already knew this.

I'm guessing you will be flying commercial... using local transport... etc. It sounds like a great trip... Is Sarbajit's location on your agenda? Any other FRIAMers vaguely on your path?

Happy Travels... the rest of us will settle for rereading our tattered copies of Siddhartha or z+Motorcyle Mtc. or Watt's "The Book" or for the more mathematically inclined, Paul Erdos imaginary book by the same name.

Paul Erdős, who often referred to "The Book" in which God keeps the most elegant proof of each mathematical theorem. During a lecture in 1985, Erdős said, "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book."

I am a doubter (is that the opposite of a faither?), and doubt that anyone can recognize, much less define "the most elegant proof". I think this is an undecideable problem.

Decidedly Yours,
- Steve

If people are really interested in the evolution of Buddhism - Jenny
Quillien and I are planning a "Buddha Tour" - a month long study trip
starting at Bodh Gaya (birthplace) then proceeding to Dharmsala (Tibetan
variation) - Bangkok (Hinayana variation) - shaolin (the Taoist
infusion) - Nara Japan (Zen) - then San Francisco (Watts and Suzuki). 
The focus of the study will be on epistemology and metaphysics with a
small amount of critical examination of the "Tao of Physics" "Quantum
Consciousness" claim that Buddhism and Taoism anticipated quantum
physics.

Let me know - off-list - if you are interested in being kept current
with out plans.  (It will be pricey because of all the travel, but it
should be a good month.)  Asian Philosophy was my undergraduate major
and I have been studying it since 1968.

davew ([hidden email])




On Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 07:16 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

Dear Russ

1. Religion / faith is not something which can be "bought", although
the US Televangelists who buy cheap advertising on my cable TV
channels to sell me JEEEESSSSSUSSS at 4:00 a.m may disagree.

2. "Buddhism is a religion indigenous to the Indian sub-continent"
(per wikipedia).

3. BUDDHUISM is a religion exogenous to the Indian sub-continent.
(per Sarbajit)
(FYI - The word buddhu means "fool, "idiot" or "moron ")

4. Western Buddhists are buddhus who by doing deep scholarly research
on  fragments of bark containing the secrets of the Wise (Amida )
Buddha allegedly written 600 years after his death in 500 BCE (or was
it 400 BCE ?) think they "know" everything. These are the same Buddhus
who after looking at a dinosaur's bones conclude that dinosaurs had a
brain in their butt.

5. A Religion / Faith has to be experienced in its setting. Shifting
the setting causes it to lose its essence in translation. In computer
terms, the software is non-portable.

6. Whatever you chose to call it, there is no such thing as "modern"
Buddhism. Western (presumably United States of America Western)
Buddhuism is the concoction of tripped out frauds (who "experienced"
India/Nepal) and ranks on the same ersatz plane as American Chopsuey
and Chicken Tikka Masala. .

PS: Does (your ?) Western Buddhism model include "rebirth" ?

Sarbajit

On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott [hidden email] wrote:

I'm not really buying that. My sense of modern (and especially western)
Buddhism seems pretty God-free.

*-- Russ Abbott*
*_____________________________________________*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach
*_____________________________________________*



On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy [hidden email] wrote:

Buddhism may not have "a God" but Buddhism belief has "gods" who are
superior beings existing at various planes of existence. Their gods,
called "Devas", apparently exist at the highest plane of existence
well above humans, and animals, and various beings condemned
in past lives to inhabit hell (the lowest planes). Buddhism's "demons"
called "Asuras" occupy another zone.

However, in Zorastrianism, conversely the gods are called "Ahuras" and
the demons are called "Daevas" (root  terms of devil):

So it seems possible that all these zones / planes are actually
political statements referring to events in some hoary past at an
indeterminate location.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20583/20583-h/20583-h.htm
(page 287)

Re: Buddhism as a religion:
BTW: Are we referring to "God" as "creator- God" ?

On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott [hidden email] wrote:

Thanks, Sarbajit. As I understand it Buddhism does not have a God. Does
that mean you would not classify it as a religion?

-- Russ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Gentlemen and Ladies-

There is a big question in this endless and reiterative loop about faith and science that no one mentions.

So I will. Seems to be one of my functions.

To wit:

Even our brains have two primary and differing sections, the hemispheres: for best health and growth of the individual both must be functioning and working together.

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

For an example of how unworkable the idea of a single approach sounds, maybe I can ask you some questions:

Most of you are straight men, yes? Many of you have been married.

Would you agree that in your partnership only you have ever had valid or useful information?

IE for any situation you've been in, to which your female partners have contributed physical / mental / emotional / spiritual information,

yours was the only information needed or useful?

Do you think that your life, your pursuits, your existence only needs you and other men?

IE If there were no women anywhere, things would universally work better?

I could continue but you hopefully already can see my point. This planet is dualistic. I will explain that later if that's not. But the whole set-up is dualistic.

Our opportunity and challenge- particularly visible now- is to understand and resolve dualities as necessary for the whole, to accept each in turn, to mitigate harm as we do so.

Faith and religion are never going to yield to logic. They live in a different part of your mind, that has other things to contribute, and that doesn't have direct access to linear language. Art and music yes, as languages; words and analyses no.

>>>> This is in no way an anti-science statement!

This is a plea for a world-view that realizes

Both are needed.

BOTH / AND

not

either /or.

Tory

http://www.nature.com has provoked its own discussion on faith. In August:

Sometimes science must give way to religion http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244 arguing "why it will always be necessary to have ways of understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational" and setting off a long chain of online comments. The author, an atheist, compared the Hindu cosmologies portrayed on friezes at Angkor Wat and the explanation of the Higg's Boson given in the New York Times.

This week: three short published responses:
Rationality: Evidence must prevail http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502d.html "[...] the rational thought that underpins science provides us with a system that works."

Rationality: Science is not bad faith http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502e.html "Viewing temples and falling in love can be moving experiences, but they don't reveal a hidden reality whose articulation eludes science."

Rationality: Religion defies understanding http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502f.html "Our species has derived many things from its various religions — some fair and noble, others foul and destructive — but understanding is not one of them."

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith - take 2

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

On 9/26/12 9:09 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Everybody,

Have a look at the link, doxastic logic, that Russ put in his note below. It’s a stunner. Nick

The preferred variant of many (vocal) FRIAMers is Dogmatic Logic which is the preferred logic of Conceited and Peculiar reasoners (as defined by Doxastic logic), though Bombastic reasoning always prevails!

When I first read Smullyan's "Forever Undecided", I realized that I was a Timid reasoner regarding religious issues, but in all else I was either a Knee-jerk (similar to Reflexive, but more violent) reasoner or a Perniciously Precocious reasoner (similar to Peculiar reasoner, only more destructive).

I just can't leave stuff alone, can I?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

No, I think that would be me (jamming the channel)...

> Sarbajit,
>
> Interesting. I am packing up and also somebody has suggested that I am
> jamming the channel here, so I wont say more now, except to thank you for
> your illuminating and throughtful posts. Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:38 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>
> In the context of religious faith.
>
> doubt * belief = 1
>
> If doubt = 0 then belief = 1/0 = singularity = God If certainty = 0 then
> doubt = 1/0 = noGod
>
> In most Eastern religions people are somewhere in between and see no harm in
> (occasionally) worshiping things they don't always believe in (sort of like
> insurance).
>
> So yes, belief and doubt are normally present in varying degrees for the
> same proposition in the vast majority of believers / doubters.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 9/26/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> If it is true that,
>>
>> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him
>> from A to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>>
>> Can it also be true that Russ doubt whether his ... motorcycle can take
> him
>> from A to B? Is it the case that, on your understanding, doubt and
> belief
>> can exist in a person at the same time with respect to the same
>> proposition?
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:37 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] faith
>>
>> It would take the inverse form
>>
>> Faith is absolute acceptance whereas Belief is limited/conditional
>> acceptance.
>>
>> So Russ may have belief in X without having faith in it.
>>
>> eg.
>> "Russ believes that his old and broken down motorcycle "can" take him
>> from A to B, but he doesn't have faith that it "will""
>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Buddha Tour.

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Oh Yeah...

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bangkok+Thailand&daddr=Bodh+Gaya,+Bihar,+India+to:Dharmsala,+Himachal+Pradesh,+%E1%BA%A4n+%C4%90%E1%BB%99+to:Shaolin+Temple,+Shaolin+Temple,+%E6%B2%B3%E5%8D%97%E7%9C%81%E7%99%BB%E5%B0%81%E5%B8%82%E5%B5%A9%E5%B1%B1%E5%B0%91%E6%9E%97%E6%99%AF%E5%8C%BA,+China+to:Nara,+Nara+Prefecture,+Japan+to:San+Francisco,+CA&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.431441,152.226563&spn=108.483262,243.632812&sll=34.885931,151.875&sspn=107.544641,243.632812&geocode=FZ7X0QAdQWr9BSnzYQ0oMmAdMTEgSOJdsgABAQ%3BFT7ReAEdK90QBSk97RK8XyzzOTFu2VfM3MW7CQ%3BFRaW6wEdhJmMBCm5KlMzH1EbOTGVDgpeReH1xA%3BFTGHDgId9Fu7BiHRfLZSxZFv3Smt_LCJWMjXNTHRfLZSxZFv3Q%3BFZ9AEQIdSDgYCCnBDKd4xTcBYDEiJkm5sNn-Sg%3BFVJmQAIdKAe0-CkhAGkAbZqFgDH_rXbwZxNQSg&dirflg=w&mra=ls&t=m&z=2

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Victoria Hughes

Tory -
> Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so
> challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of
> the game?
>
I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the
endorphins released.

The Mulberry bush is an innocent bystander, if in fact the center of the
play.

The Tigers are merely victims of their own Vanity and the cleverness of
our friend Sambo.

Sambo, perhaps has more significant motives.

I know I don't.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

(A post script to my frustrated rant replying to this thread (not to this post, Roger))

None of what I said precludes the table pounding and the whiskey. Need to go on record about that.

Tory

On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

http://www.nature.com has provoked its own discussion on faith. In August:

Sometimes science must give way to religion http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244 arguing "why it will always be necessary to have ways of understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational" and setting off a long chain of online comments. The author, an atheist, compared the Hindu cosmologies portrayed on friezes at Angkor Wat and the explanation of the Higg's Boson given in the New York Times.

This week: three short published responses:
Rationality: Evidence must prevail http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502d.html "[...] the rational thought that underpins science provides us with a system that works."

Rationality: Science is not bad faith http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502e.html "Viewing temples and falling in love can be moving experiences, but they don't reveal a hidden reality whose articulation eludes science."

Rationality: Religion defies understanding http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/489502f.html "Our species has derived many things from its various religions — some fair and noble, others foul and destructive — but understanding is not one of them."

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: faith

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

It's your honesty I've always loved about you, Steve.
I'm going with the weasel.

T

On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> Tory -
>> Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so
>> challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun
>> of the game?
>>
> I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the
> endorphins released.
>
> The Mulberry bush is an innocent bystander, if in fact the center of
> the play.
>
> The Tigers are merely victims of their own Vanity and the cleverness
> of our friend Sambo.
>
> Sambo, perhaps has more significant motives.
>
> I know I don't.
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: faith

Driving home I heard a report about New Zealand gangs. Apparently there are more gang-members per capita in New Zealand than any other country. (Surprised me.) Some of them are terribly violent. Very scary. Some have been reformed after finding Jesus. One of the best things that religion has ever done!

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:

It's your honesty I've always loved about you, Steve.
I'm going with the weasel.

T

On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

Tory -

Why is the idea of two differing but synergistic approaches so challenging to so many on this list? Or are you arguing for the fun of the game?

I'm pretty sure both the Monkey and the Weasel are in it for the endorphins released.

The Mulberry bush is an innocent bystander, if in fact the center of the play.

The Tigers are merely victims of their own Vanity and the cleverness of our friend Sambo.

Sambo, perhaps has more significant motives.

I know I don't.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

123456