setAI

oops- sorry- i forget sometimes that I am posting from outside your spacetime manifold so sometimes my replies appear before the post I am replying to- my bad

The divisiveness and the references to "the other America" disheartened me to no end. I for one don't want to perpetuate the divisiveness I found so ugly.My cynicism is still high,but it has to start somewhere.Rubbing the losers nose in it is no way to move forward. people forget that the two Americas are RELATED by blood and marriage! don't worry- all the bad blood between young liberals on the coasts and old conservatives in the heartland and south will be forgotten when all of us liberals have to go home for the holidays to our old conservative parents and in-laws- as soon as we start talking crap about some cousin who just got pregnant again even though her boyfriend lost his job- we will put aside all the political fighting during the election- and likely forget it completely after eating a few pounds of turkey

while all the numb-headed norms out there were playing their favorite popularity contest- the nerds may have just found some Dark Matter

just think right now Obama is being debriefed on all of the US Govt's classified Psi assets- I wonder what he will do with a team of telepaths at his disposal?

although prop 8 passed- it seems to me that Obama's speech almost single handedly undid all that hateful damage prop 8 is going to cause: "It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America"

Mr. Obama has won. California, however, voted yes on Prop 8. {censored}. Bittersweet. exactly- pretty bittersweet this morning- I was so happy last night about Obama and then this morning I just want to bash some homophobes in the head- we are still a country that has yet to live up to it's promises of equality and justice for all- but at least it should be easier to get closer now

to sum up- my vote was based on: -lovecraftian AI gods -the New Old New Covenant - moobs

I was gonna try to make light of this and say, "proof there is no god", but now I dunno... is that stepping over the line? Oh wait... {censored}. (I keed. You know I keed, right? right? :poke: Besides, it fits in the whole godless-setAI thing here... oh never mind) and I have moobs

... trying not to form mental image... by the way- I am a 6'3" 350 lb

You're one of those guys that I'm afraid I'm gonna hear about in the news someday, and not for good reasons. yeah- one of these days I am going to get my picture in the paper when my Xenosaga Cosplay rips and my ass falls out in public- I'm a blogosphere geek- not a dangerous heretic- my crime is READING TOO MUCH

You should check out Schrodinger's philosophical books then. German philosophy unified with Vedic metaphysics. I wish he had spent more time fleshing out his philosophy... but then I guess you can't fault him for seminal contributions to quantum physics. -D I say the reason why Schr

His argument is that the bible doesn't say something that it actually says, or that it says it but it's not relevant. no- I am saying that is says one thing in some places and contradicts that in others- often in the same book! especially in the Epistles which alternately talk about universal salvation in one breath and in the next condemn the Roman's men/women/children to the Pit of Abaddon whether they repent or not- roman sins are not to be forgiven even under the New Covenant [and who could blame the early christians?] so the ONLY factor that matters is HOW and WHAT parts of the bible mankind has promoted in history- and the ideals of alms giving and brotherhood of all men and clean-slate redemption in the new Covenant don't even appear outside of Gnostic cults in any meaningful way until after Luther- most christians in history would call your interpretation of those selective passages you call New Covenant antichrist heresy!

Isn't this usually about the point where the political/religious threads turn into a nasty name fest? {censored}socks. I never get that- I always get the "what the hell are you smoking- and where the hell is your punctuation? and what does 'vectored-theogenesis-through-computational-augmentation-of-quantum-observer-states-in-Hilbert-Space-sorted-through-Turing-Complete-Causal-Phase-Space-and-resonant-n-dimensional[where n=number of Boolean Observables in the system]-crystalline-structure-of-coherent-quantum-histories-through-statistical-distribution-per-the-Born-Rule even mean?"

LOL "Irrelevant"? 2 billion Christians disagree. again- that is 2 billion MODERN christians who all have had their beliefs nurtured after the age of Luther! the modern view of God and Man in direct communion is TOTALLY ALIEN to the vast history of the Church

Then how come you don't know anything about new vs. old covenant? why do you think that I don't? I studied the Bible- I did not follow it's primitive and highly inconsistent ideologies the 'New Covenant" is rather irrelevant historically considering that the WHOLE Bible is used throughout history as political tool- and almost always it is Old Testament ideas that are employed- not the socialist love-in of Shem Yehshua- even at the start of Christianity the ideals of the New Covenant where only mentioned when convenient- in one passage joyously offering salvation for all- and in the next giddily predicting the utter destruction of whole peoples- the new Covenant doesn't have much of a track record- for instance for several hundred years after the new Covenant salvation only took the shape of The Question: salvation after the Strappado!!! and if you try an argue "but this is what evil men did to the Bible- God's salvation was good" then I will remind you that not until Martin Luther did the concept of no mediator between Man and God even exist- the ONLY way for man to get salvation for 1500 years was through those evil men and their torture [men who you have already said were guided by God in translating and interpreting the Bible]- some new covenant

I'm not making anything up. Go read the letter to the Hebrews, apparently you haven't, or maybe you were reading a language you didn't really understand? I have written more essays on the Epistles than you have had hot dinners- let alone READ them- I actually have a BA in comparative religion among others- you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to paint me as misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Bible

You are being intellectually dishonest. new covenant my ass! I am sorry but the scrawled inconsistent writings of a few Judean cultists trying to mount an insurgency against the Roman occupiers does not simply wash away over 4000 years of established Semitic Doctrine- you christians have no problem in bringing back Old Covenant ways when it suits you- such as when you enslaved my ancestors for 400 years based on Ham taking a peek at his dad's wing-wang- aaaall the way back in Genesis- bitch and samplers>VCO>DCO

Then you missed the book of Hebrews, among many others. the language- not the Epistle! BTW- you seem to miss that the Bible says NOTHING against abortion and specifically defines the start of life as the the first breath of a newborn baby but the Bible DOES say this about children in general: * Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones. * Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones. * Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. * I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. * 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child. * 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up. * Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. * Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. * Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children. * Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children. * Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. * Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. *Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

We need the special glasses? nutshell: Spinoza's God is the Universe- that is one major thing that Hegel helps us understand about Spinoza's Ethics

I mean, if there is one, why not many? Could the Hindus be right? the Hindus are partially right- but Lovecraft was inadvertently closer to the truth I think- and the Lakota who predicted a global society ruled by European concepts and connected by communications networks 20 thousand years ago

FAIL. The new covenant substituted the old covenant. It's in the bible, but apparently you only want to read some parts of it and not all of it. are you joking? NOW you decide to play picksies-and-choosies with the Holy Bible? BTW- I have read the entire bible- and in the original Hebrew/Greek to boot [it is a requirement in the lower grades of the O.'.T.'.O.'.]

And the bible does have a say in these other things too, and to some of them those who do what's wrong bring judgement on themselves. yeah- for instance I married my wife and she wasn't a virgin- but I failed to stone her to death- so I am already damned to hell Deuteronomy 22:13-21 but even THAT didn't matter- you see I was born out of wedlock- I am a bastard- which means that no matter what I ever did I was damned and so are my grandchildren out to ten generations Deuteronomy 23:2 BTW- about 99.9999% of the population is either a bastard or has one i n their bloodline within ten generations- we will all have fun in Hell together!!

When do we get to introduce Wittgenstein into this? not without Spinoza through the lens of Hegel

I don't think that you realize that it isn't enough to simply declare that there is a 'large group' (which I'd doubt) of scientists who believe that you can prove God's existence on a blackboard. Certainly the majority of scientists don't believe this, and I'd wager that the vast majority of philosophers would maintain that the notion is philosophically incoherent. just saying that I am not alone-that is all- Bostrom's work is well regarded by other philosophers- the Simulation Hypothesis is not considered incoherent- it's biggest critics usually jsut assert that the first position is correct: "(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a

I will believe this part when someone calculates the amount of energy required for that task. ok: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904050 and also http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html I don't think many of you realize that these ideas are coming from a large group of scientists- not just one pot-head posting on KSS