Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ai-philosophy] Re: Religion

Expand Messages
  • Marvin Minsky
    Thanks for the correction! The full text of Boole s remarkable 1853 book is at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15114 He refers to Spinoza and to a Samuel
    Message 1 of 28 , Aug 24, 2008
      Thanks for the correction!
      The full text of Boole's remarkable 1853 book is at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15114
      He refers to Spinoza and to a Samuel Clarke; there might be some
      others, but the book has no bibliography.

      I don't have time to read it now, but I suspect that it has a lot of
      "new" ideas. That is, "new" in the sense that
      (1) it all seems extremely original and 'fresh' and
      (2) I suspect that few recent philosophers have read it.


      On Aug 24, 2008, at 5:04 PM, AT Murray wrote:

      > --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Marvin Minsky <minsky@...>
      > wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >> On Aug 24, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Jim Bromer wrote:
      >> [...]
      >>
      >> This is a beautiful illustration. One asks about the
      >> origin of Logic and hears some answers:
      >> 1. It came from Boole
      >> 2. But Boole learned from Aristotle,
      >> 3. Who, in turn, learned, Socrates,
      >> 4. Who, in turn, learned from Plato,
      >> 5. Who, in turn, learned from God,
      >> 6. Which means, "Stop Asking This Question."
      >
      > The sequence goes more like the following.
      >
      > 1. It came from Boole
      > 2. But Boole learned from Aristotle,
      > 3. Who, in turn, learned from Plato,
      > 4. Who, in turn, learned, from Socrates,
      > 5. Who, in turn, learned from God,
      > 6. Which means, "Stop Asking This Question."
      >
      > Plato was the "channeler" of Socrates.
      >
      > Mentifex (Mindmaker)
      > --
      > http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
      >
    • Ray Gardener
      Gods and men... an interesting comparison. Let s say that one did contemplate a different logic system, one that borrowed nothing from ours, and he discovered
      Message 2 of 28 , Aug 24, 2008
        Gods and men... an interesting comparison.

        Let's say that one did contemplate a different logic system, one that
        borrowed nothing from ours, and he discovered that, in this other
        universe, that our system is a subset. He is shown and even creates
        models/simulations that, from our point of view, are realities.

        He is then forced to accept that in his previous form, his will could
        not have been free, since he is able to construct machines that simulate
        all of its aspects, and can pause, rewind, play back and forth, etc. The
        beings thus observed are not concerned since they cannot see outside the
        machine, and the illusion holds for them.

        Then, to his horror, he discovers that the reality he previously lived
        in is one of the models showed to him, and he looks inside and sees his
        wife, whom he knows he loves, but now in this higher realm can no longer
        feel the same, for she is now mere mechanism to him.

        How tragic, he thinks, and surely, if there is to be a free will, and
        love, then at some point these systems of logic must end, there must be
        one which cannot be nested within another. Either there are no gods, or
        gods have gods ad infinitum.

        Or, perhaps, love and will are relative, and voyages between systems
        are not possible. For the very essence of what I am -- the humanity of a
        man, the chessness of a chess piece -- is utterly lost. How can I say
        that I have crossed a boundary if all that I was is gone? For am I not
        now something totally different? I do not remember being a man, the same
        way that a man could not recall being a chess piece. No, indeed, this is
        some terrible dream I am having, some cruel joke played upon me. I will
        marry in this realm, forget these events, and be happy here, and
        undertake no more such voyages. For even if they are possible, there is
        nothing to be gained, only disappointment and an infinite series of
        ultimately meaningless transformations.

        Forcing me to choose between love and God! Diabolical! But, I think, if
        God exists, He could forgive me for choosing love.

        And so here I stand, in my world that is mere mechanism to some higher
        realm, but so long as it is not so to me, and I can find no way to
        perceive otherwise, it is enough.

        Of what use Truth, if the will cannot be free, if love cannot be real?
        Surely if Truth be Truth, it is not in conflict with these, and my
        reality is highest, and my system of logic is simply that which is and
        no further.

        Ray



        John J. Gagne wrote:
        >
        >
        > Ray Gardener wrote:
        > >
        > > Is there really a need to seek an origin to logic?
        >
        > What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
        > faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how
        > like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
        >
        >
      • Marvin Minsky
        ... The fault of your essay lies in the work mere, because mechanism means understanding the causes of things. Also, free will means to do things for no
        Message 3 of 28 , Aug 24, 2008
          On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Ray Gardener wrote:

          > Gods and men... an interesting comparison.
          >
          > Let's say that one did contemplate a different logic system, one that
          > borrowed nothing from ours, and he discovered that, in this other
          > universe, that our system is a subset. He is shown and even creates
          > models/simulations that, from our point of view, are realities.
          >
          > He is then forced to accept that in his previous form, his will could
          > not have been free, since he is able to construct machines that
          > simulate
          > all of its aspects, and can pause, rewind, play back and forth, etc.
          > The
          > beings thus observed are not concerned since they cannot see outside
          > the
          > machine, and the illusion holds for them.
          >
          > Then, to his horror, he discovers that the reality he previously lived
          > in is one of the models showed to him, and he looks inside and sees
          > his
          > wife, whom he knows he loves, but now in this higher realm can no
          > longer
          > feel the same, for she is now mere mechanism to him.

          The fault of your essay lies in the work "mere," because "mechanism"
          means
          understanding the causes of things. Also, "free will" means to do
          things for no reason at all,
          and "God" means "I don't want any answers to the questions I have"—
          neither of which
          seem admirable.

          In any case, it appears that you don't want to know what makes you
          love —which
          suggests that your unconscious suspects that you won't like the answer
          to that.
        • Jim Bromer
          ... Sorry I got Plato and Socrates mixed up. Your response comes from your mind not mine. I never said that anyone should Stop Asking This Question. This is
          Message 4 of 28 , Aug 24, 2008
            --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Marvin Minsky <minsky@...>
            > This is a beautiful illustration. One asks about the origin of Logic
            > and hears some answers:
            > 1. It came from Boole
            > 2. But Boole learned from Aristotle,
            > 3. Who, in turn, learned, Socrates,
            > 4. Who, in turn, learned from Plato,
            > 5. Who, in turn, learned from God,
            > 6. Which means, "Stop Asking This Question."
            >
            > This clearly shows that "religious explanations for unexplained
            > phenomena"
            > aren't explanations at all. Instead they are higher-level commands
            > that evolved to enable people to Stop Looking for Explanations!
            >

            Sorry I got Plato and Socrates mixed up.

            Your response comes from your mind not mine. I never said that anyone
            should Stop Asking This Question. This is something that exists in
            your world, not mine.

            I have been wanting to read Boole's book for some time. His book is
            mostly technical in the modern tradition but he does speak about
            religion. The last chapter CHAPTER XXII. CONSTITUTION OF THE
            INTELLECT, deals with the the application of thought and he does note
            the history of logic. I feel that he celebrates an idealism that
            transcends material science.

            But perhaps more importantly he says, "And if we embrace in our survey
            the interests and duties of life, how little do any processes of mere
            ratiocination enable us to comprehend the weightier questions which
            they present!"


            I believe that I may have received some divine guidance concerning my
            study of the problem of creating a general polynomial time solution to
            Logical Satisfiability. I don't know for sure, and I have not made
            the claim that I have been or will be successful at this. I could be
            mistaken. I don't require your approval either way.

            However, the idea that your critical attitude toward my religious
            beliefs both direct and implicit and the exaggerations and hostility
            that have been directed at me are somehow borne of a more noble
            purpose or nearer to a scientific truth than mine, is intellectually
            salacious and hypocritical.

            Your brand of religious intolerance is not very severe. I wouldn't
            condemn you for your lack of wisdom or your shallowness, because I
            would obviously have to include myself in your cell.

            But the inability that many in this group has shown to choose to
            discuss the issues that that they consider appropriate for this forum
            and their insistence that they nail me with the very subject matter
            that they have themselves declared or implied to be inappropriate for
            this forum is all too demonstrative of the true motivation behind
            their actions.
          • John J. Gagne
            ... Well I agree that mechanistic explanations are preferable. I might even argue that anything less is not an explanation at all. The problem is, as far as I
            Message 5 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
              Marvin Minsky said:

              >
              > The fault of your essay lies in the work "mere," because "mechanism"
              > means understanding the causes of things. Also, "free will" means
              > to do things for no reason at all, and "God" means "I don't want any
              > answers to the questions I have"— neither of which seem admirable.

              Well I agree that mechanistic explanations are preferable. I might
              even argue that anything less is not an explanation at all.
              The problem is, as far as I can tell, if we wish to discuss
              intelligence then we must entertain (at a minimum) an axiom of choice.
              Any discussion of a completely mechanistic environment implies an
              absences of intelligence.

              Data collection, analysis, and prediction tells us nothing less than
              intelligent agents are not entirely bound by constants set at the
              moment of the big bang. I simply see no way to discuss what
              intelligence might be without further introducing the concept of "what
              could be" as apposed to "what is and will be".

              If this axiom of choice is inconvenient, bothersome, intolerable, or
              simply doesn't fit with the idealized mechanistic explanation then I
              can only offer my apologies. I see no other alternative!

              > In any case, it appears that you don't want to know what makes you
              > love —which suggests that your unconscious suspects that you won't
              > like the answer to that.

              I'm content with my list of reasons why I love. Electrochemical
              explanation of how I love will come in handy when/if my love is ever
              broken.

              ;o)

              JJG
            • George
              ... And what is the problem with that? More specifically what is your definition of intelligence? Making a car analogy, I would say that being more
              Message 6 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                On Monday 25 August 2008 17:49:56 John J. Gagne wrote:
                > The problem is, as far as I can tell, if we wish to discuss
                > intelligence then we must entertain (at a minimum) an axiom of choice.
                > Any discussion of a completely mechanistic environment implies an
                > absences of intelligence.

                And what is the problem with that? More specifically what is your definition
                of intelligence? Making a car analogy, I would say that being "more
                intelligent", is just having a "bigger engine".

                George
              • John J. Gagne
                ... Hi George: Here is how I responded to Fred Martin as to my definition of intelligent system: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy/message/15453
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                  --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, George <email@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > And what is the problem with that? More specifically what is your
                  > definition of intelligence? Making a car analogy, I would say that
                  > being "more intelligent", is just having a "bigger engine".
                  >

                  Hi George:

                  Here is how I responded to Fred Martin as to my definition of
                  intelligent system:

                  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy/message/15453

                  I think it's roughly in agreement with your car analogy.

                  JJG
                • George
                  ... I don t see why we have to have an axiom of choise. Computers seem to work ok without one. (If your answer is that computers don t have and cannot have
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                    On Monday 25 August 2008 19:14:47 John J. Gagne wrote:
                    > --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, George <email@...> wrote:
                    > > And what is the problem with that? More specifically what is your
                    > > definition of intelligence? Making a car analogy, I would say that
                    > > being "more intelligent", is just having a "bigger engine".
                    >
                    > Hi George:
                    >
                    > Here is how I responded to Fred Martin as to my definition of
                    > intelligent system:
                    >
                    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy/message/15453
                    >
                    > I think it's roughly in agreement with your car analogy.
                    >
                    > JJG

                    On Monday 25 August 2008 17:49:56 John J. Gagne wrote:
                    > The problem is, as far as I can tell, if we wish to discuss
                    > intelligence then we must entertain (at a minimum) an axiom of choice.
                    > Any discussion of a completely mechanistic environment implies an
                    > absences of intelligence.


                    I don't see why we have to have an axiom of choise. Computers seem to work ok
                    without one. (If your answer is that computers don't have and cannot have
                    human "intelligence", then I would answer that we don't have that kind (ie
                    the kind computers can't have) of "intelligence" either.)

                    Also, from your earlier post: What would you say are the "types" of input?

                    George
                  • John J. Gagne
                    ... George: Keep in mind that I m make no claim either way, whether we make choices or don t. My only claim is if we wish to speak of intelligent system then
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                      George said:

                      >
                      > I don't see why we have to have an axiom of choise.
                      >

                      George:

                      Keep in mind that I'm make no claim either way, whether we make
                      choices or don't. My only claim is if we wish to speak of intelligent
                      system then an axiom of choice is implied. At the very least it would
                      be very difficult to have such a discussion without implying
                      nouns/verbs as intent, responsibility, or choice (maybe impossible to
                      do so).

                      But, you seem to be suggesting that a definition of intelligent system
                      which would differentiate them from non-intelligent system is possible
                      without such things and which would capture our intuitive concept of
                      intelligence. If so let's discuss it.

                      >
                      > Computers seem to work ok without one.
                      >

                      How do you know they lack one? Maybe they only work because they have
                      one. ;o)

                      > (If your answer is that computers don't have and cannot have
                      > human "intelligence", then I would answer that we don't have that
                      > kind (ie the kind computers can't have) of "intelligence" either.)

                      I would argue that we (brains) are 100% computers. I will maintain
                      this argument until a better description comes along (which might be
                      taken as, I think we need a better description which I do not! I mean
                      nothing more than I can't rule out such a thing completely even though
                      I can't even imagine a better description...)

                      >
                      > Also, from your earlier post: What would you say are the "types" of
                      > input?
                      >

                      Nothing more than a photo-receptor isn't stimulated by sound and a
                      microphone isn't stimulated by shining a light on it. These provide
                      different types of environmental input.

                      JJG
                    • jgkjcasey
                      ... wrote: Re: Religion ... What other kinds of explanations are there apart from mechanical or make believe explanations? ... Choice means
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                        --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "John J. Gagne"
                        <john_j_gagne@...> wrote:
                        Re: Religion


                        > Marvin Minsky said:
                        >
                        >>
                        >> The fault of your essay lies in the work "mere,"
                        >> because "mechanism" means understanding the
                        >> causes of things. Also, "free will" means to do
                        >> things for no reason at all, and "God" means "I
                        >> don't want any answers to the questions I have"
                        >> — neither of which seem admirable.
                        >
                        > Well I agree that mechanistic explanations are
                        > preferable. I might even argue that anything less
                        > is not an explanation at all.


                        What other kinds of explanations are there apart
                        from mechanical or make believe explanations?


                        > The problem is, as far as I can tell, if we wish
                        > to discuss intelligence then we must entertain
                        > (at a minimum) an axiom of choice.


                        Choice means there is more than one possible action
                        but the action taken is determined.

                        > Any discussion of a completely mechanistic
                        > environment implies an absences of intelligence.

                        Are you confusing intelligence with sentience?

                        > Data collection, analysis, and prediction tells
                        > us nothing less than intelligent agents are not
                        > entirely bound by constants set at the moment of
                        > the big bang.


                        I don't see how that follows at all. Data collection,
                        analysis, and prediction are 100% determined.


                        > I simply see no way to discuss what intelligence
                        > might be without further introducing the concept
                        > of "what could be" as apposed to "what is and
                        > will be".
                        >
                        >
                        > If this axiom of choice is inconvenient, bothersome,
                        > intolerable, or simply doesn't fit with the idealized
                        > mechanistic explanation then I can only offer my
                        > apologies. I see no other alternative!

                        Idealized mechanistic explanations is all science has.

                        >> In any case, it appears that you don't want to
                        >> know what makes you love —which suggests that your
                        >> unconscious suspects that you won't like the answer
                        >> to that.
                        >
                        >
                        > I'm content with my list of reasons why I love.
                        > Electrochemical explanation of how I love will
                        > come in handy when/if my love is ever broken.


                        An electrochemical explanation is mechanical although
                        I don't see such an explanation for "love". Hormones
                        may cause the brain to operate in a way we call
                        "loving" but it is still all "mechanical".

                        There are some questions science doesn't have the
                        tools to answer and so far sentience or "what it is
                        like to be you" is the main question beyond science
                        as there doesn't seem to be any requirment for
                        subjective experiences to explain how brains work.


                        JC
                      • John J. Gagne
                        ... Explanations provide and imply understanding. Axioms/postulates/assumption are (should be) intuitively understood. While these are not explanations
                        Message 11 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                          JC said:

                          >
                          > What other kinds of explanations are there apart
                          > from mechanical or make believe explanations?
                          >

                          "Explanations" provide and imply understanding.
                          Axioms/postulates/assumption are (should be) intuitively understood.
                          While these are not "explanations" they are both forms of understanding.

                          JJG
                        • Ray Gardener
                          ... I mean mere mechanism in the truly robotic sense, whereby the complete behavior and nature of a thing can be known. I take it as axiomatic that there are
                          Message 12 of 28 , Aug 25, 2008
                            Marvin Minsky wrote:
                            > The fault of your essay lies in the work "mere," because "mechanism"
                            > means understanding the causes of things.

                            I mean "mere mechanism" in the truly robotic sense, whereby the complete
                            behavior and nature of a thing can be known. I take it as axiomatic that
                            there are things, while real, their function cannot be known
                            mechanically (e.g., qualia).


                            > Also, "free will" means to do things for no reason at all

                            I consider free will to have a method, but that method is intrinsically
                            unknowable because it forms a symmetry with qualia.

                            There are mechanisms, and methods, and understandings, but for these
                            things they lie in a realm whose system of logic is different than ours,
                            and therefore cannot be understood using our system. This is a natural
                            cosmic censorship that keeps observers from eating their own tails. We
                            could understand if we could stand outside the box, but for us, the box
                            is all that exists. Wherever we go, we take ourselves and our
                            limitations there too.

                            This is also why sensory deprivation meditators go insane if they rest
                            too long -- their system of logic gives way to the other one, which they
                            cannot understand, and so nothing seems to make sense anymore, and
                            unable to make the leap, there is only confusion and madness. It is as
                            if the mind of a man was trying to operate inside an ant.

                            The same thing happened to Pirsig via a different route. He pondered
                            reality to such a degree that he took himself right to the precipice of
                            the logic he knew, which itself revealed to him that to go any further
                            he had to leave it behind in favor of something higher. So he did, and
                            maybe for a brief shining moment he glimpsed something incredible, but
                            he couldn't resolve the conundrum of being human and superhuman
                            simultaneously. The observer he became was incompatible with the body
                            with which the observer had associated for so long.


                            , and "God"
                            > means "I don't want any answers to the questions I have"— neither of
                            > which seem admirable.

                            One could say that "higher logic system" is equivalent to "God" but I
                            offer that the former offers a more systematic (and fruitful) discussion
                            of God than does religion.


                            > In any case, it appears that you don't want to know what makes you
                            > love —which suggests that your unconscious suspects that you won't
                            > like the answer to that. ------------------------------------

                            The desire to know is moot -- I already know that I cannot know. For if
                            I could know, it would cease to be love.

                            I think, the best answer to it, is that when you are in love, the
                            experience of it is simultaneously equal to understanding it. There is a
                            feeling of correctness that is so pure, that you have a moment of
                            sublime clarity where you "get it" without having to think about any
                            component parts or chains of causality or whatever. You finally break
                            through to a zone outside the whole sound-and-fury meaninglessness.

                            Ray
                          • John J. Gagne
                            ... Ray Gardener suggested that I should inject a bit more humor to keep things interesting. The funny truth is I had no idea when I quoted this that I was
                            Message 13 of 28 , Aug 31, 2008
                              John J. Gagne wrote:

                              >
                              > What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
                              > faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action
                              > how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
                              >

                              Ray Gardener suggested that I should inject a bit more humor to keep
                              things interesting. The funny truth is I had no idea when I quoted
                              this that I was quoting William Shakespeare's Hamlet. I remembered it
                              from somewhere else...

                              No, I was actually quoting Jean-Luc Picard quoting Hamlet.

                              So the entire quote is actually:

                              "What Hamlet said with irony I say with conviction: What a piece of
                              work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form
                              and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in
                              apprehension how like a god!"

                              Ironically, I've never read Hamlet. But I'm convinced this is more in
                              line with how I meant it too.

                              ;o)

                              JJG
                            • Ray Gardener
                              I had an interesting thought, given the maximization of meaning, to reinterpret the Lord s Prayer: Our Father, which art in heaven, ... the maximization of
                              Message 14 of 28 , Aug 31, 2008
                                I had an interesting thought, given the maximization of meaning, to
                                reinterpret the Lord's Prayer:


                                Our Father, which art in heaven,
                                > Multiple observers have their origin in
                                the maximization of meaning, which is metaphysical,

                                hallowed be thy name;
                                > and is fundamental;

                                thy kingdom come;
                                > This principle literally defines reality itself;

                                thy will be done,
                                > Its effects operate continously,

                                in earth as it is in heaven.
                                > and do so everywhere, by constraining
                                the consensus physicality to evolve accordingly.

                                Give us this day our daily bread.
                                > All observers are fueled by this axiom.

                                And forgive us our trespasses,
                                as we forgive them that trespass against us.
                                > Morality is a second-order concept
                                defined by observers...

                                And lead us not into temptation;
                                but deliver us from evil.
                                > ...but we have faith that the maximization of meaning
                                is intrinsically a progressive force, and
                                will statistically counter the free will of observers
                                where such free will would negate the axiom.
                                Individuals may be immoral -- even despite our best efforts --
                                but as a whole, life will endure and be moral.

                                For thine is the kingdom,
                                > The maximization of meaning is ultimately what we
                                mean by reality,

                                the power,
                                > the source of all acausality and causality,

                                and the glory,
                                > and most meaningful,

                                For ever and ever.
                                > and is timeless, and cannot not be.

                                Amen.
                                > The above suffices to state the minimum of the fundamental tenets;
                                anything said after this is derivative. Which means, if you get
                                the above right, don't worry too much if you get everything else
                                wrong; you can come back and try again. But if you get the above
                                wrong, then that's really sad, and life will probably be more
                                hellish than it has to be.


                                If Christ had such thoughts in mind, naturally He couldn't express them
                                as such, people (even today) would have wondered what He was saying. But
                                I find the parallels intriguing.

                                Ray
                              • Ray Gardener
                                Oh irony, verily... for I asked not to be able to do what the gods do, but merely to understand them. But even that, it seems, requires us mere mortals to
                                Message 15 of 28 , Aug 31, 2008
                                  Oh irony, verily... for I asked not to be able to do what the gods do,
                                  but merely to understand them. But even that, it seems, requires us mere
                                  mortals to become gods.

                                  Oh metaphysics! Thy beautiful dagger dost trummel my brain and weary my
                                  flesh and pierce my heart so cruelly!! So perfect, and so perfectly
                                  demanding!

                                  Ray



                                  John J. Gagne wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > John J. Gagne wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in
                                  > > faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action
                                  > > how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Ray Gardener suggested that I should inject a bit more humor to keep
                                  > things interesting. The funny truth is I had no idea when I quoted
                                  > this that I was quoting William Shakespeare's Hamlet. I remembered it
                                  > from somewhere else...
                                  >
                                  > No, I was actually quoting Jean-Luc Picard quoting Hamlet.
                                  >
                                  > So the entire quote is actually:
                                  >
                                  > "What Hamlet said with irony I say with conviction: What a piece of
                                  > work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form
                                  > and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in
                                  > apprehension how like a god!"
                                  >
                                  > Ironically, I've never read Hamlet. But I'm convinced this is more in
                                  > line with how I meant it too.
                                  >
                                  > ;o)
                                  >
                                  > JJG
                                  >
                                  >
                                • John J. Gagne
                                  ... Brad Pitt: Let me tell you a secret, something they don t teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we re mortal, because any
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Aug 31, 2008
                                    Ray Gardener wrote:

                                    >
                                    > Oh irony, verily... for I asked not to be able to do what the gods
                                    > do, but merely to understand them. But even that, it seems,
                                    > requires us mere mortals to become gods.
                                    >
                                    > Oh metaphysics! Thy beautiful dagger dost trummel my brain and
                                    > weary my flesh and pierce my heart so cruelly!! So perfect, and so
                                    > perfectly demanding!
                                    >

                                    Brad Pitt:

                                    "Let me tell you a secret, something they don't teach you in your
                                    temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because
                                    any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're
                                    doomed. You will never be more lovely than you are now. We will never
                                    be here again".

                                    ;o)
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.