Le Pape se prononce sur la communication virtuelle?

[par Hans-Georg Lundahl, mardi 25 janvier 2011, 12:47]

Et ça ne serait pas typique de la communication tout court?

Dans le monde numérique, transmettre des informations signifie toujours plus souvent les introduire dans un réseau social, où la connaissance est partagée dans le contexte d'échanges personnels.

Et transmettre des informations oralement ne signifierait pas les introduire dans un réseau social? Sa Sainteté réserve donc toute interaction orale pour échanges avec des étranger complets qu'il n'a jamais connu et auxquels il ne reparlerait jamais (donc pas de son propre réseau social) et sous la réserve qu'ils ne doivent pas faire autrement (pour que les informations ne soient pas introduits dans leurs réseaux sociaux non plus)? Je ne crois pas ça.

La claire distinction entre producteur et consommateur de l'information est relativisée et la communication tendrait à être non seulement un échange de données, mais toujours plus encore un partage.

La différence entre "échange de données" et "partage" ne me parait pas claire, donc je ne suis pas capable de me prononcer sur le "plus encore". Par contre: "la claire distinction entre producteur et consommateur de l'information" ne se trouve normalement pas en dehors de la relation entre auteur et lecteurs distants ou David Attenborough et le public de télévision. Dans la classe il n'y a pas cette claire distinction, même la paroisse permet parfois des paroissiens à commenter sur la prêche. Benoît XVI ne va pas ignorer le cas où Nestorius fut hué par un simple laïc à Constantinople, à propos son refus d'appeler la Sainte Vierge Théotokos. Il y a des lecteurs qui ont écrit à Tolkien et CSLewis, il y a des spectateurs qui contribuent par téléphone aux programmes populaires, il y a de même sur la radio. L'internet l'intensifie.

Cette dynamique a contribué à une appréciation renouvelée de la communication, considérée avant tout comme dialogue, échange, solidarité et création de relations positives.

Fort bien.

D'autre part, cela se heurte à certaines limites typiques de la communication numérique : la partialité de l'interaction, la tendance à communiquer seulement quelques aspects de son monde intérieur, le risque de tomber dans une sorte de construction de l'image de soi qui peut conduire à l’auto complaisance.

Typiques de la communication numérique? Mais le pape rêve!

• Dans une conversation alors, son interaction avec l'autre est totale?
  
• Dans une conversation il partage tous les aspects de sa vie intérieure?
  
• Dans une conversation il ne se construit pas un image de soi qui le conduit à l'auto-complaisance?

Alors, il lui reste quoi à confesser dans le sacrement de pénitence? Alors, pourquoi la confession privée plutôt que publique devant toute la paroisse comme le veulent les sectes évangélistes? Si on n'a honte ou pudeur ou timidité (ou simple jugement de non-relévance pour le contexte) de rien dans ses conversations, pourquoi pas confesser le tout sans réserve devant tous? Mais il rêve!

Et ses lettres sur papier, qui ne sont pas numériques, quoique virtuelles, il y partage tout sans réserve, il a une intéraction totale, il ne se construit aucun image de soi? Mais il rêve!

Ou peut-être il ne rêve pas, mais répète, bêtement un slogan anti-internet de quelque psychologue appartenant à quelque synagogue de Satan. Car là, dans les synagogues de Satan (il y en a plusieurs), on multiplie les critères inutiles et fait des petites considérations partielels en même temps qu'on néglige les considérations les plus élémentaires de la justice et de l'équité pour ne rien dire de la charité.

Je viens juste de lire la troisième paragraphe de son message (<--- lien à cliquer) pour

LA 45ème JOURNÉE MONDIALE
DES COMMUNICATIONS SOCIALES

dont la date prévue est le 5 juin 2011 et qui s'appelle:

Vérité, annonce et authenticité de vie à l’ère du numérique

Déjà dans la quatrième paragraphe, je crois avoir traqué quelle synagogue de Satan est coupable. Les psychologues.

Les jeunes, surtout vivent ce changement de la communication, avec toutes les angoisses, les contradictions et la créativité propre à ceux qui s'ouvrent avec enthousiasme et curiosité aux nouvelles expériences de la vie.

Les angoisses ne sont pas ceux des jeunes, mais des psychologues. Ce qu'est très évident.

[j'ai prolongé l'article d'origine avec des commentaires:]

Autre citation:

Les croyants, en témoignant leurs plus profondes convictions, offrent une précieuse contribution pour que le web ne devienne pas un instrument qui réduise les personnes à des catégories, qui cherche à les manipuler émotivement ou qui permette à qui est puissant de monopoliser les opinions des autres.

Déjà le fait de communiquer par internet plutôt que par télévision ou même salle de classe permet beaucoup moins aux puissants de monopoliser les opinions des autres.

Par contre, j'ai vu sur internet - dans certains réseaux - des tentatives de faire un front commun pour le Christ et pour l'Église et d'exclure les fidèles dont le témoignage est dissonant de ce front commun.

Comme pro-Espagne, notemment en 1492 (Grenade et Hispaniola), 1519 (Tenechtitlán), 1531 (Pérou), 1939 (prise de Madrid) et comme peu diplomatique face à des subterfuges trop mauvais et hyperréclamés pour l'anticléricalisme ou l'athéisme, je me trouve parfois en position de "témoin dissonant". En plus que je suis géocentrique et créationniste.

Qui est mon «prochain» dans ce nouveau monde ? N’y a-t-il pas le danger d'être moins présent à ceux que nous rencontrons dans notre vie quotidienne ordinaire ?

Un rencontre virtuel et un rencontre physique peuvent tous les deux être qqc que nous passons très vite ou que nous donnons beaucoup d'attention.

[En plus, pour beaucoup des gens internet est précisement une partie de la vie quottidienne ordinaire]

N’y a-t-il pas le risque d'être plus distrait, parce que notre attention est fragmentée et absorbée dans un monde «différent» de celui dans lequel nous vivons?

On vit dans des mondes différents, que ça soit sur le web ou pas. La personne derrière l'écran il y a dix mille kilomètres d'ici est comme la personne derrière la plume et le pepier il y a dix mille kilomètres d'ici et X jours en plus avant. Il y a des gens pour qui vivre est beaucoup répondre à des lettres. Il y a aussi des gens pour qui le quottidien n'est pas social du tout.

[La fonction chat risquerait effectivement à distraire l'attention et la fragmentiser, mais on n'est pas obligé d'en faire son moyejn principale comme communication numérique]

Avons-nous le temps d’opérer un discernement critique sur nos choix et de nourrir des rapports humains qui soient vraiment profonds et durables ?

Mais on ne le fait pas toujours non plus dans sa vie dite réelle. Même moins que sur internet souvent. Partout il y a des gens avec qui on se supporte assez bien tant que tout est superficielle. Ce n'est pas chaque rélation sociale qui doivent être un mariage: au contraire, si nous croyons la monogamie.

[Si la question ne s'agit pas de ne pas toujours l'avoir, mais de ne pas l'avoir du tout, alors aussi il y a une réponse au pape et une très bonne: on a le temps qu'on donne et on donne ce qu'on veut moins ce qu'on se trouve empêché de donner.]

Il est important de se rappeler toujours que le contact virtuel ne peut pas et ne doit pas se substituer au contact humain direct avec les personnes à tous les niveaux de notre vie.

TOUJOURS? Et en plus À TOUS LES NIVEAUX?

Notons qu'ici il ne s'agit pas de numérique, mais en virtuel en général. Le contact entre auteur et lecteur est virtuel. En certain cas même unilatérale, à moins que soit réelle aussi - ce qu'est le cas - les intercessions que nous pouvons faire pour les âmes en purgatoire, que nous pouvons demander à eux et à celles au ciel.

J'aurais aimé avoir un pape avec plus de contact virtuel avec St Thomas d'Aquin, peut-être. Et moins de contact direct avec certain connards.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III/Paris
prolongé sur
Bibl. Audoux/Paris III
25-I-2011, fête de la
Conversion de St Paul Apôtre.

OrchOR - what is that?

We are now January 12 ...

Here I found out what Orch-OR is:
source

"In this paper we propose that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of quantum wave function 'self-collapse' (objective reduction: OR -Penrose, 1994) are essential for consciousness, and occur in cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. The particular characteristics of microtubules suitable for quantum effects include their crystal-like lattice structure, hollow inner core, organization of cell function and capacity for information processing. We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events, and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin conformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes and provides the global binding essential to consciousness. We equate the emergence of the microtubule quantum coherence with pre-conscious processing which grows (for up to 500 milliseconds) until the mass-energy difference among the separated states of tubulins reaches a threshold related to quantum gravity. According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state. In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs. Unlike the random, 'subjective reduction' (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions. Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as 'nodes' which tune and 'orchestrate' the quantum oscillations. We thus term the self-tuning OR process in microtubules 'orchestrated objective reduction'('B>Orch OR', and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will elicit Orch OR. In providing a connection among 1) pre-conscious to conscious transition, 2) fundamental space-time notions, 3) non-computability, and 4) binding of various (time scale and spatial) reductions into an instantaneous event ('conscious now', we believe Orch OR in brain microtubules is the most specific and plausible model for consciousness yet proposed."
...
"In this paper we apply certain aspects of quantum theory (quantum coherence) and a new physical phenomenon described in Penrose (1994) of wave function self-collapse (objective reduction: OR) to specific, essential structures within each neuron: cytoskeletal microtubules. Table 1 summarizes how quantum coherence and OR occurring in microtubules (Orch OR) can potentially address some of the problematic features of consciousness."

When copying table, I insert debate, my comments in underscore, JR's in italics, the quote from above as such:

Problematic Feature of Consciousness	Possible Quantum Solutions
Unitary sense: "binding problem"	1) Non-local quantum coherence; Indivisible macroscopic quantum state (e.g. Bose-Einstein condensate); 2) Instantaneous self-collapse of superpositioned states (Orch OR).
Superpositioned states would only explain "unitary sense" - the "common sense" of St Thomas Aquinas - perfectly, if resulting "unitary sense" was neither of the original sense impressions. Instead it combines both, like seeing and hearing a waterfall or talking to a person you look at.
Transition from pre-conscious/sub-conscious to conscious processes	1) Sub-and pre-conscious occur in quantum computing mode 2) Automatic, autonomic functions occur in classical computing mode 3) Quantum classical transition. (Wave function "self" collapse - Orch OR -is intrinsic to consciousness).
Supposing there is such a transition.
Non-computable, non-algorithmic logic	Orch OR is non-computable.
Well, non-computable by mathematics does not mean irrational as far as predicate logic is concerned. He means non-computable in the Godelian sense. It's not computable by bit-logic. (He's making a claim that the "Hard-AI" position is false)
(Apparent) non-deterministic "free will"	Non-computable, but non-random wave function self-collapse (Orch OR).
If so, it would not be free will, but determined by accidents of self-collapse of wave functions.
Essential nature of human experience	1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times; I have evidence of this. Very compelling evidence but it's of the kind I'd like to talk about only in private. Let's just say the chances of it being wrong are 1 in 2.4x10^57. No. This is a public debate. ... I deleted that letter, and it does not prove that mind is quantum mechanical as opposed to not mechanical at all in nature. It does not prove information as percieved or known is the same thing as a wave function or collapse of such. 2) Pre-consciousconscious transition; Well we have a subconscious which affects our thinking. According to Freud and Jung. 3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse. It is.
Orch-OR does not account for all attributes of essential nature of human experience. Saying consciousness and will are primal does. It is primal in Orch-OR it just hides it. Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses. And the first wave-function to collapse had to be by Orch-OR -by definition. Thus mind is primary in Orch-OR -even if it conceals it by saying that there are two ways to collapse a wave-function. ..."Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses."... That is what I deny precisely.

Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)

by Hans G. Lundahl on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 4:23pm

Here is what I found on top of a document:

It asserts, roughly, that if indeed we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity. More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle's response (to be pedantic-the universe's response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.

Source document

1. Why would a particle be "determined by the entire previous history of the universe" anyway?
   
2. What does that mean, even in determinism, as opposed to being determined by a strand of causation reaching back to the beginning of the universe?
   
3. Why would a particle determined by free-will as opposed to being determined by the entire previous history of the universe be in itself free-willed? I smell a terminological error:
   
   
   • a) this supposes any behaviour of anything or any event is either determined by the entire previous history of the universe or free-willed.
     
   • b) what if beside the two there were behaviours and events determined by free-will?
     
   • c) what if there are not even any events determined by the entire previous history of the universe but only those that constitute acts of free-will and those that are determined by acts of free-will?

So far my challenge. To JR, known also from two debates on geocentrism (my stance) and heliocentrism (his).

1) ‎scripsi: Why would a particle be "determined by the entire previous history of the universe" anyway?

respondisti: "Cause and effect. In essence Conway and Kochen are pointing out that we couldn't have free will in a clockwork universe. If it's all dictated by Newton's laws of motion and so forth then everything proceeds along like billiard balls with no free will to do otherwise."

a) cause and effect implies that every physical cause has its effect unless hindered: it does not imply that every physical effect has only physical causes.

resp: No, but whether physical or unphysical it would still be "a clockwork universe" if there was no true indeterminacy in either physical or unphysical form.

b) (see 2) a clockwork is interconnected, but even on an atheist view we would not have one clockwork universe, but a clockworks universe: even with an original clockwork at big bang, we would have a branching out into different independent clockworks, like the galaxies, like the solar systems, like each planet, like different places on earth:

[resp: Well yes, but ultimately all of these clockworks in the big bang would originate at a first cause back at the singularity.]

a man cannot be seen to be affected by storms on Venus or CO2 freezing on Mars, nor can a man in France be seen to be affected by everything that goes on around the Gulf of Mexico, though he is affected by weather, which is affected by Gulf Stream. But the Gulf Stream originating is only one thing of the things that go on in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf Stream is only one thing which affects the weather in France, and the weather is only one thing that affects a man i France.

resp:No but theoretically in a clockwork universe if we go back far enough all of these things would be caused by the same thing.

c) NOTHING is dictated BY Newton's laws. The question is if all is dictated ACCORDING TO Newton's laws by previous only physical causes. That does not only contradict a speculation about free will, it contradicts the most elementary piece of introspection even or especially if it is just glancing introspection in an extrovert person doing an extrovert thing.

resp:Yes, exactly, IF everything is dictated by Newton's laws then free will is impossible. That was the essence of Conway and Kochen's theorem. Basically if there is free will we must conclude that there is more than just Newton's laws.

‎2) scripsi: What does that mean, even in determinism, as opposed to being determined by a strand of causation reaching back to the beginning of the universe?

"It's the same thing really."

Not so. Under 1 b I stated the difference. Shall I take the response as meaning you do not consider the naturalistic view a clockwork universe but a clockworks universe, and "determined by all the previous history of the ENTIRE universe" a piece of loose terminology?

Ok yes, see I would think that everything would have a singular starting point. But yes that may also be valid -clockwork(s). So even if all of the casual chains are unlinked in a Newtonian world we could figure out the position and velocity of every particle at any point in time and then compute out how everything will behave for all points in time going out to eternity. And hence since everything would be predetermined there would be no room for free will.

‎3 general, scripsi: Why would a particle determined by free-will as opposed to being determined by the entire previous history of the universe be in itself free-willed? I smell a terminological error:

respondisti: "In itself it's not, but the idea is that if we have indeterminism in particles we might be able as minds to exploit this indeterminism in a special way so as to tap into it and give us "willed indeterminism" (ie. we will something which can not be predetermined by someone else)"

In that case it would be determined by indeterminacy of particles. Or?

In a sense yes, though the trick is that the indeterminacy would have to be exploited in such a way that it could be exploited by the mind.

A good thing to remember here is that at the quantum level you are not dealing with "particles" so much as you are wave-functions or "wavicles." It's not like a particle gets "a mind of its own" and randomly bumps into a mind causing it to do something that it wouldn't ordinarily do.

In particular in Penrose's model the mind is a special kind of wave-function that behaves in a certain way unlike any other kinds of wave-functions. In this case it's the same indeterminacy that you would get in any other quantum system, but you can exploit it because it's internal to you -the self-collapsing wave-function that is identical with your mind.

I have the feeling from your response, a will in your philosophy is not a prime reality in and of itself, but a human will is a product of particles in the brain.

[resp:It's not particles remember. That's the catch. Everything at the bottom is indeterministic in nature and precise location in time and space also break down. Particles exist in precise places in space and time, and so it's a misconception to think that these are particles in the proper sense of the word.

In a way everything seems to behave "mentally" far enough down -I'm presuming the patterns in the wave-function are ultimately the thoughts in God's mind.(because of Universal Orch-OR -like in my video) And then our minds are subsets within that. Now granted I'm a neutral monist and I think it's all information at the bottom -and minds are just special kinds of information, but there is a distinctly "mental" component to the world when you dig far enough down into it.]

Behind this I do smell a dichotomy that is stated as the terminology I attribute you under 3 a: this supposes any behaviour of anything or any event is either determined by the entire previous history of the universe or free-willed.

Well not free-willed per se. Obviously you can have subatomic particles behave in indeterministic fashions which are not willed. But the point is that things are either deterministic of indeterministic, and that if we have free will it would be because we've found a way to tap into the indeterministic part of it and use it somehow.

‎3 b) scripsi: what if beside the two there were behaviours and events determined by free-will?

respondisti: "It's not "free-will" as such as the particles aren't minds in and of themselves, but they do display indeterminacy in the quantum regime."
Thank you for saying the particles are not minds in and of themselves. But leaving particles aside: can there in your general view of philosophy be something neither indetermined as in free-willed nor determined as in physically caused by physical causes only but determined by free-will?

Well the definition of free will is that it is both determined by free-will yet "indetermined" as observed from the outside. Meaning you can determine exactly what you will do but I can not predict what you will do -even in theory- from the outside. Only you know.

scripsi 3 c) what if there are not even any events determined by the entire previous history of the universe but only those that constitute acts of free-will and those that are determined by acts of free-will?

"That would be interesting, and in fact if my Universal Orch-OR theory about God is right then it would follow that EVERYTHING at some level or another would be freely chosen into existence by God, which would mean not predetermined by mechanical causation. Though it appears that God freely chose to collapse a series of quantum states which gives us a decent approximation of deterministic laws at most levels."

My point can be made further precise by the questions:

d) could there be a God that is free-willed and NOT a wave function of the Universe? If not, why not?

Yes and no lol. I'm sure there might be some who subscribe to my Universal Orch-OR model that say it couldn't be any other way, but as for what I believe personally let me try to see if I can break this down. It might be a bit tricky.
Basically the totality of existence -including stuff outside the universe is ultimately Platonic in nature -rather than material -I know it's surreal but just follow. And the largest Platonic form which encompasses all others is ultimately God's Mind. Within that we have different modal realities:

Wiki: Modal Realism

and one of these modal realities happens to be our own which is defined by the Schrodinger equation. Now a mind in my philosophy is an "isomorphic information pattern." And you can have nesting isomorphisms all the way up and all the way down. The isomorphic structure we are in is defined by the Schrodinger equation, and hence any isomorphic information patterns we see will automatically have to be wave-functions collapsing by Orch-OR.

So in a sense yes God's mind (as viewed from our end) has to be a Universal Orch-OR, but that's because of how our universe is defined. However God's mind might appear differently to universe's defined by different sets of mathematics than ours.

In a sense I may have mislead a little bit by directly equating the Wave-function of the Universe with God's mind (but that is because the atheists will only accept what is immediate to them). Now to be sure it is God's mind, but it is the "lower bound" of God's mind -only the part we can observe from this end.

e) could in the universe there be other free wills than God's?

Also yes and no lol! They would exist but in a sense would be part of God's will as well. This seems like it might contradict a first, but it has to do with my "nesting isomorphisms" thing. Basically our minds are contained in God's mind the same way that nesting Russian dolls contain others. And so God's free will would ultimately be the only free will, but in a sense we would share it as God's free will would overlap or perhaps "superpose" our own.

‎4 ) I think I will cut the strands here and give a general short answer. Leading up, if you like to new strands:

a) A "non-physical" cause would still be a cause. But it may well be a free-willed cause.

Well let's suppose you have that. So you have material causes as well as supernatural causes -and both with their rules. From those rules we can pre...dict what would happen -it doesn't matter if the causes are physical or not. If that is the case then we can not have free-will, because the whole idea is that you can't predict what someone will do with free-will.

The free wills need not follow deterministic rules.

The results from spiritual causes, including free-willed ones would, which would make the results predictable for anyone having beforehand access to the free decisions, i e to God omniscient.

To us the results would not be globally predictable.

You may predict what result a certain squeeze of thumb and index and a certain turn will do to the writing, but that does not mean you can predict what someone else will write.

Even a clockworks universe or a clockwork universe will be unpredictable since you simply do not have access to all interlocking strands of physical unfree causation.

b) Free will implies indeterminacy as to something. Not indeterminacy as to everything. A man deciding whether to look or not look at a woman is not deciding whether he is virile and what effects that look might have on him.

But the point that Kochen and Conway are getting at is that if we have free-will that can not be predicted, then we have to get that unpredictable element from somewhere. A clockwork universe does not give us an unpredictable element. A universe in which we have free will thus therefore have an unpredictable element somewhere buried in it.

The classical Christian answer is that the universe contains unpredictable elements, where God, angels, and human minds figure. Unpredictable not as in totally haphazard like exact chaos pattern of falling paint drops, but unpredictable as in indetermined. We experience that ourselves.

Why should the source of free wills be other than a free will?

c) A particle determined by free will is determined. Not by the "entire history of the universe" nor by a partial clockwork leading back to one original cause, but by a decision taking place within the history. Still counts as determined. The decision itself being indetermined.

Ok, scrap "determined." Replace it with predictable. Free-will would then be something which is not predictable yet determined.

Determined and predictable are not interchangeable.

A dancer is not determined by any clockworks to take p...art in the dance, he is thus indetermined, yet, if skillful, predictable. Which is my geocentric take on why stars and planets even if guided by angels follow predictable patterns of movement.

His feet are determined by his will. Not by an outside cause making the will obsolete. They are predictable insofar as the dance is.

The feet of a man walking are also determined and also by a free will, but very much less predictable.

And where each drop will fall if you drop a bucket of paint is entirely due to physical causes, or so it seems, but still unpredictable.

Free-will is an unpredictable thing, indetermined by outer causes except those that define the choice. Its results - moving hands - moving instruments - moving objects are determined by it. And sometimes calculable, sometimes not.

d) God is not determined by his creatures except insofar as he choses to be: and we are not free against God except insofar as he lets us. Still we have true own minds, true free wills.

Yes, like I said our free-will is overlapped or "superposed" by God's.

Neither overlapped nor superposed. Defined insofar as our creator defines what kind of free will we have and what kind of choices we have.

e) God has created only one world, though he could have created possible other worlds. (as against Giordano Bruno)

Hmm, No. As for this universe who knows, however there are definitely parallel worlds with versions of us playing out different histories in those universes. Quantum mechanics tells us this and the existence of parallel universes has even been exploited to produce quantum computers.

If you want further proof I have something to show you if you'd like in private. Though I would prefer if you not show anyone else.

I saw that proof, they are not really proof of parallel universes.

I do not know what a quantum computer is, but if you attribute its observed behaviour to "parallel universes" I think you are as far off the mark as an ordinary computer being looked at as "good at mathematics" or a translating programme being looked at as linguistically competent. I Smell a terminological or logical very red herring here.

on to second part of debate ...

Ayesha's marriage was brought up in a discussion.

par Hans-Georg Lundahl, dimanche 9 janvier 2011, 21:24

We were also looking at a video. It linked to another one.

Commenting on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SfUKGp4iMg&feature=related

1a) puberty: extreme low level 9, extreme high level 18
mean age for puberty, 14 + a few months for boys, 12 + a few months for girls
(medical fact).

1b) physical brain development (ignored by that Muslim) setting out on largest brain size: 10-12 both sexes

so, a girl who has a puberty at age 9 does not have the same brain as she would have at age 12.

St Thomas Aquinas actually comments on this when debating that insufficient age is an impediment to marriage.

2) Juridics in "Britain" 1400 years ago: 12 for girls, 14 for boys, same as in Spain one hundred years ago or in Papal states up to Italy's takeover by invasion.

That is founded in Roman Law, in which the island known as Britannia, both British (Welsh, North Welsh) and English Kingdoms and Principalities partook.

But Arabia maybe did not partake in Roman Law as far down as where Mohammed was from.

3) Maturity? Not having been taught reasonably early how to change diapers does not make one a baby. Having a taste for making oneself look more childish than one is, does not make one a baby.

That Muslim is therefore a liar when he claims that modern westerners mature more slowly than any human creatures before them. He is lying about God's way of creating us, and that is a pretty big lie.

A man of 17 or 18 could be a military commander today. Would it mean war? Probably. But would it mean loosing the war? Not necessarily. Charles XII of Sweden became King at that age. Could he have waited being king while maturing?

Actually that was the law in Sweden, he should have started ruling at age 25, and the country should have been run by his tutors up to then.

That ALSO is founded in Roman Law. A man who inherits an estate was not considered mature enough to run it before he was 25. But by then he could already have been married for eleven years, he could already have children.

Charles XII had to run a country before he had time to marry. He never married. He was chaste but instead of loving sex he loved violence and instead of loving home he loved danger. Why did he rule at 18 despite the law? Because his father also had been orphaned too young to rule, and his tutors had abused his minority.

But Charles XII, King at 18, worked, as far as easy early victories were concerned.

4) He is however right to point out that pedophilia is not about marriage.

A girl married at fourteen in Sweden - of immigrant family to a man of his religion - was "taken care of" and forcefully put in an orphanage, her husband was jailed as a pedophile offender and exiled to Morocco.

I wrote a pamphlet to defend that marriage. 18 is not a natural limit for marriage, nor is it the traditional one in Europe.

S'il y a un dommage sociétal en "choisissant les gènes transmis aux futurs générations" ...

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Tuesday, 04 January 2011 at 13:33

Pourquoi pas, vient de lancer un homme dont je vais pour l'instant taire le nom. Si les gènes choisis sont bonnes, si le fait de choisir est volontaire, pourquoi pas?
Première observation: cette liberté des parents est un esclavage subi par leur progéniture. L'homme a défini comme cas un couple qui est fertile et qui voudrait choisir eugéniquement l'unique embryon parmi une centaine selon la perfection génétique. Obviement l'embryon choisi ne serait plus tellement procréé que créé par des parents qui jouent au bon Dieu avec leurs progéniture. Et les autres - ses frères et soeur! - seraient sacrifiés de vie comme les esclaves d'un chef de tribu païen et barbare. Esclavage la plus absolu sous les parents pour tous, fardeau sur la conscience du survivant de ce fait ne sont pas des conséquences théoriques, mais garantis. Car un couple de parents capable d'exiger des leurs enfants d'avoir exactement les bonnes gènes est capable d'exiger tout. Et aura exigé tout des 99 embrya tués.

Deuxième observation: l'esclavage subi par la progéniture dans un cas comme ça ne l'est pas seulement sous les parents, mais également sous les médecins ou sous quelque corps professionnel ou légal investi du pouvoir dont les médecins aidant cette atrocité croyaient être investis. Des parents peuvent s'humaniser face à un enfant réel. Les institutions qui commettent des atrocités sont moins aptes à le faire.

Déjà donc pour le prétendu bénéficiaire de cette énormité il y a donc un double dommage très considérable. Si un tri comme ça se répète, ce dommage individuel et familial devient sociétal.

Troisième observation: pour arriver à légaliser un tel cauchemar de criminalité, il faut que la société perde encore davantage ses bons répères pour en avaler des pseudorépères. Une société faisant ça est une société qui subit un dommage considérable.

Pseudorépère un, le plus "ad rem": "on est esclaves de ses gènes, on se libère en les changeant". Faux, en les changeant on ne demeure plus soi-même. Donc le sujet prétendu de libération cesse d'exister. "Mais alors on pourrait être altruiste vis-à-vis un autre être dont on aurait produit la liberté". Faux aussi: il n'y a pas de devoir à un telle altruisme, ni de mérite, et une "humanité créé par l'humanité actuelle" serait en position d'esclave, précisément comme l'individu envisagé.

Pseudorépère deux: "le tabou contre l'eugénisme est irrationnel, puisque le tabou contre l'avortement a été abandonné". Pas, notons-le, par tous. Et ça ne prouve pas que "le tabou" contre l'eugénisme soit de quelque soit la manière irrationnel, ça prouve plutôt que celui contre l'avortement était pleinement fondé.
L'esclavage dont souffrirait un être "choisi" comme ça serait celle dont souffre déjà les frères et sœurs des fétus avortés. On se sent en certain quartiers déjà "un projet" de ses parents plutôt qu'un égal potentiel pendant son enfance et réel à l'age adulte.

L'esclavage sous un système plutôt que sous un couple individuel est déjà la triste réalité en Suède. Les parents sont déjà traités comme fonctionnaires, pas de l'état, mais de l'élite de fonctionnaires en école, médecine, psychiatrie et DDASS qui gère ce sale système.

Pseudorépère trois: "on sauve l'Occident comme ça" - non, on redonne la victoire au Carthage. À Carthage qui méritait la destruction, comme Tyre et Sidon. Comme Tenochtitlán par Cortés. Comme Jéricho par Josué. On ne sauve pas l'Occident en y préférant le pire qu'a jamais offert l'Orient. "Sauver" dirait quoi dans ce contexte? Garder en quelque forme d'existence en faisant subir des tortures morales éternelles? Ou perpétuels sur terre, tant que ça durera, éternelles dans l'audelà pour les perpétreurs d'une telle saleté de révolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
4/I/2011, St Odilon

C'est ça que Pr. Ignaz Seipel S.J. et Engelbert Dollfuß entrevoyaient en Hitler et dans le nazisme. C'est pour ça que le parti nationalsocialiste a été interdit en Autriche, c'est pour ça que Dollfuß a été tué par un nazi qui fut ensuite décoré par Hitler.

Hoch Dollfuß!

J'aurais pu ajouter le risque de faire subir dommage purement génétique par maladresse. Les généticiens ne sont pas omniscients.

Temoin d'un faux miracle, abbattu par des policiers?

HGL's F.B. writings : Temoin d'un faux miracle, abbattu par des policiers? · Répliques Assorties : Heureux de ne pas être Ufologue Accrédité

by Hans-Georg Lundahl on Monday, 03 January 2011 at 12:22

Regardons ce que St Augustin dit de l'activité démoniaque par laquelle les religions païennes sont fondées, remarcons que comme parallèle à la véracité des saints écritures il prend la véracité des historiens païens:

[Livre X, la Cité de Dieu] CHAPITRE XVIII.

CONTRE CEUX QUI NIENT QU’IL FAILLE S’EN FIER AUX LIVRES SAINTS TOUCHANT LES MIRACLES ACCOMPLIS POUR L’INSTRUCTION DU PEUPLE DE DIEU.

S’avisera-t-on de dire que ces miracles sont faux et supposés? quiconque parle de la sorte et prétend qu’en fait de miracles il ne faut s’en fier à aucun historien, peut aussi bien prétendre qu’il n’y a point de dieux qui se mêlent des choses de ce monde. C’est par des miracles, en effet, que les dieux ont persuadé aux hommes de les adorer, comme l’atteste l’histoire des Gentils, et nous y voyons les dieux plus occupés de se faire admirer que de se rendre utiles. C’est pourquoi nous n’avons pas entrepris dans cet ouvrage de réfuter ceux qui nient toute existence divine ou qui croient la divinité indifférente aux événements du monde, mais ceux qui préfèrent leurs dieux au Dieu fondateur de l’éternelle et glorieuse Cité, ne sachant pas qu’il est pareillement le fondateur invisible et immuable de ce monde muable et visible, et le véritable dispensateur de cette félicité qui réside en lui-même et non pas en ses créatures. Voilà le sens de ce mot du très-véridique prophète « Etre uni à Dieu, voilà mon bien ¹ » .Je reviens sur cette citation, parce qu’il s’agit ici de la fin de l’homme, de ce problème tant controversé entre les philosophes, de ce souverain bien où il faut rapporter tous nos devoirs. Le Psalmiste rie dit pas : Mon bien, c’est de posséder de grandes richesses, ou de porter la pourpre, le sceptre et le diadème; ou encore, comme quelques philosophes n’ont point rougi de le dire: Mon bien, c’est de jouir des voluptés du corps; ou même enfin, suivant l’opinion meilleure de philosophes meilleurs : Mon bien, c’est la vertu de mon âme; non, le Psalmiste le déclare Le vrai bien, c’est d’être uni à Dieu. Il avait appris cette vérité de celui-là même que les- anges, par des miracles incontestables, lui avaient appris à adorer exclusivement. Aussi était-il lui-même le sacrifice de Dieu, puisqu’il était consumé du feu de son amour et (209) désirait ardemment de jouir de ses chastes et ineffables embrassements. Mais enfin, si ceux qui adorent plusieurs dieux (quelque sentiment qu’ils aient touchant leur nature) ne doutent point des miracles qu’on leur attribue, et s’en rapportent soit aux historiens, soit aux livres de la magie, soit enfin aux livres moins suspects de la théurgie, pourquoi refusent-ils de croire aux miracles attestés par nos Ecritures, dont l’autorité doit être estimée d’autant plus grande que celui à qui seul elles commandent de sacrifier est plus grand?

¹ Ps. LXXII, 28. SOURCE

Bon, et si les OVNI étaient aussi des fausses divinités qui sont "plus occupés de se faire admirer que de se rendre utiles"? C'est à dire normalement des démons. ALORS, ce n'est pas forcément en délire que se trouvait l'homme de 25 qui fut abattu par un policier.

D'ailleurs, il a visé sur les extrémités du policier, pas les organes vitales. Il a touché une tibia et un épaule. Le policier l'a tué, mais il ne l'a pas confié à la psychiatrie. Pourvu que l'histoire dans les nouvelles soit exacte. Laquelle? Celle-ci.

Ce jour de Sainte Géneviève, prions pour que les gendarmes réagissent avec plus de circumspection et moins d'hystérie que dans ce cas ci. Selon DirectMatin l'homme de 25 était "inconnu des services de police" c'est à dire il n'avait pas commis des crimes, ni de violence, ni autres. Il avait juste été diagnosticé avec "schizophrénie" à moins que ce mot s'utilise à tort et à travers dans la publication. Par cette diagnose, le fait qu'il voyait des OVNI - qui peuvent, selon Saint Augustin très bien être des démons - lui a valu l'alternative "soins" de la psychiatrie ou se défendre contre les policiers venus l'y amener. Cette défense - non meurtrière - lui a valu d'être abattu comme un chien atteint de la rage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ste Geneviève, 3 janv. 2011
Paris, Mairie du III