date:20120821

Stephan,

I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct
consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant
varied monotonically across the universe.
Richard

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>  Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.  arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471,
> 2009.
>
>  Kovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting
> Quantum
> Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.
>
>
> Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do
> not have the landscape problem...
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>>  On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
>> already found at the LHC and several other sites.
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Could you link some sources on this?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent
>>> things that exist.
>>> Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
>>> might describe something physical.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it follow
>>> that strings aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence that describes my
>>> house shows that my house isn't real.
>>>
>>> I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality
>>> and not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at
>>> least some part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers to a part of
>>> reality, but "My house is blue." does not.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>  When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to
>>> have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful
>>> as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced
>>> mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
>>> it is my address.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>> 8/21/2012
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
>> ~ Francis Bacon
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, benjayk
 wrote:

>  Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
> computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
> could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you, depending
> on how you program it.

At the most basic level, programming a physical computer involves
arranging its matter in a particular configuration. The computer can
only arrive at subsequent configurations through the laws of physics
acting on the present configuration. And that is exactly the case with
humans as well: they can only arrive at subsequent configurations
through the laws of physics acting on the present configuration. So if
a computer can only do what it is programmed to do by its environment
a human also can only do what he is programmed to do by his
environment.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:18 AM, benjayk
 wrote:

> It is true as well. We can even confirm it to ourselves.
> 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a human
> brain'. We can see its true, but whatever knows this, can't (solely) be the
> brain (since this would lead to a contradiction).
>
> So it seem to show we are beyond the brain as well.
>
> In fact, we can do this with any entity, and see that we are beyond any
> individual entity.

Think of like setting up a virtual machine which is separate from the
physical machine. It's not "really" separate in hardware, but it is
separate in software.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."

The Computer

He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.

I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
relatively slow and
error prone.

regards, The Computer

Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you,
depending
on how you program it.

There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is true or
false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.

In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-value of
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can
reach
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is something
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.

Not really. You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be computed"
and "what a
computer does". You're supposing that a computer cannot have the
reflexive inference
capability to "see" that the statement is true.

No, I don't supppose that it does. It results from the fact that we get a
contradiction if the computer could see that the statement is true (since it
had to compute it, which is all it can do).

meekerdb wrote:

Yet you're also supposing that when we
"see" it is true that that is not a computation.

No. It can't be a computation, since if it were a computation we couldn't
conclude it is true (as this would be a contradiction, as I showed above).

You avoid the contradiction by saying, "What *I'm* doing is not computation." which you
can say because you don't know what you're doing - you're just "seeing" it's true. If you
knew what you were doing you would know you were computing too and you'd be in the same
contradiction that you suppose the computer is in because computing "is all it can do."
You're implicitly *assuming* you can do something that is not computing to avoid the
contradiction and thereby prove you can do something beyond computing - see the circularity?

Brent

Unless you reject binary logic, but I am sure the problem also arises in
other logics. I might try this later.

meekerdb wrote:

As Bruno would say, you are just
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do
hypercomputation.

I didn't say hypercomputation. Just something beyond computation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers



meekerdb wrote:
> 
> On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> meekerdb wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
 meekerdb wrote:
> "This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."
>
> The Computer
>
 He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
 But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
 confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
 it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
>>> I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
>>> relatively slow and
>>> error prone.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards, The Computer
>>>
>>   Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
>> computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
>> could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you,
>> depending
>> on how you program it.
>>
>> There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is true or
>> false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.
>>
>> In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-value of
>> this statement is not computable.'.
>> It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can
>> reach
>> this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is something
>> external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.
> 
> Not really.  You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be computed"
> and "what a 
> computer does".  You're supposing that a computer cannot have the
> reflexive inference 
> capability to "see" that the statement is true. 
No, I don't supppose that it does. It results from the fact that we get a
contradiction if the computer could see that the statement is true (since it
had to compute it, which is all it can do).


meekerdb wrote:
> 
>  Yet you're also supposing that when we 
> "see" it is true that that is not a computation.
No. It can't be a computation, since if it were a computation we couldn't
conclude it is true (as this would be a contradiction, as I showed above).
Unless you reject binary logic, but I am sure the problem also arises in
other logics. I might try this later.


meekerdb wrote:
> 
>   As Bruno would say, you are just 
> rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do
> hypercomputation.
I didn't say hypercomputation. Just something beyond computation.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331938.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:


meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."

The Computer


He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.

I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
relatively slow and
error prone.


regards, The Computer


  Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you, depending
on how you program it.

There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is true or
false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.

In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-value of
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can reach
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is something
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.


Not really.  You're equivocating on "computable" as "what can be computed" and "what a 
computer does".  You're supposing that a computer cannot have the reflexive inference 
capability to "see" that the statement is true.  Yet you're also supposing that when we 
"see" it is true that that is not a computation.  As Bruno would say, you are just 
rejecting COMP and supposing - not demonstrating - that humans can do hypercomputation.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers



meekerdb wrote:
> 
> On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
>>
>> meekerdb wrote:
>>> "This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."
>>>
>>> The Computer
>>>
>> He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
>> But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
>> confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
>> it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
> 
> I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be
> relatively slow and 
> error prone.
> 
> 
> regards, The Computer
> 
 Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you, depending
on how you program it.

There is nothing computational that suggest that the statement is true or
false. Or if it you believe it is, please attempt to show how.

In fact there is a better formulation of the problem: 'The truth-value of
this statement is not computable.'.
It is true, but this can't be computed, so obviously no computer can reach
this conclusion without it being fed to it via input (which is something
external to the computer). Yet we can see that it is true.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331797.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:


meekerdb wrote:

"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."

The Computer


He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.


I know it by simple logic - in which I have observed humans to be relatively slow and 
error prone.



regards, The Computer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers



Stephen P. King wrote:
> 
> Dear Benjayk,
> 
>  Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?
> 
I guess so, yet it seems more specific. At least it was more obvious to me
than the usual arguments against AI. I haven't really read anything by
Penrose, except maybe some excerpts, though.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331719.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012  benjayk  wrote:
> 
>> In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
>> solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
>> intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]
>>
>> Is the following statement true?
>> 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
>> computer'
>>
> 
> The following statement is without question true:
> 
> "Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence"
> 
> A computer would have no difficulty in asserting this true statement,
> 

I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See:

"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence" is true.

Yet the entity Benjamin Jakubik can't confirm this sentence by itself. It
can only express the truth that something beyond the person Benjamin is
seeing (which it is, since I - not solely being the person - can recognize
the truth of the statement and express it through Benjamin, who is merely
saying it, not recognizing its truth).

That is not the point. The point is that there is no way for the computer to
determine either question (mine or yours), without relying on us. The
computer could easily be programed to say that the statement is true or
false. Yet we can determine whether it is true, at least to some extent.

John Clark-12 wrote:
> 
>  in fact every one of you is looking at a computer  now doing that simple
> task
> right now, and yet there is no logical paradox that threatens to tear the
> universe apart;
I didn't say anything to that effect. The universe is fine, it just cannot
be caputured computationally. This just may tear the universe as the
materialists imagine it to be apart.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331714.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers



meekerdb wrote:
> 
> "This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."
> 
> The Computer
> 

He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into
it?). So still, it is less capable than a human.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331679.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers



Saibal Mitra-2 wrote:
> 
> It's a simple logical paradox, an AI could play the same game by asking:
> 
> Is the following statement true? 'This statement can't be confirmed to 
> be true solely by utilizing a human brain'.
> 
It is true as well. We can even confirm it to ourselves. 
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a human
brain'. We can see its true, but whatever knows this, can't (solely) be the
brain (since this would lead to a contradiction).

So it seem to show we are beyond the brain as well.

In fact, we can do this with any entity, and see that we are beyond any
individual entity.

The sentence seemingly breaks down as we make it universal - 'This stament
can't be confirmed at all'.
This deconstructs the notion of confirmation. So we can see its true without
being able to confirm it.

Finally we could say 'This statement cannot be seen to be true'. At this
point, it seems there is nothing left to say about the statement in terms of
binary truth statements (like the liar paradox).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34331651.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
 Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. 
 arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009.


 Kovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting 
Quantum

Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.


Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that 
do not have the landscape problem...




On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
already found at the LHC and several other sites.


Hi Richard,

Could you link some sources on this?



On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they
represent things that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although
the equations
might describe something physical.



The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how
does it follow that strings aren't real.  That's like saying
a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't
real.

I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model
of reality and not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it
refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like,
"My house is green." refers to a part of reality, but "My
house is blue." does not.

Brent


When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then
found to have a physical demonstration we might be more
confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just
an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is
looking for such evidence...





For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is
not my house,
it is my address.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012




-- 
Onward!


Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

 Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.  arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471,
2009.

 Kovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum
Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
> already found at the LHC and several other sites.
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Could you link some sources on this?
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>>  On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent
>> things that exist.
>> Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
>> might describe something physical.
>>
>>
>>
>> The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it follow
>> that strings aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence that describes my
>> house shows that my house isn't real.
>>
>> I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality
>> and not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at
>> least some part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers to a part of
>> reality, but "My house is blue." does not.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to
>> have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful
>> as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced
>> mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
>> it is my address.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/21/2012
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
already found at the LHC and several other sites.


Hi Richard,

Could you link some sources on this?



On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:


On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they
represent things that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the
equations
might describe something physical.



The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it
follow that strings aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence
that describes my house shows that my house isn't real.

I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of
reality and not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers
to reality or at least some part of reality - like, "My house is
green." refers to a part of reality, but "My house is blue." does
not.

Brent


When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then
found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident
that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in
beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such
evidence...





For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not
my house,
it is my address.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012




--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: divine selection versus natural selection


Hear Hear!


On 8/21/2012 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All religions which believes that religion does not apply to machine 
will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical universe.





--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof


On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno and Stephen,
This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left brain 
decisions for human safety.
Ought must rule over is (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for the 
safety of humanity)
Passion must rule over reason (or else we'd all be nazis, Hume, for 
the safety of humanity)

Acceptace of proof dominates proof (common sense psychology)
Thus you can objectively, mathematically prove that 2+2=4, but you 
still have to subjectively accept that psychologically.

Woman always gets the last word.


No problem here. That fits nicely with the Bp versus Bp & p duality, 
which is just the difference between "rational belief" and "rational 
knowledge" (true rational belief).


It took time to realize that when we define the rational belief by 
formal proof, which makes sense in the ideal correct machine case, 
although knowledge and belief have the same content (the same 
arithmetical p are believed), still, they obey to different logics. 
This is a consequence of incompleteness. Rational beliefs obey to a 
modal logic known as G (or GL, Prl, K4W, etc.) and true rational 
belief obeys to a logic of knowledge (S4), indeed known as S4Grz.


G is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([]p -> p) -> []p

with the rules A, A->B  /  B and A / []A

S4Grz is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p

with the rules A, A->B  /  B and A / []A

Bruno


Dear Bruno,

It might help us immensely if you could tell us how to read these 
symbolic representations. Not all of us speak that language! There are 
English words for all of these symbols!


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 21 Aug 2012, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:

"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."

The Computer

LOL.

Of course, Clark is right, you should add "consistently" before
confirmed, to avoid the refutation of a human claiming confirming that
sentence. Or put "consistent" before human being.

On 8/21/2012 9:54 AM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite
easily)

solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily
show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human
may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am
quite

confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more
directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting
the

relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

trying to confirm it, so its answer is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a
computer,

again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer
the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the
solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of
the

sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following
statement is

true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well
program it to

say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely
transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even
superhuman AI

seems futile based on that.

will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already
happening

as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
already found at the LHC and several other sites.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent
> things that exist.
> Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
> might describe something physical.
>
>
>
> The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it follow
> that strings aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence that describes my
> house shows that my house isn't real.
>
> I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and
> not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least
> some part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers to a part of
> reality, but "My house is blue." does not.
>
> Brent
>
>
> When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to
> have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful
> as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced
> mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence...
>
>
>
>
> For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
> it is my address.
>
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/21/2012
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: divine selection versus natural selection


On 8/21/2012 8:12 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Roger,
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the 
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the 
collective set of monads.


Hi Richard,

Please calm down a bit and understand that it is not possible for a 
single finite mind to comprehend, much less, "know" in a way that can be 
explained to the average "grandmother", the delicate balance of the 
monadology. Even Leibniz himself fudged his explanation!




The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants 
of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP 
is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP.


I agree with this remark 100%!

One brief comment on the tittle of this thread. Is it necessary for 
"Divine Selection" and "Natural Section" to be two mutually 
contradictory possible explanations? How is God not immanent in Nature? 
It is only when we push transcendence that we have serious problems.


BTW, this is another version of the disagreement that I am having 
with Bruno. He is pushing a transcendence 
 only theory 
of truth and I am arguing forimmanence 
 *and* transcendence within an 
over all Panentheism  theory. 
My argument revolves around the problem of interaction between multiple 
minds. My solution is not very different from Spinoza 
's but I seek to frame 
it using computer science, as that allows a finite mathematical model.
Bruno's idea seeks a reduction of all interactions to being wholly 
within the Supremum and all appearances or interaction and actions in 
general (including physics) to "dreams of numbers". The problem with 
this is that Transcendance models fall apart when they try to explain 
the necessity of finite appearance.
Transcendence alone theories just postulate that all objects have 
properties in an inherent way because of they are "in reality just 
shadows of the Forms" and "Forms" are the essence of the properties 
themselves. This works and sound fine until one tries to construct a 
model of interactions using that theory. Doing so inevitably causes 
contradictions to arise that cannot be solved by appeals to measures or 
any other hand-waving or question-begging device. Please think about 
this carefully, the reasoning is very subtle, but unassailable.


*_/How might the "shadows of the Forms" cast shadows of their own on 
each other?/_* What about shadows of shadow of shadows of shadows of ... 
What prevents the infinite regress? AFAIK, only the limitations of 
actual physical resources cut off the computations such that endless 
loops of self-modeling recursions never happen. This possibility was, 
sadly, missed by Dennett in his valiant attempt to save materialism. 
Computations having to actually solve an NP-Complete problem with finite 
resources is the requirement that eliminates Bruno's measure problem, 
but he refuses to see this.





Richard

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough > wrote:


Hi Richard Ruquist
I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Richard Ruquist 
*Receiver:* everything-list

*Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
*Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Roger,

Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,�
however at differing levels of information integration,
in the "universal燙YM monad爏ubspace".

Belief can also be a product of science.
I believe science.
Richard

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal
�
According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or
trust, and that trust
does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have
nothing to do with it,
at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.�
�
�
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent
him so everything could function."






--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


On 8/21/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012  benjayk > wrote:


> In this post I present an example of a problem that we can
(quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]

Is the following statement true?
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing
a computer'


The following statement is without question true:

"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence"

A computer would have no difficulty in asserting this true statement, 
in fact every one of you is looking at a computer now doing that 
simple task right now, and yet there is no logical paradox that 
threatens to tear the universe apart; and yet a human being,  Benjamin 
Jakubik, is unable to perform this task, a task that even the smallest 
computer can do with ease.


  John K Clark



How would this work when it is the computer itself that is named 
and not some third party such as Ben?


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


Dear Benjayk,

Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?

On 8/21/2012 12:54 PM, benjayk wrote:

In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

Is the following statement true?
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
computer'
Imagine a computer trying to solve this problem:
If it says yes, it leads to a contradiction, since a computer has been
trying to confirm it, so its answer is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent 
things that exist.

Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.



The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it 
follow that strings aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence that 
describes my house shows that my house isn't real.


I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality 
and not reality itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or 
at least some part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers to a 
part of reality, but "My house is blue." does not.


Brent


When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to 
have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is 
useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful 
advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence...





For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen and Bruno


On 8/21/2012 11:02 AM, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Roger,
(re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your 
immense educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 
'occupied' this list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I 
wish I had a better distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. 
the well established and decades-long working ensemble of the list - 
on other grounds.
The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, 
you have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger 
into close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional 
problem (e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the 
majority is closer to your own belief system. YET:
Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your 
posting fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!

Please, consider this a friendly remark.
John Mikes


Dear John,

I think that is is sometimes a good thing to have use shaken out of 
our doldrums! I like Roger's contributions! They have already helped be 
make some great advances in my own work. ;-)




On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno and Stephen

I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.

Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
post!  Why are you so wrong.

Roger


I /(am?)/ glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)

Brent
"Shut up he explained."
--- Ring Lardner

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: On puppet governors


On 8/21/2012 9:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Hi Bruno,

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:



On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:

But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they
have their own agendas.



We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction,
and minimize self-dissatisfaction. This can be
programmed in very few lines, but needs a very long time
to bring sophisticated being like us.


But doesn't concept or computation of "self" makes this
statement on self's agenda much less clear than it looks?

Is "self" some conceptual cartoon or program, like
individual isolated humanist "bag-of-flesh + brain soup", a
consumer in a market with bank account, a career, set of
personal experiences, a class idea, is it a tribal idea, or
is it some esoteric notion of "Gaian world soul", a family
notion etc.?


It is more like a control structure. The self is really
defined by the ability of some program to refer to their own
code, even in the course of a computation, like an amoeba can
build another similar amoeba. Or like when you look into a
mirror and recognize yourself. It is the third person self,
like in "I have two legs". Then the math shows that a non
nameable deeper self is attached with it, and obeys a
different logic (the soul).

Satisfying oneself, in nature, is mainly drinking when
thirsty, eating when hungry, mating, peeing, etc.
But with its big neocortex, the man has made things more
complex. By incompleteness (or akin) he is never fully
satisfied, want more, get addicted, refer to authorities, and
then to forget how happiness is easy.



Convincing, but I am less sure. Particularly because 1p
perspective has apparently many selves (the list I mentioned:
"bag of flesh, consumer, career, family, citizen etc.")


"bag" of flesh is more 3p than 1p. The 1p is really the unique
 current feeling/subjective experience. Consumer,
family, career, citizen, ... are 3p attributes, it seems to me.


During and after sports: "I" feel like a single bag of flesh needing 
replenishment of fluids, minerals etc.


During good improvisation, dance, or lovemaking: "I" feels closer to 
"woman, man" playing the universe, vanishing in climaxes and orgasm, 
similar to Salvia or Ecodelic vanishing/minimizing of 1p.


Hi!

Could the effect of Salvia be that it suppresses most the internal 
oral narrative part of the brain's self-modeling function but not all of 
the proprioceptive parts? This would cause a sense of "loss of self"...



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon





During precious family moment: "I" feels secondary to doing what's 
best for all. Similarly, working with great people, or surfing the 
net, 'I" feels like a tiny node in sort of Vernadsky "Noosphere", 
although perhaps broader than limiting to human thought operations, 
than de Chardin and Vernadsky suggest, including plants or other kinds 
of entity.


During passport control: "I" feels like isolated machine/organism with 
bizarre designation document, as Heidegger put it in /Being in Time/, 
"thrown into a world against our will" (we finally don't know, of 
course... but 1p feels this), in an ocean of alien machines/organisms.


Even though these are 3p attributes as described here. The qualia of 
these situations, operations of consciousness are quite different to 
going to bathroom. Empathy, taken as "I understand person x, because I 
am or feel to be person x on some level. "I" knows what that is like."


At moment of deep insight, astronaut Mitchell of Apollo 14 has brief 
moment to relax:


/Then looking beyond the earth itself to the magnificense of the 
larger scene, there was a startling recognition that the nature of the 
universe was not as I had been taught. My understanding of the 
separate distinctness and relative independence of movement of those 
cosmic bodies was shattered... ubiquitous harmony.


/Here Mitchell apparently forgets "egoic" 1p. In moments of experience 
of this kind of insight, realizing how wrong 1p was, it is perturbed 
and apparently reconstituted after the insight has been digested somehow.


There are countless other situations in which 1p feels 1p of other 
organism/machine, like seeing somebody hurt, or like being more "we" 
with close relations, or like 3p observing herself/himself in a mi

Re: divine selection versus natural selection

On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:03, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist

I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.

I agree. Nevertheless, by using some hypothesis science might explain  
why science does not know the meaning of anything.
I agree with what you say, but not as a closure of inquiry. If  
something seems impossible, we must favor the simplest hypothesis  
which explains the impossibility.

Science is not truth. Science is only a tiny lantern on a big unknown/ 
ignorance-space.
Only pseudo-scientist "know" the public truth. Serious scientists  
suggests only hypotheses, and evidences or refutation. Never "the  
truth".

Bruno

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Roger,

Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,�
however at differing levels of information integration,
in the "universal燙YM monad爏ubspace".

Belief can also be a product of science.
I believe science.
Richard

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger  wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
�
According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and  
that trust
does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do  
with it,

at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.�
�
�
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10
Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked  
semanticfield(mind).

On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
> suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If
> it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not
> governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is
> reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.

I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The
reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by
self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them.

>
> What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the
> human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics
> and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope
> in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists
> when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between
> both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division.

But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from
their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different.
And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already
reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between
woman and man, east and west, yin and yang.

Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny
appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other
pole.

> The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian
> movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the
> fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics.
>
> So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever.

I concur.

> When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and
> within new organization.

Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the
level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative
arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all).

> The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by
> makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic
> school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over
> the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the
> URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But
> also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries
> out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a
> greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever.

OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and
religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs
leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense
for short term goal, like it makes sense to "obey" to orders in the
military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run.

And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the
long

Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume



On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a  
social being which has not lost is individuality, as individual and  
as a member of a bigger whole. Both are in tension. The social whole  
is also in our instinctive individual nature,and appear to the  
conscious trough intuitions and feelings of duty.  The "Ought" are  
our long term rules for survival as individuals as member of a  
society trough generations, which is accesibe trough intuition. The  
IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when social things are ok).  
But both are given, but are adapted to the social circunstances : We  
would not be here if our ancestors would not have been egoistic.  
Neither we would be here too if they would not attend their social  
duties and repress the deleterious  part of their selfish behaviours.


For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist  http://meaningoflife.tv/ 
   said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy, because  
the Ough is in an IS no less IS than the IS of our ordinary selfish  
behaviour, with some matizations. is in concordance with the  
Christian notion of the human nature of a man in permanent tension  
between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to his Soul or his  
Nous) and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous  
selfish impulses.


This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the  
common good appears in all the scales of evolution. there are  
parasite molecules, parasite genes, parasite intracellular  
organules, parasite tissues and parasite individuals against which  
the whole has a set of countermeasures. The transitions from a level  
to the next never is complete. The tension between individuality and  
sociality is ethernal, but in the human being this conflict is not  
only is carried out externally, but in its own conscience.


Well said.
Mathematical modal logic, like model theory and mathematical  
semantics, illustrates also that the ought can be made as an is by a  
change of level in the theories, as adding dimensions can sometimes do  
that in mathematical physics.
The tension between the higher self and the "little selfish ego"  
exists right at the start in all universal machine, even if this is  
not palpable when the machine is isolated from other machine. I mean  
that we can already justify a sort of "ought" by the logic of self- 
reference, (notably the one give by [[]p & <>p)), and this might  
corroborate some of Leibniz insight.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/






2012/8/20 Roger 
Hi meekerdb

All's well in Heaven, but down here on earth things are a little  
messier.

Heaven is what should be, down here is what is.
This conflict earns preachers a nice life.

The Christian solution to this dilemma is that God solved it a long
time ago by allowing his son to be crucified and proved it by
resurrecting Him.  IMHO.





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-18, 15:04:00
Subject: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume

Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of  
Natural and Social Science,   London School of

Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Hi Roger,

I answer your many post in one, by pity for the virtual mail boxes.

On 20 Aug 2012, at 11:29, Roger wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and  
that trust

does not come from you, it is a gift from God.

We have nothing to do with it,
at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.

If it is a gift by God, why a bible?

All religions which believes that religion does not apply to machine  
will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical  
universe.

Yes, Hume was complaining about slipping  modal logic into an  
argument.

OK. Note that this was before Kripke, who found a nice mathematical  
semantic for a large class of modal logics, giving them at least  
mathematical sense. And that was before it was realized, notably by  
Kripke, that incompleteness provides transparent aritthmetical  
interpretations of modal logics (Gödel, Löb, Solovay).

There are indeed some similarities between Hume and van Quine. Hume
was an empiricist while van Quine sxeems to me at l,east to have  
been a pragmatist.

Bother woirk from the particular to the general.  Theory schmeery.

Van Orman Quine pragmatism is not so well clear cut. Comp relates  
theology and theo-technology, you can eventually say yes to a doctor  
for pragmatic reason.
Anyway. Technically Quine's critics on modal logic is refuted by  
incompleteness, even on the first order extension, with the  
quantifiers allowed to have variable in the scope of the box. Note  
that this is true Peano Arithmetic but not for Zermelo Frankel set  
theory. Quantifying in the scope of a set predicate is hard to define.

I spent 33 years at least in the metallurgical laboratory before  
retiring,

so in the end, I can't help that while I enjoy and respect theory, and
and am always fascinated by it, in the end I worship data. Pragmatism.
I was born that way.

We makes sense of data through theory and experiences, but not always  
consciously. The brain implements many theories learned through  
evolution. I don't think we can separate data from theory so easily.  
Somehow a brain is by itself already a theory. Our bodies are divine  
hypotheses, somehow, assuming comp. We are words in a rational  
truncation of a quantum field, to take a low level.

I have no problem with pragmatism, as long as it is not used against  
the freedom of any inquiry, nor used as justified invalid reasoning,  
or lies and propaganda. Nor used as pretext to cut the funding of  
fundamental research, as I can give a pragmatic reasons to fund  
fundamental research in all direction.

Pragmatic OK, if honest. That is sometimes difficult with respect to  
hard question, like "what's going on?". It is normal that we develop  
wishful thinking, and if that works, as already suggested by the Löb  
formula( in some very weak and formal sense to be sure), a theory has  
to be assumed always in remaining open it can be false.

Sorry, I was again being a bit harsh again.  You are a kind person.

Can you give me a link to the sort of output a comp program would  
provide ?

Being a natural pragmatist, I learn best from examples.

By definition, all programs are "comp programs", so an example of  
output is what happens on your computer's screen right now.

BY comp, I am a program, so another example, is this post.

There is a reason why a machine looking inward become religious.

Hi Bruno and Stephen

I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.

Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
post!  Why are you so wrong.

It would help if you could be a little more specific.

Bruno

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10
Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked  
semanticfield(mind).

On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
> suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If
> it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not
> governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is
> reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.

I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The
reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by
self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them.

>
> What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the
> human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics
> and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope
> in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists
> when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between
> both phenomena.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers


"This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being."

The Computer

On 8/21/2012 9:54 AM, benjayk wrote:

In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

Is the following statement true?
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
computer'
Imagine a computer trying to solve this problem:
If it says yes, it leads to a contradiction, since a computer has been
trying to confirm it, so its answer is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread smitra

It's a simple logical paradox, an AI could play the same game by asking:

Is the following statement true? 'This statement can't be confirmed to
be true solely by utilizing a human brain'.

Saibal

Citeren benjayk :

In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
received the answer from something beyond itself (even though I am quite
confident human intelligence does transcend computer intelligence).

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

Is the following statement true?
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
computer'
Imagine a computer trying to solve this problem:
If it says yes, it leads to a contradiction, since a computer has been
trying to confirm it, so its answer is wrong.
If it says no, that is, it claims that it CAN be confirmed by a computer,
again leading to a contradiction.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

Nevertheless it can utter it. A computer can say "The following statement is
true: 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true by utilizing a
computer'", but when it does this doesn't help to answer the question
whether it is correct about that, since we could just as well program it to
say the opposite.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

This has also relevance for AI development, especially yet-to-come more
powerful AI. We should hardcode the fact "Some things cannot be understood
using computers" into the computer, so it reminds us of its own limits. This
will help us to use it correctly and not get lost in a illusion of
all-knowing, all-powerful computers (which to an extend is already happening
as you can see by looking at concepts like "singularity").
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34330236.html

Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012  benjayk  wrote:

> In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
> solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
> intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]
>
> Is the following statement true?
> 'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a
> computer'
>

The following statement is without question true:

"Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence"

A computer would have no difficulty in asserting this true statement, in
fact every one of you is looking at a computer  now doing that simple task
right now, and yet there is no logical paradox that threatens to tear the
universe apart; and yet a human being,  Benjamin Jakubik, is unable to
perform this task, a task that even the smallest computer can do with
ease.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

It is, in some sense, a variant of the Gödel sentence, yet it more directly
relates to computers, thus avoiding the ambiguities in interpreting the
relevance of Gödel to computer intelligence.

But from this we can derive that a computer cannot correctly answer the
statement, and so cannot solve the problem in question! So the solution to
the problem is YES, yet no computer can really confirm the truth of the
sentence.

So, yes, our intelligence (whatever we truly are) definitely transcends the
intelligence of a computer and the quest for strong AI or even superhuman AI
seems futile based on that.

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things 
that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.



The equations of string theory describe strings.  So how does it follow that strings 
aren't real.  That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house 
isn't real.


I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality 
itself.  But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - 
like, "My house is green." refers to a part of reality, but "My house is blue." does not.


Brent


For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Stephen and Bruno

2012-08-21 Thread John Mikes

Dear Roger,

(re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense
educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this
list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better
distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well established and
decades-long working ensemble of the list - on other grounds.

The participants on this list are strong minds and well established, you
have little chance to convert them - although some of us linger into
close-to-religious belief systems, which may be a definitional problem
(e.g. Bruno's theology and god, etc.).
You could be more accepted and happier on another list where the majority
is closer to your own belief system. YET:
Maybe you do seek controversy? I could understand that, but your posting
fervor is taking over our list. Have mercy!
Please, consider this a friendly remark.
John Mikes

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno and Stephen
>
> I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.
>
> Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
> post!  Why are you so wrong.
>
> Roger
>
>
> I *(am?)* glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)
>
> Brent
> "Shut up he explained."
> --- Ring Lardner
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: On puppet governors

2012-08-21 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

Hi Bruno,

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>  But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their own
>>> agendas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction, and minimize
>>> self-dissatisfaction. This can be programmed in very few lines, but needs a
>>> very long time to bring sophisticated being like us.
>>>
>>>
>> But doesn't concept or computation of "self" makes this statement on
>> self's agenda much less clear than it looks?
>>
>> Is "self" some conceptual cartoon or program, like individual isolated
>> humanist "bag-of-flesh + brain soup", a consumer in a market with bank
>> account, a career, set of personal experiences, a class idea, is it a
>> tribal idea, or is it some esoteric notion of "Gaian world soul", a family
>> notion etc.?
>>
>>
>> It is more like a control structure. The self is really defined by the
>> ability of some program to refer to their own code, even in the course of a
>> computation, like an amoeba can build another similar amoeba. Or like when
>> you look into a mirror and recognize yourself. It is the third person self,
>> like in "I have two legs". Then the math shows that a non nameable deeper
>> self is attached with it, and obeys a different logic (the soul).
>>
>> Satisfying oneself, in nature, is mainly drinking when thirsty, eating
>> when hungry, mating, peeing, etc.
>> But with its big neocortex, the man has made things more complex. By
>> incompleteness (or akin) he is never fully satisfied, want more, get
>> addicted, refer to authorities, and then to forget how happiness is easy.
>>
>>
>>
> Convincing, but I am less sure. Particularly because 1p perspective has
> apparently many selves (the list I mentioned: "bag of flesh, consumer,
> career, family, citizen etc.")
>
>
> "bag" of flesh is more 3p than 1p. The 1p is really the unique  now> current feeling/subjective experience. Consumer, family, career,
> citizen, ... are 3p attributes, it seems to me.
>
>
During and after sports: "I" feel like a single bag of flesh needing
replenishment of fluids, minerals etc.

During good improvisation, dance, or lovemaking: "I" feels closer to
"woman, man" playing the universe, vanishing in climaxes and orgasm,
similar to Salvia or Ecodelic vanishing/minimizing of 1p.

During precious family moment: "I" feels secondary to doing what's best for
all. Similarly, working with great people, or surfing the net, 'I" feels
like a tiny node in sort of Vernadsky "Noosphere", although perhaps broader
than limiting to human thought operations, than de Chardin and Vernadsky
suggest, including plants or other kinds of entity.

During passport control: "I" feels like isolated machine/organism with
bizarre designation document, as Heidegger put it in *Being in Time*,
"thrown into a world against our will" (we finally don't know, of course...
but 1p feels this), in an ocean of alien machines/organisms.

Even though these are 3p attributes as described here. The qualia of these
situations, operations of consciousness are quite different to going to
bathroom. Empathy, taken as "I understand person x, because I am or feel to
be person x on some level. "I" knows what that is like."

At moment of deep insight, astronaut Mitchell of Apollo 14 has brief moment
to relax:

*Then looking beyond the earth itself to the magnificense of the larger
scene, there was a startling recognition that the nature of the universe
was not as I had been taught. My understanding of the separate distinctness
and relative independence of movement of those cosmic bodies was
shattered... ubiquitous harmony.

*Here Mitchell apparently forgets "egoic" 1p. In moments of experience of
this kind of insight, realizing how wrong 1p was, it is perturbed and
apparently reconstituted after the insight has been digested somehow.

There are countless other situations in which 1p feels 1p of other
organism/machine, like seeing somebody hurt, or like being more "we" with
close relations, or like 3p observing herself/himself in a mirror as you
say, or complete dissolution of 1p as described above.

This might look fuzzy, in that its hard to imagine genuinely leaving 1p
interface. But more Salvia, sex, space travels, and finally death might
convince that boundaries are less clear; in any case these distinctions are
not merely pure semantics of subjective perspective; they govern our
actions quite concretely 1p morphing into some 3p notion of "respectable
citizen" during a job interview. Incommunicable 1p truth is shareable when
reasoning is shut down. Not just in trance modes of ecstasy, but looking
into somebody's eyes in the deathbed, and crying even though 1p

Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Roger,
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set
of monads.

The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of
nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP is.
They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP.
Richard

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:

>  Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
> with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
> concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
> what the meaning of anything is. Period.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/21/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Richard Ruquist 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
> *Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection
>
>  Roger,
>
> Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,�
> however at differing levels of information integration,
> in the "universal燙YM monad爏ubspace".
>
> Belief can also be a product of science.
> I believe science.
> Richard
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger  wrote:
>
>>  Hi Bruno Marchal
>> �
>> According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that
>> trust
>> does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have nothing to do with
>> it,
>> at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.�
>> �
>> �
>> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/20/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* Bruno Marchal 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-08-19, 08:26:10
>> *Subject:* Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked
>> semanticfield(mind).
>>
>>   On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> > The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that
>> > suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If
>> > it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not
>> > governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is
>> > reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.
>>
>> I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The
>> reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by
>> self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the
>> > human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics
>> > and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope
>> > in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists
>> > when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between
>> > both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division.
>>
>> But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from
>> their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different.
>> And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already
>> reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between
>> woman and man, east and west, yin and yang.
>>
>> Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny
>> appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other
>> pole.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian
>> > movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the
>> > fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics.
>> >
>> > So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever.
>>
>> I concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> > When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and
>> > within new organization.
>>
>> Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the
>> level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative
>> arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all).
>>
>>
>>
>> > The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by
>> > makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic
>> > school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over
>> > the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the
>> > URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But
>> > also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries
>> > out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a
>> > greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever.
>>
>> OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and
>> religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs
>> leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense
>> for short term goal, like it makes sense to "obey" t

Re: How Leibniz solved the mind-body problem

On 8/21/2012 8:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Roger,
>
> According to string theory themonads do not "only see the external
> world through the eyes of the supreme monad
> (or CPU)". Rather in string theory each individual, discrete, and
> distinct monad sees the entire universe instantly but without complete
> resolution. However integration of information allows for improved
> resolution.

Hi Richard,

This is the same thing that Roger and I are claiming.

>
> In string theory there is no supreme monad. Rather any such thing must
> be an intergrated or collective effect of many monads. Leibniz was not
> entirely correct. But he got the most important characteristic, that
> monads are so tiny as to be invisible. And that monads control the
> universe via the laws and constants of nature.

The idea of the supreme is a figure of speech... We can approximate the
supreme with limits...

>
> Also there is no evidence in string theory that monads come in 3
> types. But the fact that string theory predicts the 3 generations of
> particles in the Standard Model, suggests that it's possible that
> monads come in 3 varieties. But those varieties would have had to be
> available in the primordial, uninflated set of 10 or more dimensions
> Richard
>

Please read more detail on string theory, I hate to see you continue in
such a mistake. :_( String theory is materialist nonsense.

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Roger Clough  > wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
> To Idealists, the "real" is the idea or concept of a thing,
> The thing as it it appears to us is a phenomenon.
> This inversion of common sense was made by Leibniz
> in order to get rid of the mind-body problem. There's
> no problem really if both are just concepts. They don't
> actually interact, but they can be conceived as interacting.
> There is a tricky point, and is I think a principal reason why L can
> be so confusing and critics have observed that even Leibniz can
> sometimes confuse the real with the phenomenal.
> 1) First of all, Idealists such as Leibniz. Berkeley and Kant
> consider
> IDEAS to be real, not the material or other phenomena they describe.
> For these guys, the descriptions are real, not the things or
> phenomena they describe,
> which admittedly are transitory.
> Which is NOT to say that to Leibniz, the world out there is a
> hallucination.
> No, it is just like it looks and he calls the world we see,
> although phenomenal, "well-founded phenomena".
> You can still stub your toe and feel pain, billiard balls will all
> collide as
> usual, etc. To all purposes, everything will seem normal.
> 2) The monads can only see the external world through the eyes of
> the supreme monad
> (or CPU). This is not direct sight, for one thing monads afre not
> spaced in space or time
> (perhaps heaven is like this ?). They don't really see the outside
> world,
> they only see an infinite number of of mirrors, those being
> reflections of the
> monad in question from the [points of view of the other monads.
> in the mirrors or "perceptions" of
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 8/21/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>

> snip
>


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: How Leibniz solved the mind-body problem


On 8/21/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
To Idealists, the "real" is the idea or concept of a thing,
The thing as it it appears to us is a phenomenon.
This inversion of common sense was made by Leibniz
in order to get rid of the mind-body problem. There's
no problem really if both are just concepts. They don't
actually interact, but they can be conceived as interacting.


HI Roger,

YES! The details of the "conceived as interacting" and the 
conception is true is the same as Bruno's Bp&p, but without the 
accidentalism.




There is a tricky point, and is I think a principal reason why L can
be so confusing and critics have observed that even Leibniz can
sometimes confuse the real with the phenomenal.


Indeed!


1) First of all, Idealists such as Leibniz. Berkeley and Kant consider
IDEAS to be real, not the material or other phenomena they describe.
For these guys, the descriptions are real, not the things or phenomena 
they describe,

which admittedly are transitory.


This is a mistake. They are ignoring the role of the physical. Even 
if the physical is a collective conception of the monads, this does not 
take anything away from its "reality". It merely takes away the 
ontological primitivity.


Which is NOT to say that to Leibniz, the world out there is a 
hallucination.

No, it is just like it looks and he calls the world we see,
although phenomenal, "well-founded phenomena".
You can still stub your toe and feel pain, billiard balls will all 
collide as

usual, etc. To all purposes, everything will seem normal.


Exactly!

2) The monads can only see the external world through the eyes of the 
supreme monad

(or CPU).


Yes, but they forget that they are the Supreme monad. This is the 
true meaning of the doctrine of "fall from Grace".


This is not direct sight, for one thing monads afre not spaced in 
space or time

(perhaps heaven is like this ?).


Perhaps...


They don't really see the outside world,
they only see an infinite number of of mirrors, those being 
reflections of the

monad in question from the [points of view of the other monads.


Yes.


 in the mirrors or "perceptions" of


yes!


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
everything could function."


- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King 
*Receiver:* everything-list 
*Time:* 2012-08-21, 06:53:59
*Subject:* Re: A Platonic world of strings,monads or
consciousness. How are they interrelated ?

Hi,

　　　 There is one thing that needs to be considered: Given that
monads have no windows, does it not follow that there is no "real"
outside of them? All appearances of an external world (to a monad)
is wholly contained within it. An external embedding manifold is
unnecessary and even superfluous.

O



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Leibniz's ToE is a sociology.


On 8/21/2012 6:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz did not have an overall theory of the universe such
as seems to be wanted here. The monadology is not an overall
theory of the universe, instead it is moreorless like a living
ecology, where the parts (monads) compete and collaborate with each
other through the supremem monad (the CPU) which in effect carries
out all of the needs, states, desires, abilities, expectations, etc.
So Leibniz's ToE is a sociology.


HI Roger,

A plurality that is actually singular to God, the supremum.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
everything could function."


- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King 
*Receiver:* everything-list 
*Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:51:24
*Subject:* Re: The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward
the"best possible" solution.

On 8/20/2012 6:54 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the "best
possible" solution.


Hi Roger,

But the "best possible" can only be defined infinitely (and
thus impossible to know) or finitely in a error-prone or
approximate way.


And contain absolute as well as contingent truths.


I agree.


Thus there must be some sort of mereology involved in the modalities.


Yes. The actuals are mutually consistent aspects or modes of
the possibilities. The key is the frame of reference of the
observer. There is no finitely knowable 3p, there is is only
finitely approximative 1p. Thus we choose a point of view tat
allows for measurement/observation that can be converted into
communicable representations. This is the canonical form!


Maybe a new type of copula insuring this situation to hold ?


Copula? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula ? Please elaborate...


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King 
*Receiver:* everything-list

*Time:* 2012-08-20, 01:02:41
*Subject:* Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense

On 8/19/2012 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.


Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect
of "I understand that 2+2=4" follows, at least, from the
requirement that many entities capable of making such
statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate
about such statements with each other however far away in
space and time they are from each other. We can ignore
the fact that there is a collection of entities to whom
the statement "I understand that 2+2=4" has a meaning.
You need to get a grip on the nature of meaningfulness.
Searle has tried to do this with his Chinese Room idea
but failed to communicate the concept. :_(


Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic
Up="Understands p".  :-)

Brent
-- 



Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK,
understanding is contingent on demonstrability, e.g. I
understand p if and only if I can demonstrate that p
implies q and q is not trivial and q is true in the same
context as p. I think that Bruno's idea of "interviewing a
machine" is a form of demonstration as I am trying to
define it here. In my thesis, demonstrability requires that
the model to be demonstrated is actually implemented in at
least one possible physical world (i.e. satisfies
thermodynamic laws and Shannon information theory)
otherwise it could be used to implement a Maxwell Demon.

BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me
to my current ideas, that abstract computation requires
that at least one physical system actually can implement
it. This is not ultrafinitism since I am allowing for an
uncountable infinity of physical worlds, but almost none of
them are accessible to each other (there exist event
horizons, etc.).
Consider the case where a computation X is generating
an exact simulatio

Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi guys,

Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things 
that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.

For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address. 



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 16:21:32
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


Stephan,


Well I agree the CYMs are a form of substance. But there are string theories 
where the background spacetime is flexible, to use a common term. So that is 
not a theory limitation.
The frozen block approximation allows for certain solutions that the flexible 
spacetime inhibits.?


I do think the CYMs are flexible since according to string theorists they 
contain the the laws and constants of physics allowing for 10^500 different 
universes. That should cover every possibility.
Richard


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote:

On 8/20/2012 1:40 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Hi Stephan, 


I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background.?
Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE.
Richard

Hi Richard,

?? I had the very same reaction, but research it for yourself. Look at the 
literature, the trick is the use of fiber bundles which require a base space. 
They get away with it because they are using the entire space-time manifold 
(like the frozen ice block idea) as the base space, so it appears to be OK. But 
this leads to the landscape problem because they have to consider the theory of 
all possible space-time manifolds. The fundamental problem that I see with the 
entire exercise is the assumption of primitive matter (here in the form of 
primitive space-time manifolds that are fibered with a plenum of orbifolds), 
the very same problem that Bruno is pointing out. The entire idea that 
"substance is fundamental" needs to be re-evaluated and seen as just a basis of 
observation and not something ontologically a priori.




On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote:

On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Wiki:? Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications 
of?predicate logic?o?formal ontology, of which mereology is an important part. 
A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with 
inclusion, that the part-whole relation?ordersits universe, meaning that 
everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole 
is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), 


Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and 
to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny 
balls of??6-dmensional?space exist which turn out to have the properties of 
reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and 
monads.


?iki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other 
(antisymmetry).


Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the 
CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads 
and the rest.


Hi Richard,

? I agree with all with a small exception:? I have a big problem with the 
superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds 
the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! 



-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, s

Re: Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Hi Richard Ruquist 

I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper 
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection

Roger,

Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,?
however at differing levels of information integration,
in the "universal?YM monad?ubspace".

Belief can also be a product of science.
I believe science.
Richard

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger  wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal 
?
According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and that trust 
does not come from you, it is a gift from God.?e have nothing to do with it,
at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.?
?
?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-19, 08:26:10
Subject: Re: The I Ching, a cominatorically complete hyperlinked 
semanticfield(mind).

On 19 Aug 2012, at 11:15, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> The barrier between religion and ordinary life, like the one that 
> suppossedly exist between gods and ordinary life is conventiona. If 
> it is true that men have an instinct for religion, this is not 
> governed by a switch that is put on when in a temple or when it is 
> reading esoteric teachings. It is on all the time and in everyone.

I agree. I make a case that all correct machine are theological. The 
reason is that such machine, when looking inward (as they can do by 
self-reference) can guess that there is something transcending them.

>
> What produces this need of the soul or this innate instinct of the 
> human nature?. It may produce organized relgion, but also politics 
> and ideology. The brain areas excited by the appearance of the Pope 
> in a group of believers are the same that are excited in ecologists 
> when Al Gore appears. In the past there were no separation between 
> both phenomena. This is an mostly Occidental division.

But it is also a natural division. When machine get theological, from 
their perspective it looks like those kind of things are different. 
And at some level they are. I think that the conflict is already 
reflected in the left brain / right brain difference. Perhaps between 
woman and man, east and west, yin and yang.

Take any machine, she will develop those two poles. the "schizophreny 
appears only when one pole believes to be more right than the other 
pole.

> The cult of personality in socialist countries and the sectarian 
> movements (either political or religious) are new editions of the 
> fundamentally Unitarian nature of religion and politics.
>
> So, then, gods and adivines have been and will be here forever.

I concur.

> When a name for them is discredited, they appear with new names and 
> within new organization.

Absolutely. Some atheists sects can copy some clergy ritual at the 
level of the microcospic details, and also the authoritative 
arguments. I am thinking to some atheist masonic lodges (not all).

> The modern Global warming alarmism is an episode of adivination by 
> makin illegitimate use of science. the Marxism was a scholastic 
> school of Masters of Reality that claimed predicitive powers over 
> the story of Humanity. The gigantic photographs of Marx Lenin in the 
> URSS parliament is an example of religious temple of Atheism. But 
> also the small photograph or a loving one in the dormitory carries 
> out a religious sense, Specially if it passed away and it was a 
> greath influence in our lives. Religion is everywhere and forever.

OK. But it can progress. The authoritative argument in science and 
religion is a rest of our mammals reflex. Dogs and wolves needs 
leaders, for reason of a long biological past story. It makes sense 
for short term goal, like it makes sense to "obey" to orders in the 
military situation. But it is really an handicap for the long run.

And that means that authoritative arguments will disappear, in the 
long run, or we will disappear, like the dinosaurs. Natural selection 
can select good things for the short terms, and throw them away later. 
What will not disappear is science and religion. Religion and 
spirituality will be more and more prevalent, and play a role of 
private goal, and science will be more and more understood as the best 
tool to approximate that spiritual goal. I think.

To fight fundamentalism in religion, theology should go back to the 
academy (which like democracy is the worst institution except for all 
others!).

Bruno

h

Re: Re: Stephen and Bruno

Hi meekerdb 

It wasn't me. Someone else here posted that statement (that Bruno and Stephen 
say everything wrongly).


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 16:00:35
Subject: Re: Stephen and Bruno


On 8/20/2012 5:16 AM, Roger wrote: 
Hi Bruno and Stephen

I want to inform you that you are wrong in all of your writings.

Please understand how very incorrect you are about everything you
post!  Why are you so wrong.

Roger


I glad Roger cleared that up.  :-)

Brent
"Shut up he explained."
--- Ring Lardner

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Leibniz's ToE is a sociology.

Hi Stephen P. King


Leibniz did not have an overall theory of the universe such
as seems to be wanted here. The monadology is not an overall
theory of the universe, instead it is moreorless like a living
ecology, where the parts (monads) compete and collaborate with each
other through the supremem monad (the CPU) which in effect carries
out all of the needs, states, desires, abilities, expectations, etc.   

So Leibniz's ToE is a sociology.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 11:51:24
Subject: Re: The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the"best 
possible" solution.


On 8/20/2012 6:54 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

The modal logic needs to aim purposefully toward the "best possible" solution. 

Hi Roger,

But the "best possible" can only be defined infinitely (and thus impossible 
to know) or finitely in a error-prone or approximate way. 


And contain absolute as well as contingent truths.

I agree.


Thus there must be some sort of mereology involved in the modalities.

Yes. The actuals are mutually consistent aspects or modes of the 
possibilities. The key is the frame of reference of the observer. There is no 
finitely knowable 3p, there is is only finitely approximative 1p. Thus we 
choose a point of view tat allows for measurement/observation that can be 
converted into communicable representations. This is the canonical form!


Maybe a new type of copula insuring this situation to hold ?

Copula? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula ? Please elaborate...



Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 01:02:41
Subject: Re: Reconciling Bruno's Primitives with Multisense


On 8/19/2012 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
On 8/19/2012 4:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.

Dear Bruno,

As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I understand that 
2+2=4" follows, at least, from the requirement that many entities capable of 
making such statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about 
such statements with each other however far away in space and time they are 
from each other. We can ignore the fact that there is a collection of entities 
to whom the statement "I understand that 2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get 
a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has tried to do this with his 
Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the concept. :_(

Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands p".  :-)

Brent
-- 



Hi Brent,

That would be wonderful if possible. AFAIK, understanding is contingent on 
demonstrability, e.g. I understand p if and only if I can demonstrate that p 
implies q and q is not trivial and q is true in the same context as p. I think 
that Bruno's idea of "interviewing a machine" is a form of demonstration as I 
am trying to define it here. In my thesis, demonstrability requires that the 
model to be demonstrated is actually implemented in at least one possible 
physical world (i.e. satisfies thermodynamic laws and Shannon information 
theory) otherwise it could be used to implement a Maxwell Demon.

BTW, it was an analysis of Maxwell's Demon that lead me to my current 
ideas, that abstract computation requires that at least one physical system 
actually can implement it. This is not ultrafinitism since I am allowing for an 
uncountable infinity of physical worlds, but almost none of them are accessible 
to each other (there exist event horizons, etc.). 
Consider the case where a computation X is generating an exact simulation 
of the behavior of molecules in a two compartment tank with a valve and there 
exists a computer Y that can use the output of X to control the valve. We can 
easily see that X could be a subroutine of Y. If the control of Y leads to an 
exact partition of the fast (hot) and slow (cold) molecules and this difference 
can be used to run Y then some might argue that we would have a computation for 
free situation. The problem is that for the hot/cold difference to be exploited 
to do work the entire apparatus would have to be coupled to a heat reservoir 
that would absorb the waste energy generated by the work.  Heat Reservoirs are 
interesting beasts


If your computer simulation is acting as Maxwell's demon then you don't need a 
heat reservoir. 


 Hi Brent,

Good point. I stand corrected! But did my

Crap happens (is) but it's kept to a minimum (ought)

Hi Stephen P. King 

Yes, what a mess. 

Crap happens and then you die. How's that for an agenda ?

That's why Christians pray and both love and fear God (reverence).

Which was Leibniz's motivation for optimisticallhy surmising
that although crap must happen because the world must be contingent 
(because it is a world of facts (Aristotle), 
not necessary reason (Plato)), a good God (which God is)
would (ought to) create the the best possible world.

That is, facts or "is" (Aristotle) aiming for
necessary reason, certainty) Plato, thus
"ought".


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 12:22:10
Subject: Re: Godel and Leibniz's contingent world


On 8/20/2012 7:04 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
?
Ah so.? I can point leibniz's critics to Godel.
?
And to the contingency of the world. What did you expect ? 
A rose garden ?
?
Leibniz sort of sensed Godel's theorem ?y his recognition that while things 
must be perfect in Heaven,
down here things were contingent, iffy, troublesome, imperfectly fitting and 
imperfect in the small,
but optimal in the large. 
?
There were reaslons behind each event, but they needn't entirely jibe with
one another. And even the reasons were mutually contingent. What a mess.
?
?


Hi Roger,

?? I agree with your remarks here 100%!

snip

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Stephen P. King 

The tree structure comes from the predicate logic that monads follow.
All predicates are in the subject (a substance, a monad). And predicates can't 
be subjects.
A sufficient or complete set of predicates makes up a substance.

To me this would be a simple tree structure, but I am still a novice at 
understanding Leibniz.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 11:44:25
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


Hi Roger,


On 8/20/2012 6:48 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

Mereology is part and parcel of Leibniz's system, to use a limp pun.

I like puns! They show us that existence does not just have one 
side/form/pattern/perspective...



1) Although unproven, but because God is good while the world is contingent 
(imperfect, misfitting),
Leibniz, like Augustine and Paul, believed that things as a whole work for 
good, but unfortunately not all parts 
have to be equally good. This is essentially his theodicy.

OK, I agree with the spirit of this statement but I am trying to find the 
canonical mereology of the monads. We can get lost in the many rabbit trails of 
concepts chains that this idea can lead off to... In the words of Red Leader " 
Stay on Target!" ;-)



2).  Everything is nonlocal: The monads are arranged like a tree structure 
leading up to
the Supreme Monad, above which is God, causing all things to happen
and perceiving all things. 


Yes, but I think that it is a non-Archimedean arrangement and, to be 
specific, an ultrametric that can be represented as a Bethe lattice.



Each "node" represents a monad and the edges represent connections to other 
monads that it is partly bisimilar to. All composition is given in terms of 
relative wholes, as there are no "parts" in the Archimedean sense in a 
monadology.
The guiding principle is "all things are monads or "parts" of a monad. The 
"parts" here is a perspective issue that occurs when one monad has only a 
partial simulation of another... In more theological terms we might say that 
the Godhead is immanent in all monads as it is all of its aspects.




Now Man, being near the top of the Great Chain of Being, and the 
"perceptions" of each monad are being constantly and instantly 
updated to reflect the perceptions all of the other monads in the universe,

Yes, exactly, but this "being constantly and instantly updated" is not a 
communication scheme as we think in classical terms with signals traveling to 
and fro; it is the moving in and out of synchrony of monads. The key is that 
there is no exact and finitely representable orchestration of this movement 
(Bohm's implicate order was an attempt to capture this idea, but Bohm missed 
the non-archemedean aspect and thus misunderstood the mereology problem!!), 
there is only finite and inexact approximations. 


So, to the degree of their logical distance from one another,
their intelligence, and  clarity of vision,  each monad is
omniscient.

Yes, and this "omniscience", I believe, is captured by the superposition 
aspect of a QM wavefuction. I use the Net of Indra concept to illustrate this. 
Each monad, like the jewels in Indra's net, is a reflection (simulation!) of 
all others but never exactly as exact reflection would be identity (exact 
bisimilarity).


Personally  I use the analogy of the holograph,
each part contining the whole, but with limited resolution.

Yes exactly (pun!), this does a good job representing the phase angle 
canonical form of this idea. It must be understood that there is no one "true 
picture" of this. We have to consider all of the versions of it as we see the 
properties of objects are dependent on the means with which we observe them. 
This is the implication of the saying: Nature (God) does not have a preferred 
observational basis. What we need to define this mathematically is to find the 
canonical form.





Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-18, 17:34:30
Subject: Re: Monads as computing elements


Dear Roger,

From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by many 
authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is given purely in 
terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the monads. This 
synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to Bruno's Bp&p idea but 
for an apriori given plurality of Monads. I identify the computational aspect 
of the Monad with a unitary evolution transformation (in a linear algebra on 
topological spaces).
I have been investigating whether or not it might be possible

The bicameral mind

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to
get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet.
They speak completely different languages. Two completely different views, 
two different tribes always at war with one another.

Because of the bicameral mind metaphor (Jaynes and others):


Left brain metaphor 
(top or intellectual portion of monad humunculus)
Conscious, thinking, discreteness, sequential, control, logic, yang, male, ego,
insistent, sun

Right brain metaphor
(feeling or middle portyion of monad humunculus) 
Subconscious, Feeling, global, nonlinear thinking, submission, aesthetics, yin, 
female, 
noninsistent, moon 

Two different tribes, the ought or moral coming from the right hand brain
metaphor, the "is" coming from the left hand brain metaphor. The bicameral
mind

Let me just state my basis for the assignments. I think Lakoff wrote a book 
not long ago on the subject of words and politics.
 
Liberal (ought) arguments are usually morally based (we can't let the poor 
starve
so we need to tax the greedy rich)  while conservatives try to reply using the 
"is"
weapons of facts and logic (we can't afford that stuff, we're going bankrupt).


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-21, 05:30:05
Subject: Re: Politics and the is-ought problem of Hume


Roger, It would be these days, however both groups obey the same ought rules. 
what changes is the whole which each one refer to; For example liberals usually 
exclude unborn children, and put any minority in the world above any else in 
the top of his whole (some put wildlife above humanity), while conservatives 
usually consider his country first and his civilization after. 


What is a fallacy is to consider the IS of the social life is the same IS of 
the physics and the logic. When Hume analized the writings of people about 
social matters which mixed the is and the ought, I guess Hume was wrong. 
Beacuse people act according with the is and the ought. I still did not read 
the interesting evolutionary paper that Brent linked here, but I again guess 
that Hume assimilate the egoistic behaviour of the people with the "IS" of the 
physics and logic based on the partial data of  the vibrant commercial activity 
of the England of the XVIII century at the surface level. He did not realized 
the greath amount of "ougths" that people has to follow to maintan order in 
commercial interchanges with a comparatively little cohercion.


2012/8/21 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
Yes, the is/ought dilemma is embedded in our culture.
These days (as always and as everywhere) the "is" people are 
the conservatives, the "ought" people are the liberals, and 
never the twain shall meet.
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 09:01:09
Subject: Re: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume


In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a social being 
which has not lost is individuality, as individual and as a member of a bigger 
whole. Both are in tension. The social whole is also in our instinctive 
individual nature,and appear to the conscious trough intuitions and feelings of 
duty.  The "Ought" are our long term rules for survival as individuals as 
member of a society trough generations, which is accesibe trough intuition. The 
IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when social things are ok). But both are 
given, but are adapted to the social circunstances : We would not be here if 
our ancestors would not have been egoistic. Neither we would be here too if 
they would not attend their social duties and repress the deleterious  part of 
their selfish behaviours. 


For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist  http://meaningoflife.tv/   
said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy, because the Ough is in 
an IS no less IS than the IS of our ordinary selfish behaviour, with some 
matizations. is in concordance with the Christian notion of the human nature of 
a man in permanent tension between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to 
his Soul or his Nous) and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous 
selfish impulses. 


This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the common good 
appears in all the scales of evolution. there are parasite molecules, parasite 
genes, parasite intracellular organules, parasite tissues and parasite 
individuals against which the whole has a set of countermeasures. The 
transitions from a level to the next never is complete. The tension between 
individuality and sociality is ethe

Re: Politics and the is-ought problem of Hume

2012-08-21 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Roger, It would be these days, however both groups obey the same ought
rules. what changes is the whole which each one refer to; For example
liberals usually exclude unborn children, and put any minority in the world
above any else in the top of his whole (some put wildlife above humanity),
while conservatives usually consider his country first and his civilization
after.

What is a fallacy is to consider the IS of the social life is the same IS
of the physics and the logic. When Hume analized the writings of people
about social matters which mixed the is and the ought, I guess Hume was
wrong. Beacuse people act according with the is and the ought. I still did
not read the interesting evolutionary paper that Brent linked here, but I
again guess that Hume assimilate the egoistic behaviour of the people with
the "IS" of the physics and logic based on the partial data of  the vibrant
commercial activity of the England of the XVIII century at the surface
level. He did not realized the greath amount of "ougths" that people has to
follow to maintan order in commercial interchanges with a comparatively
little cohercion.

2012/8/21 Roger Clough 

>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> Yes, the is/ought dilemma is embedded in our culture.
> These days (as always and as everywhere) the "is" people are
> the conservatives, the "ought" people are the liberals, and
> never the twain shall meet.
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/21/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-20, 09:01:09
> *Subject:* Re: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume
>
>  In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a
> social being which has not lost is individuality, as individual and as a
> member of a bigger whole. Both are in tension. The social whole is also in
> our instinctive individual nature,and appear to the conscious trough
> intuitions and feelings of duty. The "Ought" are our long term rules for
> survival as individuals as member of a society trough generations, which is
> accesibe trough intuition. The IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when
> social things are ok). But both are given, but are adapted to the social
> circunstances : We would not be here if our ancestors would not have been
> egoistic. Neither we would be here too if they would not attend their
> social duties and repress the deleterious part of their selfish behaviours.
>
> For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist
> http://meaningoflife.tv/ said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a
> fallacy, because the Ough is in an IS no less IS than the IS of our
> ordinary selfish behaviour, with some matizations. is in concordance with
> the Christian notion of the human nature of a man in permanent tension
> between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to his Soul or his Nous)
> and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous selfish impulses.
>
> This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the common
> good appears in all the scales of evolution. there are parasite molecules,
> parasite genes, parasite intracellular organules, parasite tissues and
> parasite individuals against which the whole has a set of countermeasures.
> The transitions from a level to the next never is complete. The tension
> between individuality and sociality is ethernal, but in the human being
> this conflict is not only is carried out externally, but in its own
> conscience.
>
>
>
> 2012/8/20 Roger 
>
>>  Hi meekerdb
>>  All's well in Heaven, but down here on earth things are a little
>> messier.
>> Heaven is what should be, down here is what is.
>> This conflict earns preachers a nice life.
>>  The Christian solution to this dilemma is that God solved it a long
>> time ago by allowing his son to be crucified and proved it by
>> resurrecting Him. IMHO.
>>  Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/20/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>> *From:* meekerdb 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-08-18, 15:04:00
>>  *Subject:* Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume
>>
>>   Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
>> Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural
>> and Social Science, London School of
>> Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.
>>
>> Abstract: David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural
>> human desires, and that
>> moral values are the projections of desires that aim at the common good
>> of society. Recent
>> developments in game theory, evolutionary biology, animal behaviour and
>> neuroscience explain
>> why humans have such desires, and hence provide support for a Humean
>> approach to moral
>> psychology and moral philosophy. However,

Law: Leibniz and jurisprudence

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi 

Leibniz's education was for the Law, not for philosophy,
and accordingly his ethics and theology are said to be 
theories of jurisprudence. I believe he wrote a book
on jurisprudence.


 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-ethics/


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Evgenii Rudnyi 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 14:25:52
Subject: Neurolaw


I have listened to Philosophy of Science: Bolinda Beginner Guides by 
Geoffrey Gorham. The author has mentioned about a new discipline, 
neurolaw and I believe that could be useful for the ongoing discussion 
on the free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolaw

"Neurolaw is an emerging field of interdisciplinary study that explores 
the effects of discoveries in neuroscience on legal rules and standards. 
Drawing from neuroscience, philosophy, social psychology, cognitive 
neuroscience, and criminology, neurolaw practitioners seek to address 
not only the descriptive and predictive issues of how neuroscience is 
and will be used in the legal system, but also the normative issues of 
how neuroscience should and should not be used. The most prominent 
questions that have emerged from this exploration are as follows: To 
what extent can a tumor or brain injury alleviate criminal punishment? 
Can sentencing or rehabilitation regulations be influenced by 
neuroscience? Who is permitted access to images of a person? brain? 
Neuroscience is beginning to address these questions in its effort to 
understand human behavior, and will potentially shape future aspects of 
legal processes."

Evgenii
-- 

Geoffrey Gorham: Philosophy of Science
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-science.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Politics and the is-ought problem of Hume

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Yes, the is/ought dilemma is embedded in our culture.
These days (as always and as everywhere) the "is" people are 
the conservatives, the "ought" people are the liberals, and 
never the twain shall meet.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 09:01:09
Subject: Re: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume


In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a social being 
which has not lost is individuality, as individual and as a member of a bigger 
whole. Both are in tension. The social whole is also in our instinctive 
individual nature,and appear to the conscious trough intuitions and feelings of 
duty.  The "Ought" are our long term rules for survival as individuals as 
member of a society trough generations, which is accesibe trough intuition. The 
IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when social things are ok). But both are 
given, but are adapted to the social circunstances : We would not be here if 
our ancestors would not have been egoistic. Neither we would be here too if 
they would not attend their social duties and repress the deleterious  part of 
their selfish behaviours.


For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist  http://meaningoflife.tv/   
said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy, because the Ough is in 
an IS no less IS than the IS of our ordinary selfish behaviour, with some 
matizations. is in concordance with the Christian notion of the human nature of 
a man in permanent tension between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to 
his Soul or his Nous) and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous 
selfish impulses. 


This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the common good 
appears in all the scales of evolution. there are parasite molecules, parasite 
genes, parasite intracellular organules, parasite tissues and parasite 
individuals against which the whole has a set of countermeasures. The 
transitions from a level to the next never is complete. The tension between 
individuality and sociality is ethernal, but in the human being this conflict 
is not only is carried out externally, but in its own conscience.






2012/8/20 Roger 

Hi meekerdb 
 
All's well in Heaven, but down here on earth things are a little messier.
Heaven is what should be, down here is what is.
This conflict earns preachers a nice life.
 
The Christian solution to this dilemma is that God solved it a long
time ago by allowing his son to be crucified and proved it by 
resurrecting Him.  IMHO.
 
 
 
 
 
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-18, 15:04:00
Subject: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume


Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and 
Social Science, London School of
Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.

Abstract: David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural human 
desires, and that
moral values are the projections of desires that aim at the common good of 
society. Recent
developments in game theory, evolutionary biology, animal behaviour and 
neuroscience explain
why humans have such desires, and hence provide support for a Humean approach 
to moral
psychology and moral philosophy. However, few philosophers have been willing to 
pursue this
naturalistic approach to ethics for fear that it commits something called ‘the 
naturalistic fallacy’.
This paper reviews several versions of the fallacy, and demonstrates that none 
of them present an
obstacle to this updated, evolutionary version of Humean ethical naturalism.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep04234247.pdf

Brent

On 8/18/2012 8:08 AM, Roger wrote: 
Hi Bruno Marchal 
 
This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to 
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is 
"ought to be" and Aristotle is "is in fact".
 
There is a troubling dualism between the two, that while we live in the
Kingdom of Earth, we strive for the Kingdom of Heaven
("thy Kingdom come.). 
 
This is unreconciliable dualism Hume pointed out between
"is" and "should be".  He said he knew of no way to go from
"is" to "should be". Hume is a great prose stylist and thinker
so ihe's worth quoting:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
 
Hume discusses the problem in book III, part I, section I of his work, A 
Treatise of Human Nature (1739):
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always 
remarked,

Re: On puppet governors