Re: The poverty of computers
On 11 Sep 2012, at 17:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: (to John Clark) I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the 3-view on the 1-view (like in I will feel myself in both cities), and the 1-view on the 1-views (I will feel myself being in only one city and I can't know which one). This gives the only indeterminacy phenomenologically equivalent with the quantum one, yet explained entirely with assuming quantum physics. I meant without assuming QM. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: The poverty of computers
On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:36, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: God = truth Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity makes a bridge between two fields, What two fields? The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology. I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale sense I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth. Yes, it is the idea. the term God, and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that something is true then use the word true. We don't talk about true, but about the notion of truth. God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much in public? For the same reason we talk about feeling, consciousness, etc. We refer to experience, and attempt to make sense of them. Read Plato for learning more on this. I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved from philosophy to science. Plato's questions are at the origin of science. It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't want to get informed. Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the physical science. Even Aristotle did not make that error, and present the primary matter as an hypothesis, or a theory, needing such statement to be made explicit. I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical reality, still less a paper showing how to test such idea. Comp, mainly the movie graph, debunks such an idea. I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3- view, or the 3-view on the 1-view There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. You are the only one who have a problem here, and you did not succeed in showing any confusion, except your own about 1p and 3p. Little sentences with a dismissive tone are not arguments. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: The poverty of computers
On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology? It has been, Nice to hear that. its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone believing in God cannot have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can only ask question and suggest temporary theories. Not answering about the step3 --- step4 makes you looking like a devout atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
The nothing but fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)
Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book Moses and Monotheism. What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can give a reason for something doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true, it would be suprising if it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and folk tales. I call this the nothing but fallacy. It is the bread and butter of atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other atheist critics made a good living based on this fallacy. Simlilarly critics of the near death experience sometimes explain away the near death experience as due to some chemical that the brain exudes as death nears. To repeat, if the near death esperience is real I would be surprised if there WEREN'T a physical correlate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:13:48 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said I don't know. Good. So we can do research. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which can't explain anything. Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain
Hi Bruno Marchal Self can include personality, history, ID, whatever, but it has as its central, essential feature a point of focus which is a unity: a substance, to use Leibniz's vocabulary. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:52:31 Subject: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:05, Roger Clough wrote: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain Since neuroscience omits or seems not to feature the most important part of the brain, the self, I've decided to try to locate it. I believe it is the amygdala. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KY_sgX2gAMY/Tg1zrbUs_fI/AfM/-XBfGi_O0RU/s1600/triune%2Bbrain.gif amygdala triune brain.png The amygdala is a small brain organ which is not pictured in the above diagram but is in the center of the reptelian brain in the above diagram. In fact it is at the well-protected center of the entire brain, where common sense, overall access to brain functions, and necessary survival tells you it ought to be. Its function is to alert you to anything dangerous in your path such as a snake. Thus it must have two functions, a cognitive one to tell a branch from a snake, and an affective one (fear) to cause you to jump back from the snake. amygdala = cognitive + affective Although neuroscience does not consider consciousness to be a dipole as below: Cs = subject + object It is a logical necessity. My suggestion is that the subject is the amygdala and the object is any needed part of the brain (you can find maps of these through Google. In this model, consciousness is at the bottom based on feelings, such as the sense of passing time,or self-centered fear. Above or beyond are the cognitive functions necessary for thinking and image perception. I find this plausible for consciousness, but not for the self, which in my opinion might be related more to a cycle of information going through both the neocortex, and the cerebral stem. That would fit better Hobson theory of dreams, and computationalism. But that's speculation 'course. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. -- 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/ -- 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.
On evil in the world as caused by an agent
Hi Bruno Marchal Two horns ? Metaphorically, yes. But real, actual, and an agent, even though a metaphor. The Prince of Darkness, the Ruler of our earthly domain. That is a far more useful description than attributing evil to some pscyhiatric condition or fate or whatever. Evil generallly seems to act personally-- as an agent. And more often than not, to go after good people, Job being a prime example. Jesus another. Ten of the twelve apostles also died violent, painful deaths. Another example would be the shocking number of incidences of children or young women abducted, raped and murdered. A serial killer would be a good example of such a demon-possessed individual. Crime investigators find that he has no other motive than to kill. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:29:16 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal That's fine. Although it is a bit out-dated an idea, I conceive of the evil acting in evil people metaphorically as demons. With two horns ? :) Many people reports seeing daemons, and sort of daemons, on different psychedelics. Those daemons might be just interpretation, made by the neocortex, through culture and life-memory, of antic subroutines, charged of relative content, operating around de amygdala, who knows? Plausibly, with the comp hyp., they might already consist in sophisticated universal subroutines of the mind processing, and be common to very large collection of L bian machines or numbers. demon is a cute word, but be careful not to demonized the demon. if you act badly, knowingly, you sin (knowingly), the inspiring demon does not, and can't be used to attenuate the responsibility. The demons doing their job in hell, are there willingly, --I mean they are not punished. God love demons. It is very practical to test the creature for the heaven/hell question. Here I am not working in just comp, but with a momentary possible consistent christian extension. It does not make Satan himself into a friend, necessarily, as you can still (re)define Satan, by what makes you do the bad act, but in that case, you are Satan, when you sin (act badly). I don't know. Theodicy is the most complex part of theology. With comp, it can only be a sequence of harder and harder open questions (in arithmetic), none having really normative consequences except some sort of open mindedness and interrogative attitude towards the unknown and the unknowns. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:26:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self-defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain
Re: Re: The sin of NDAA
Hi Bruno Marchal Amen. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:58:10 Subject: Re: The sin of NDAA On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal It is ironic that Obama followed Bush policy economically (more spending) and also much like Bush in warfare, although a bit more timidly. Timidly? I read that Obama used more drones than anyone before, and, well I am not sure, I think he beats Bush in all directions. I have been very much disappointed by him. By signing the NDAA bill, vetoing all suggested precautions of language, counter-signing it by a promise of never using it (sic), (and btw violating his promise to never countersign such bill), violatig his promise on health politics, ... he gives me the chill. The human rights, by definition, applies to *all* humans. You cannot create a fuzzy class (suspect of threat) and decide that they have no human rights. Only dictatorships do that. It is a bit of a mystery. In one night, Obama has put on the war on terror a look very similar to the war on drugs. I knew the war on drugs is only fear selling business since long, but I was still naive on the war on terror. I can't help myself to doubt about the 9/11 now. Obama try do legalize at home indefinitely what we could still hope to be war-exceptional under Bush. In Europa the media makes the headline with the monstrosity of Bush, and the same media remains mute on the fact that Obama attempted to implement legally (!) those monstrosity at home (the 31 december 2011). The supreme court has judged the note anti-constitutional, so some hope remains, but for how long? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:55:34 Subject: Re: The sin of NDAA On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal My feeling at the moment is to compare the sin of NDAA with that of collateral damage, and war itself, and fall back on the doctrine of just warfare. I would have still be open to that idea one year ago. But Obama did not kept his promise to decriminalize pot, to not let the feds interfere with the state on this, to at least try to refrain the war on drug, and to finish the war on terror. Not only Obama did not do that, but he has tried, through the NDAA, to make into an indefinite law what Bush succeeds to justify as warfare. I could have thought it was just a typo mistake, but Obama's administration has refuse any change to the language in the NDAA(*). So, it looks to me more as the events leading to the third reich in Germany, where the worst get power through democracy. Obama has convinced me in one night that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Now I think it is just the usual fear selling business, and they are planning the catastrophes selling. Although I have mocked the idea that 9/11 is an inside job, despite building seven, I dod not expect Obama signing a text which contains the usual dictator trick, which consists in abandoning the human right for a fuzzy category of the population, and allowing the military to overturn the laws and the constitution, and this after the war. That is not the sin of collateral damage, that is the sin of terrorism, simply. Obama could have said more simply that the terrorist have won. Al Qaeda looks more and more like a CIA construct, as frightening that might seem. The human right have to be applied to every one, or they are no more human rights. If suspects of whatever have no more rights, you are no more living in a democracy but in a tyranny. If the media were able to do their job, Obama would already be detained in a jail for attempt of coup d'etat. I have supported him, but I do think now that both the republicans and democrats have just zero power, and are the puppets of international mafia. 5 years of alcohol prohibition has given Al Capone, and I'm afraid we are seeing the result of 75 years of prohibition of cannabis. It was a Trojan Horse for the international criminality and terrorism. I am less terrorized by bombs than by laws allowing detention without trial for people being only suspected. If you abandon an atom of liberty for an atom of security, you lose both. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 14:16:31 Subject: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ? On 08 Sep 2012,
Re: victims of faith
There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- 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. -- 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: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building the universe from very small units in A New Kind of Science. http://www.wolframscience.com/ Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily from units of yin and yang. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If I ever doubt that there is a God, the regularity of Newton's physics or the microscopic structure of a snowflake dispels such doubt. These show design. Design cannot be made randomly. So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. I call that God. That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates that there must be some superintelligence at work. OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence innate to arithmetic. Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the iteration, starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge. If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see intelligent design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in math and in arithmetic. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Roger, I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist. A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps. To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means I believe in x, and if g means (god exists) A believer is characterized by Bg An atheist by B ~g An agnostic by ~Bg ~B~g But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with respect of matter, etc. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly. I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a tiny part of it. Bruno On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/ -- 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: The nothing but fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)
On 12 Sep 2012, at 11:57, Roger Clough wrote: Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book Moses and Monotheism. What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can give a reason for something doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true, it would be suprising if it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and folk tales. I call this the nothing but fallacy. It is the bread and butter of atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other atheist critics made a good living based on this fallacy. Simlilarly critics of the near death experience sometimes explain away the near death experience as due to some chemical that the brain exudes as death nears. To repeat, if the near death esperience is real I would be surprised if there WEREN'T a physical correlate. No problem with any of this, unless you see here an argument against comp, in which case I miss it. Actually the main mistake of computationalist materialists is that they reduce machines to just their body, and are doing the nothing but fallacy. But computationalism leads to the impossibility of weak materialism, (the doctrine that primary matter exists, or that physicalism is true), and reduces the mind-body problem to the search of an explanation of the physical collective hallucination (first person plural) from arithmetic/computer science (math). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:13:48 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said I don't know. Good. So we can do research. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which can't explain anything. Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/ -- 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: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain
Hi Bruno Marchal Thanks. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:25:05 Subject: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:33, Alberto G. Corona wrote: The idea of looking for a spatio-temporal location of the mental (or soul) categories in the brain is wrong IHMO, and it is surprising to heart this from you Roger. Brain localization of mental functions is like trying to locate physically the spell checker of a word processor in the hardware of a personal computer. The spell checker uses most of the hardware. But there are low level computer functions that are physically located, such are the floating point unit, the memory transfer unit etc. There are a parallelism in the brain: IHMO there is a confusion between very specialized functions, like sensory processing, which are localized for reasons of processing efficiency and wider, higuer level functions like the self, which are not subject to this restriction. As far as i know, the amygdala is part of these efficiency-constrained parts of the brain. For this reason it is almost a separate organ. It is in charge of early processing of sensory data to trigger rapid responses before they are consciously analysed. You can't locate the first person mind, but you can locate relatively to you the 3p modules responsible for the relative (to you) manifestation of that mind. In fine, that local 3p is only an 1p-plural due to the 1p indeterminacy on all the arithmetical realization of those manifestation, so the exact 3p picture is more complex, and involves infinities of computations. Bruno 2012/9/11 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain Since neuroscience omits or seems not to feature the most important part of the brain, the self, I've decided to try to locate it. I believe it is the amygdala. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KY_sgX2gAMY/Tg1zrbUs_fI/AfM/-XBfGi_O0RU/s1600/triune%2Bbrain.gif amygdala triune brain.png The amygdala is a small brain organ which is not pictured in the above diagram but is in the center of the reptelian brain in the above diagram. In fact it is at the well-protected center of the entire brain, where common sense, overall access to brain functions, and necessary survival tells you it ought to be. Its function is to alert you to anything dangerous in your path such as a snake. Thus it must have two functions, a cognitive one to tell a branch from a snake, and an affective one (fear) to cause you to jump back from the snake. amygdala = cognitive + affective Although neuroscience does not consider consciousness to be a dipole as below: Cs = subject + object It is a logical necessity. My suggestion is that the subject is the amygdala and the object is any needed part of the brain (you can find maps of these through Google. In this model, consciousness is at the bottom based on feelings, such as the sense of passing time,or self-centered fear. Above or beyond are the cognitive functions necessary for thinking and image perception. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain
On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Self can include personality, history, ID, whatever, but it has as its central, essential feature a point of focus which is a unity: a substance, to use Leibniz's vocabulary. Which is not the substance is the materialist sense. OK. The unity of self can be explained by the way we can make a soft, immaterial entity, having a self. No need to postulate more than numbers and elementary operations. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:52:31 Subject: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:05, Roger Clough wrote: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain Since neuroscience omits or seems not to feature the most important part of the brain, the self, I've decided to try to locate it. I believe it is the amygdala. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KY_sgX2gAMY/Tg1zrbUs_fI/AfM/-XBfGi_O0RU/s1600/triune%2Bbrain.gif amygdala triune brain.png The amygdala is a small brain organ which is not pictured in the above diagram but is in the center of the reptelian brain in the above diagram. In fact it is at the well-protected center of the entire brain, where common sense, overall access to brain functions, and necessary survival tells you it ought to be. Its function is to alert you to anything dangerous in your path such as a snake. Thus it must have two functions, a cognitive one to tell a branch from a snake, and an affective one (fear) to cause you to jump back from the snake. amygdala = cognitive + affective Although neuroscience does not consider consciousness to be a dipole as below: Cs = subject + object It is a logical necessity. My suggestion is that the subject is the amygdala and the object is any needed part of the brain (you can find maps of these through Google. In this model, consciousness is at the bottom based on feelings, such as the sense of passing time,or self-centered fear. Above or beyond are the cognitive functions necessary for thinking and image perception. I find this plausible for consciousness, but not for the self, which in my opinion might be related more to a cycle of information going through both the neocortex, and the cerebral stem. That would fit better Hobson theory of dreams, and computationalism. But that's speculation 'course. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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/ -- 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/ -- 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 evil in the world as caused by an agent
Hi Roger, On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Two horns ? Metaphorically, yes. But real, actual, and an agent, even though a metaphor. The Prince of Darkness, the Ruler of our earthly domain. That is a far more useful description than attributing evil to some pscyhiatric condition or fate or whatever. Evil generallly seems to act personally-- as an agent. And more often than not, to go after good people, Job being a prime example. Jesus another. Ten of the twelve apostles also died violent, painful deaths. Another example would be the shocking number of incidences of children or young women abducted, raped and murdered. A serial killer would be a good example of such a demon-possessed individual. Crime investigators find that he has no other motive than to kill. Invoking a demon, or a god, can be a useful metaphor, but cannot be taking as an explanation if we don't explain where the demon or God come from. Gödel's incompleteness (consistency entails the consistency of inconsistency) suggests a path for an answer. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:29:16 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal That's fine. Although it is a bit out-dated an idea, I conceive of the evil acting in evil people metaphorically as demons. With two horns ? :) Many people reports seeing daemons, and sort of daemons, on different psychedelics. Those daemons might be just interpretation, made by the neocortex, through culture and life- memory, of antic subroutines, charged of relative content, operating around de amygdala, who knows? Plausibly, with the comp hyp., they might already consist in sophisticated universal subroutines of the mind processing, and be common to very large collection of L bian machines or numbers. demon is a cute word, but be careful not to demonized the demon. if you act badly, knowingly, you sin (knowingly), the inspiring demon does not, and can't be used to attenuate the responsibility. The demons doing their job in hell, are there willingly, --I mean they are not punished. God love demons. It is very practical to test the creature for the heaven/hell question. Here I am not working in just comp, but with a momentary possible consistent christian extension. It does not make Satan himself into a friend, necessarily, as you can still (re)define Satan, by what makes you do the bad act, but in that case, you are Satan, when you sin (act badly). I don't know. Theodicy is the most complex part of theology. With comp, it can only be a sequence of harder and harder open questions (in arithmetic), none having really normative consequences except some sort of open mindedness and interrogative attitude towards the unknown and the unknowns. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:26:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self- defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we
Re: Re: victims of faith
I don´t know. Of course I don´t mean that my theory is all that can be said about it. What i say is that therese processes have a computable side, a phisical substrate, that has a underlyng logic and it is not a bunch of nonsensical neuronal firings that make 99.9 of humans, except a few chosen ones, to believe in teapots orbiting stars. 2012/9/11 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-11, 08:25:34 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith every statement about 爓hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . 燭he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: 燼 part of a wider class of爌henomenons爋f reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: that is not fair. 99.99 believed in God or in gods They differ in the details. Atheists are a minority. In a deeper sense, atheists do believe in gods. problably modern atheism is one the most basic, new and thus, primitive religions, as I will show here: � Seeing 爐he development of religion where religion is repressed, unrepressed atheism develops into personality cult, which is probably the most basic religion. personality cult fanatics typically belive without any doubt that his leader, for example Stalin or Kim I Sung can write hundred of books per year about any scientific matter In industrialized countries this form of primitive religion appears in the rock star cult (bands of cult) in the ideologies, the political leadership cult, the cult to famous atheistic scientists or their precursors. 燭here are articles about the false mitifications, not by lay people but by scientist about the life of Darwin for example that moves to laugh http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.myths To summarize, religion is part of human nature. it involves the mitification or idealization of people that act as super-egos (in the psychoanalitical sense) or as models of behaviour for the believer. This is part of any healty socialization. 燭he process of sentimental attachment of a comunity ever involves the asumption of some myths. For sure a nation is a form of primitive religion where the life of the founders and their mytical history are part of the beliefs. such religion is mixed in a politeistic way with other attachment to football teams or rock groups that act as minor divinities, and usually there is a superior level of civilizational religion, above the nation, where the person identifies itself with a broader comunity, such is ecologism, christianism, socialism where Al Gore, Christ or Marx act as divinities. The fact that these myths are based on real, historical people or in too long dead people with no guaranteed 爃istoricity does not matter. The only difference is that new religions have new myths and due to the fact that they have no history, they conform to the most pure form of religion, where the psychological process of mythopoiesis is observable in action today. 營f the mytification goes from generation to generation (if the faith is sucessful) then the mytified historical figures become pure myths so they become gods. The most pure form of belief is the one where the believer does not know that he believe. The knowledge of belief is a sophisticated or civlized way of belief, that only exist where civilizatons are mixed. We all believe things that are idealizations, falsifications or mytifications. But not all myths are equal and not all myths have to be false. There is a social capital involved in every belief: A myth explains the reality in some way, but also is inherently good if it make people act in common for common goals that are good for all. This is independent from the objective truth. By intuition men can gasp how good a myth is for him and for his fellows (that may be explained by a social capital instinct, from which the mythopoiesis, the production of myths feed from). Good and Truthful become synonyms in the mind of the man that seek a menaning, a reason to live with others. And the man that don磘 seek meaning, either is in crisis or someone else has chosen his myhths to believe for him time ago. Let me be specific about what I dispute. I dispute the factual claims made by religions. For example: -
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi Craig Weinberg According to Paul, over 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus in the vicinity of Galilee. It was Jesus's one final miracle. The resurrection was necessary to prepare a mechanism, a way, for our bodies to be resurrected in the End Times. It was comparable to Moses' leading the Hebrews out of Egypt through the parting of the Red Sea. If you like, it was a dialectical response to death. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:21:57 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:49:31 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi meekerdb How can you demythify something that actually happened ? Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected. You do know that there are many historians who question the existence of a historical Jesus. As far as I know, the evidence is spotty and suggests that he could easily have been a fictional composite of various teachers who lived in the wake of the Axial Age. I tend to give Jesus and crucifixion the benefit of the doubt, but I really have no evidence for that. Apparently there is no mention of his existence or crucifixion in Roman history from that time. Who knows? Personally I don't get the point of the resurrection. He walked around for a while - proving that he survived death..ok, cool. Then what? He disappears up to heaven, leaving humanity to its own horrendous devices indefinitely with a promise to return? I do like what Jesus is quoted as having said. As some point out, Jesus christ was a bleeding heart, long-haired, peace-loving, anti-establishment, liberal hippie freak with strange ideas. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 16:01:28 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even the creation of a physical temple around these myths. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep055269.pdf So when will be treated to papers by Christians de-mythifying Jesus and papers by Muslims de-mythifying Muhammed? Maybe science and religion really are different. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Onc9EZ7quwIJ. 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: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:22, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building the universe from very small units in A New Kind of Science. http://www.wolframscience.com/ Wolfram is not aware of the first person indeterminacy. The idea that the universe is digital is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis. You might need to study the first person indeterminacy and its consequence to get this. See this list, or http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Wolfram is still doing the physicalist mistake to believe that a universe can explain consciousness per se. It is more subtle than that, as no machine can know on which computations she belongs, among an infinity of one. he uses implicitly, even for the possible prediction of its digital creature, a supervenience thesis which does not work with computationalism. I think that he just avoid the mind- body problem, in the usual Aristotle science. It is not a new kind of science, it is the old aristotelian metaphysics with some new clothes. Bruno Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily from units of yin and yang. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If I ever doubt that there is a God, the regularity of Newton's physics or the microscopic structure of a snowflake dispels such doubt. These show design. Design cannot be made randomly. So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. I call that God. That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates that there must be some superintelligence at work. OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence innate to arithmetic. Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the iteration, starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge. If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see intelligent design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in math and in arithmetic. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Roger, I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist. A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps. To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means I believe in x, and if g means (god exists) A believer is characterized by Bg An atheist by B ~g An agnostic by ~Bg ~B~g But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with respect of matter, etc. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly. I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a tiny part of it. Bruno On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this
Re: Re: Reason is and ever ought to be, the slave of passion.
Hi Craig Weinberg That was a rhetorical statement. Hyperbole. Obviously, as you point out, it didn't happen with the white men killing Indians or the nazis killing Jews. But I think it still had to be overcome in those cases, by orders from above. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:32:19 Subject: Re: Reason is and ever ought to be, the slave of passion. On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Faith (trust) and love trump logic every time. If my neighbor has riches, it would be logical to rob him blind. Why 'every time'. Didn't the Native Americans have faith and love in their spiritual traditions yet we exterminated by the tens of millions by the logic of European conquest? Didn't the logic of Auschwitz trump the faith of the Jews in their God, and the love and faith that the Nazis had for Hitler fall under the logic of allied carpet bombing? Craig Reason is and ever ought to be, the slave of passion. David Hume Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:53:41 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not. But this is not limited to religion. You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factual statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supporting evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: ? ho knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/B6f9z9DfSZQJ. 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: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi John Clark Try God= universal intelligence. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:36:24 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ? God = truth Certain statements can fool people into thinking they have made a profound discovery when they have not, they probably work so well because people often want to be fooled, but all they have obtained from their efforts is a unnecessary synonym. Redundancy is not the same as profundity? makes a bridge between two fields, What two fields?? I know many people talking english and using the term God in a non fairy tale sense I have been hearing that claim for months now, but whenever I ask for a specific example all I get is new age pap like God is one or God is truth. ? the term God, and the notion behind has a long tradition of being debated. In Occident, we have also good reason to be suspect on the use of that term Absolutely true, so why use a term that has such a astronomical amount of baggage? I am now going to make a radical statement, If you want to say that something is true then use the word true. ? God is the truth that we search, but can't make public. If they can't make it public why the hell do people talk about God so damn much in public? Read Plato for learning more on this. I already know far more philosophy than Plato did so I don't think that would be helpful. Of course today we don't call it philosophy we call it science; philosophy deals in areas where not only the answers are unknown but you don't even know if you're asking the right questions. Forget about the answers, in Plato's day he didn't even know what questions to ask about the nature of the stars or of matter or of life, but today we do and so those subjects have moved from philosophy to science. Here you confuse physical reality and primitive physical reality. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. I have shown you that you were confusing the 1-view and the 3-view, or the 3-view on the 1-view There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused. ? 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. -- 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: victims of faith
Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. This instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our group strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development Good and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems. A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group although in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. I think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about whatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . The definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: a part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- 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. -- 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.
science only works with half a brain
Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. Secondly, meaning is not a scientific category. So science can neither make nor understand meaningful statements. Logic has the same fatal problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah?'? Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the Church from saying heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused by sin,... The problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. Brent To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. The son of the founder of the Bah?'? Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time.? We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, ?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.? Jason -- 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: Re: victims of faith
Hi meekerdb Religion does not have the capacity to judge scientific statements. Science does not have the capacity to judge religious statements. So let science be science and religion be religion. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:47:05 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi meekerdb Science is science and religion is religion and never the two shall meet. I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true religion, in my opinion, is the search of truth. In the Bah?'? Faith, it is said that a true science and true religion can never be in conflict. The Pope says the same about Catholicism. But that didn't keep the Church from saying heliocentrism was false, evolution didn't happen, disease is caused by sin,... The problem with religion is that it doesn't test it's 'facts'. Brent To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. --- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, letter to Paolo Frascioni The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1993 Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE. The son of the founder of the Bah?'? Faith said, If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. ... All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time.? We see this same sentiment expressed by Einstein, when he said, ?cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.? Jason -- 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: Why the Church-Turing thesis?
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access to (part of) its own hardware (which still is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a computer). It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access to is the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has only access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from that interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated outside. \quote Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not even clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty). I should have expressed myself more accurately and written hardware or relative 'hardware'. We can define a (meta-)programs that have access to their hardware in the sense of knowing what they are running on relative to some notion of hardware. They cannot be emulated using universal turing machines Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine. The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just that it may lose relative correctness if we do that. Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a program it has access to the outside through IO, hence it is impossible for a program to differentiate real outside from simulated outside... It's a simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a program, not an algorithm and not a computation. OK, it depends on what you mean by program. If you presume that a program can't access its hardware, I *do not presume it*... it's a *fact*. Well, I presented a model of a program that can do that (on some level, not on the level of physical hardware), and is a program in the most fundamental way (doing step-by-step execution of instructions). All you need is a program hierarchy where some programs have access to programs that are below them in the hierarchy (which are the hardware though not the *hardware*). What's your point ? How the simulated hardware would fail ? It's impossible, so until you're clearer (your point is totally fuzzy), I stick to you must be wrong. So either you assume some kind of oracle device, in this case, the thing you describe is no more a program, but a program + an oracle, the oracle obviously is not simulable on a turing machine, or an infinite regress of level. The simulated hardware can't fail in the model, just like a turing machine can't fail. Of course in reality it can fail, that is beside the point. You are right, my explanation is not that clear, because it is a quite subtle thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word hardware. The point is just that we can define (meta-)programs that have access to some aspect of programs that are below it on the program hierarchy (normal programs), that can't be accessed by the program themselves. They can't emulated in general, because sometimes the emulating program will necessarily emulate the wrong level (because it can't correctly emulate that the meta-program is accessing what it is *actually* doing on the most fundamental level). They still are programs in the most fundamental sense. They don't require oracles or something else that is hard to actually use, they just have to know something about the hierarchy and the programs involved (which programs or kind of programs are above or below it) and have access to the states of other programs. Both are perfectly implementable on a normal computer. They can even be implemented on a turing machine, but not in general. They can also be simulated on turing machines, just not necessarily correctly (the turing machine may incorrectly ignore which level it is operating on relative to the meta-program). We can still argue that these aren't programs in every sense but I think what is executable on a normal computer can be rightfully called program. benayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34423089.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message
Re: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
Hi Roger, Thank you for the link to Steve Wolfram's new book. What he says in the first few pages is that his new science does away with the need for an all-powerful supernatural being. However, it does appear that his new science has application to Leibniz's monads as well as the monads of string theory, the Calabi-Yau (compact) Manifolds, CYMs. While I have your attention I would like to mention that the best argument IMO for the need of a god is the Leibniz principle/assumption that god creates the best universe. In other words, god is needed to reduce the 3p in its quantum mind to a single physical 1p by always choosing the best quantum state from the number available in every single particle interaction in the universe. However, this is not the conventional god who can do anything it wants. In fact the choice of the best quantum state to be physical might be handled by a simple algorithm. But given the 'simple' nature of the monads and Wolfram's science of complexity, it seems that some sort of resulting cosmic consciousness might be needed to implement even a simple algorithm. I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss CYMs on this list, even though the CYMs are not simple, containing 500 or so topo holes through which constraining flux is wound. Assuming each flux has n possible quantum states yields n^500 different possible monad configurations, the so-called string landscape. (n=10 is usually assumed) I also want to mention that Tipler's OMEGA concept applies here. I presume that the quantum mind of god can instantly compute the OMEGA point at the end of time (including the selection process of always choosing the best possible single physical universe)- which IMO amounts to the best possible OMEGA Point(OP). With MWI there is likely to be an infinite number of OPs, which to me seems undesirable and even unlikely. However, in spite of 1p indeterminacy (ie., free will morality), where the actions of units of physical consciousnesses necessitate continual recomputation of the OMEGA point, I suspect that the laws of nature will maintain a rather fixed, single OP. Instantaneous computation is consistent with your (Roger's) concept of a timeless, unextended god. But I believe the same can be achieved by extended monads in an extended space where each monad instantly maps the entire universe to its interior. Physical experiments with physical Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) verify the property of instantaneity (ie., the speed of light can have any value including infinity in a BEC), but do not prove that it is done this way by god, or in words I prefer, by the collective action of the BEC monads. As Wolfram says, the collective action of simple elements gives rise to the physical complexities that many attribute to god. Richard On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building the universe from very small units in A New Kind of Science. http://www.wolframscience.com/ Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily from units of yin and yang. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If I ever doubt that there is a God, the regularity of Newton's physics or the microscopic structure of a snowflake dispels such doubt. These show design. Design cannot be made randomly. So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. I call that God. That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates that there must be some superintelligence at work. OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence innate to arithmetic. Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the iteration, starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge. If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see intelligent design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in math and in arithmetic. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Roger, I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist. A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and
Re: Re: Re: victims of faith
Hi John Clark 1) God, being inextended, is invisible to the scientific method and logic, life, being inextgended, is also invisible to the scientific method and logic, as is the intelligence of nature. 2) As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever is hyperbole (an overstatement to emphasize a point). Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis often taught by means of hyperbole (If you do not hate your mother and father you cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven). In many ways life as it is is Hell. Crap happens and then you die--- except for Christians, crap happens and then you live. 3) With reference to 1) there is no logical reason to believe in God. Logic flies out of the window. 4) God is All-powerful but he's also righteous, a word we seem to have lost the meaning of these days. So he would not tease you or wish you harm unless you do evil things. 5) All of these questions and more are answered in any catechism. Luther put his whole theology into his catechism, so never wrote a theological treatise. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 16:51:53 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Belief in God is a gift from God, you cannot achieve it on your own. OK but have you ever asked yourself why that should be? If God exists then that is the single most important fact about the universe, but why would the most powerful thing that there is be completely invisible to the scientific method? The only answer is that's the way God wants it. Well if God is all powerful then He's certainly capable of fooling us if He wants to, but such petty small minded behavior is not what I'd expect from a omnipotent omniscient being, somehow I just expect more than a boy teasing a puppy from such a glorious being. On the other hand I would very much expect that sort of thing from a human, I'd expect a human being who wanted to gain power over others with religion to push the idea that faith is a virtue, such a man would teach that the greatest most noble thing in the world is to believe deeply and passionately in something when there is not one damn reason for doing so. But I think far from being a virtue faith is just about the most horrible vice there is. ? The same is also true of salvation. And its hard to understand why a omnipotent omniscient being would torture His creations for all of eternity if His efforts to fool them were successful and they thought for even one second that He did not exist. But it's very easy to see why a human being seeking power would push the idea, it's really pretty clever, the witchdoctor turns a disadvantage (lack of proof) into a advantage (the more ridiculous the idea the more virtuous you are if you believe it); and anybody who doesn't believe faces a infinite amount of pain. ? 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. -- 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.
the nothing but fallacy.
Hi Alberto G. Corona You are obviously one of those that believe that religion is nothing but a bunch of myths. Could be, but not necessarily so. You have fallen for the nothing but fallacy. If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths. It should be part of the human experience in some sense if true. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:22:24 Subject: Re: victims of faith There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the?ith?s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. ? People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. ? think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about ?hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . ?he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: ? part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- 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. -- 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: Re: victims of faith
Hi Alberto G. Corona Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended (nonphysical) objects. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 07:22:14 Subject: Re: victims of faith Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. ?his instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our ?roup strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and ?another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development ?ood and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems.? A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group?lthough in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the?ith?s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. ? People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. ? think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about ?hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . ?he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: ? part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- 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. -- 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
Re: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
Hi Bruno Marchal Any creator has to be greater than his creations. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 14:55:35 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Intelligence is by (my) definition an autonomous function, so over-layers are not only forbidden, they are not needed. But God does have to follow laws he already created. If you jump off of a building you will fall to your death. I'm missing a possible problem there. You say that order in the universe is evidence of an intelligent designer but you don't say that order in the intelligent designer is evidence of a super-intelligent designer who designed him. If you say the designer was not himself designed then why not also say the universe was not itself designed? It is a good point. Craig made a similar one. You need God being conceptually simpler than its creation, to get something looking like an explanation. I think this is what has motivated Plotinus to put the ONE (described mainly as the SIMPLE by Plotinus) above the NOUS, which is already the MANY, very rich intelligible worlds of the ideas. With comp this is captured by the difference between the factual simple truth, like Ex( s(0)+x = s(s(s(0))) ), and the intelligible truth, which in arithmetic will concerned provability predicate by machine, using G?el's arithmetical predicate beweisbar(x). The simple cause is the number together with their additive and multiplicative laws, the many is the complex digital machine appearing from those laws, and their possible histories and coupling with other universal machines. Bruno -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: Re: victims of faith
Hi Bruno Marchal I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 15:05:44 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:56, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't And what if your daughter did marry that man with an artificial body? How will you behave with him, and with your daughter? If this seems to you impossible, what in the brain is not Turing emulable (or Turing recoverable by 1-indeterminacy)? I feel unease with speculation leading to a restriction on the possible persons. Why not being agnostic at the least? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational, precise arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle or even adress the issue. Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, but then we still need a super-meta (etc...). I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic, no need of meta for that. You might confuse the simple truth 1+1=2, and the complex truth Paul understood that 1+1=2. Those are very different, but with comp, both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter- intuitive. There is no proof that can change this, and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now print by Dover) The undecidable, it contains all original papers by Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser. Sorry, but this shows that you miss my point. It is not about some subtle aspect of Gödel's proof, but about the main idea. And I think I understand the main idea quite well. If Gödels proof was written purely in arithmetic, than it could not be unambigous, and thus not really a proof. The embedding is not unique, and thus by looking at the arithmetic alone you can't have a unambigous proof. Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could prove utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean != or ^6 instead of =, the whole proof is nonsense. Thus Gödel's proof necessarily needs a meta-level, or alternatively a level-transcendent intelligence (I forgot that in my prior post) to be true, because only then can we fix the meaning of the Gödel numbers. You can, of course *believe* that the numbers really exists beyond their axioms and posses this transcendent intelligence, so that they somehow magically know what they are really representing. But this is just a belief and you can't show that this is true, nor take it to be granted that others share this assumption. I don't see how any explanation of Gödel could even adress the problem. It seems to be very fundamental to the idea of the proof itself, not the proof as such. Maybe you can explain how to solve it? But please don't say that we can embed the process of assigning Gödel numbers in arithmetic itself. This would need another non-unique embedding of syntax, hence leading to the same problem (just worse). For more detail and further points about Gödel you may take a look at this website: http://jamesrmeyer.com/godel_flaw.html benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34423214.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: Re: The poverty of computers
Hi Bruno Marchal Applying science to religion can be no more successful than applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be experienced if they are of any use at all, and science is a moron with regard to experiential knowledge. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 05:26:53 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 11 Sep 2012, at 18:42, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology? It has been, Nice to hear that. its just that the devout don't like the answers science has come up with. I agree. Such devout illustrate bad faith. Anyone believing in God cannot have any problem with science, if only because science, well understood, can only ask question and suggest temporary theories. Not answering about the step3 --- step4 makes you looking like a devout atheist embarrassed by the scientific attitude on the mind body problem. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: The nothing but fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)
Hi Bruno Marchal Good point. I hadn't thought about a nothing but problem with comp, but as with any evidence (such as a missing auto, or a possibly unfaithfuyl lover) you have to consider alternative explanations. Popper may have discussed this topic. Others certainly have. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:26:07 Subject: Re: The nothing but fallacy in explaining away God (or anything) On 12 Sep 2012, at 11:57, Roger Clough wrote: Freud thought that he had explained away God with his book Moses and Monotheism. What he says in there is probably true, but just because you can give a reason for something doesn't mean that that's all there is to it. If something is true, it would be suprising if it did NOT show up as a social phenomenon. Or it did not show up in myth and folk tales. I call this the nothing but fallacy. It is the bread and butter of atheists critics of religion. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other atheist critics made a good living based on this fallacy. Simlilarly critics of the near death experience sometimes explain away the near death experience as due to some chemical that the brain exudes as death nears. To repeat, if the near death esperience is real I would be surprised if there WEREN'T a physical correlate. No problem with any of this, unless you see here an argument against comp, in which case I miss it. Actually the main mistake of computationalist materialists is that they reduce machines to just their body, and are doing the nothing but fallacy. But computationalism leads to the impossibility of weak materialism, (the doctrine that primary matter exists, or that physicalism is true), and reduces the mind-body problem to the search of an explanation of the physical collective hallucination (first person plural) from arithmetic/computer science (math). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:13:48 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 10 Sep 2012, at 21:45, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English language I stood up, looked him straight in the eye, and said I don't know. Good. So we can do research. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, Science can't explain everything but it beats something like religion which can't explain anything. Science is not a field, but a methodology, or even just a human (or machine) attitude. Why not apply it in theology? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/ -- 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: Why the Church-Turing thesis?
2012/9/12 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access to (part of) its own hardware (which still is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a computer). It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access to is the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has only access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from that interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated outside. \quote Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not even clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty). I should have expressed myself more accurately and written hardware or relative 'hardware'. We can define a (meta-)programs that have access to their hardware in the sense of knowing what they are running on relative to some notion of hardware. They cannot be emulated using universal turing machines Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine. The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just that it may lose relative correctness if we do that. Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a program it has access to the outside through IO, hence it is impossible for a program to differentiate real outside from simulated outside... It's a simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a program, not an algorithm and not a computation. OK, it depends on what you mean by program. If you presume that a program can't access its hardware, I *do not presume it*... it's a *fact*. Well, I presented a model of a program that can do that (on some level, not on the level of physical hardware), and is a program in the most fundamental way (doing step-by-step execution of instructions). All you need is a program hierarchy where some programs have access to programs that are below them in the hierarchy (which are the hardware though not the *hardware*). What's your point ? How the simulated hardware would fail ? It's impossible, so until you're clearer (your point is totally fuzzy), I stick to you must be wrong. So either you assume some kind of oracle device, in this case, the thing you describe is no more a program, but a program + an oracle, the oracle obviously is not simulable on a turing machine, or an infinite regress of level. The simulated hardware can't fail in the model, just like a turing machine can't fail. Of course in reality it can fail, that is beside the point. You are right, my explanation is not that clear, because it is a quite subtle thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word hardware. The point is just that we can define (meta-)programs that have access to some aspect of programs that are below it on the program hierarchy (normal programs), that can't be accessed by the program themselves. They can't emulated in general, because sometimes the emulating program will necessarily emulate the wrong level (because it can't correctly emulate that the meta-program is accessing what it is *actually* doing on the most fundamental level). They still are programs in the most fundamental sense. They don't require oracles or something else that is hard to actually use, they just have to know something about the hierarchy and the programs involved (which programs or kind of programs are above or below it) and have access to the states of other programs. Both are perfectly implementable on a normal computer. They can even be implemented on a turing machine, but not in general. They can also be simulated on turing machines, just not necessarily correctly (the turing machine may incorrectly ignore which level it is operating on relative to the meta-program). I still don't see why, what you describe is wishful thinking, or you're wrong, or you can't explain correctly, what I understand from what you write, is that you
Re: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain
Hi Bruno Marchal If the self or the perceiver is a substance in the Leibniz sense, then it is also a monad. Monads (such as me) do not perceive directly, but must wait (although actually it's instant) until the Supreme Monad does the observation for it and reports back. As I understand it, the Supreme Monad is not God, but what God sees and acts through. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:29:20 Subject: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Self can include personality, history, ID, whatever, but it has as its central, essential feature a point of focus which is a unity: a substance, to use Leibniz's vocabulary. Which is not the substance is the materialist sense. OK. The unity of self can be explained by the way we can make a soft, immaterial entity, having a self. No need to postulate more than numbers and elementary operations. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 11:52:31 Subject: Re: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:05, Roger Clough wrote: The self (the amygdala) and the triune brain Since neuroscience omits or seems not to feature the most important part of the brain, the self, I've decided to try to locate it. I believe it is the amygdala. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KY_sgX2gAMY/Tg1zrbUs_fI/AfM/-XBfGi_O0RU/s1600/triune%2Bbrain.gif The amygdala is a small brain organ which is not pictured in the above diagram but is in the center of the reptelian brain in the above diagram. In fact it is at the well-protected center of the entire brain, where common sense, overall access to brain functions, and necessary survival tells you it ought to be. Its function is to alert you to anything dangerous in your path such as a snake. Thus it must have two functions, a cognitive one to tell a branch from a snake, and an affective one (fear) to cause you to jump back from the snake. amygdala = cognitive + affective Although neuroscience does not consider consciousness to be a dipole as below: Cs = subject + object It is a logical necessity. My suggestion is that the subject is the amygdala and the object is any needed part of the brain (you can find maps of these through Google. In this model, consciousness is at the bottom based on feelings, such as the sense of passing time,or self-centered fear. Above or beyond are the cognitive functions necessary for thinking and image perception. I find this plausible for consciousness, but not for the self, which in my opinion might be related more to a cycle of information going through both the neocortex, and the cerebral stem. That would fit better Hobson theory of dreams, and computationalism. But that's speculation 'course. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. -- 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/ -- 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/ -- 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: Why the Church-Turing thesis?
2012/9/12 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2012/9/12 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has access to (part of) its own hardware (which still is intuitively computable - we can even implement it on a computer). It's false, the program *can't* know that the hardware it has access to is the *real* hardware and not a simulated hardware. The program has only access to hardware through IO, and it can't tell (as never ever) from that interface if what's outside is the *real* outside or simulated outside. \quote Yes that is true. If anything it is true because the hardware is not even clearly determined at the base level (quantum uncertainty). I should have expressed myself more accurately and written hardware or relative 'hardware'. We can define a (meta-)programs that have access to their hardware in the sense of knowing what they are running on relative to some notion of hardware. They cannot be emulated using universal turing machines Then it's not a program if it can't run on a universal turing machine. The funny thing is, it *can* run on a universal turing machine. Just that it may lose relative correctness if we do that. Then you must be wrong... I don't understand your point. If it's a program it has access to the outside through IO, hence it is impossible for a program to differentiate real outside from simulated outside... It's a simple fact, so either you're wrong or what you're describing is not a program, not an algorithm and not a computation. OK, it depends on what you mean by program. If you presume that a program can't access its hardware, I *do not presume it*... it's a *fact*. Well, I presented a model of a program that can do that (on some level, not on the level of physical hardware), and is a program in the most fundamental way (doing step-by-step execution of instructions). All you need is a program hierarchy where some programs have access to programs that are below them in the hierarchy (which are the hardware though not the *hardware*). What's your point ? How the simulated hardware would fail ? It's impossible, so until you're clearer (your point is totally fuzzy), I stick to you must be wrong. So either you assume some kind of oracle device, in this case, the thing you describe is no more a program, but a program + an oracle, the oracle obviously is not simulable on a turing machine, or an infinite regress of level. The simulated hardware can't fail in the model, just like a turing machine can't fail. Of course in reality it can fail, that is beside the point. You are right, my explanation is not that clear, because it is a quite subtle thing. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word hardware. The point is just that we can define (meta-)programs that have access to some aspect of programs that are below it on the program hierarchy (normal programs), that can't be accessed by the program themselves. They can't emulated in general, because sometimes the emulating program will necessarily emulate the wrong level (because it can't correctly emulate that the meta-program is accessing what it is *actually* doing on the most fundamental level). They still are programs in the most fundamental sense. They don't require oracles or something else that is hard to actually use, they just have to know something about the hierarchy and the programs involved (which programs or kind of programs are above or below it) and have access to the states of other programs. Both are perfectly implementable on a normal computer. They can even be implemented on a turing machine, but not in general. They can also be simulated on turing machines, just not necessarily correctly (the turing machine may incorrectly ignore which level it is operating on relative to the meta-program). I still don't see why, what you describe is wishful thinking, or you're wrong, or you can't explain
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Roger, Not at all. In the previous response to your comment I said that there are miths, that myths and beliefs are very important, but not that religion is nothing but that. I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m materialist nor positivist. 2012/9/12 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona You are obviously one of those that believe that religion is nothing but a bunch of myths. Could be, but not necessarily so. You have fallen for the nothing but fallacy. If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths. It should be part of the human experience in some sense if true. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-12, 06:22:24 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the爉ith爄s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. � People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. 營 think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion of good and truth is sound in evolutuionary terms, and provides a factual/operation definition of Truth in the world of the mind, which is the only world accesible to us. 2012/9/11 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: every statement about 爓hatever, included reality is made with mental concepts . 燭he definition of truth, reality , factual, religion, depend on axioms or unproved statements. I presented a computational-evolutionary, falsable, exposition of what religion is: 燼 part of a wider class of phenomenons of reality construction and I demonstrated IHMO that no man is free from it. Aspects of religious belief such as mythopoesis, do occur in other facets of life, such as politics and even science. But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
Hi Bruno Marchal Thanks for the warnings. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:45:04 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:22, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building the universe from very small units in A New Kind of Science. http://www.wolframscience.com/ Wolfram is not aware of the first person indeterminacy. The idea that the universe is digital is incompatible with the computationalist hypothesis. You might need to study the first person indeterminacy and its consequence to get this. See this list, or http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Wolfram is still doing the physicalist mistake to believe that a universe can explain consciousness per se. It is more subtle than that, as no machine can know on which computations she belongs, among an infinity of one. he uses implicitly, even for the possible prediction of its digital creature, a supervenience thesis which does not work with computationalism. I think that he just avoid the mind-body problem, in the usual Aristotle science. It is not a new kind of science, it is the old aristotelian metaphysics with some new clothes. Bruno Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily from units of yin and yang. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If I ever doubt that there is a God, the regularity of Newton's physics or the microscopic structure of a snowflake dispels such doubt. These show design. Design cannot be made randomly. So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. I call that God. That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates that there must be some superintelligence at work. OK. And with comp a case can be made that it is the intelligence innate to arithmetic. Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuP02b_a7Y It is a succession of different zoom on the Mandelbrot set, which is basically defined by the set of complex number c such that the iteration, starting from z = 0, of z_n = (z_n-1)^2 + c don't diverge. If you can see intelligent design in a snowflake, I can see intelligent design in the Mandelbrot set, and in the circle too. It abounds in math and in arithmetic. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 13:17:52 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers Roger, I agree with John here. Except that his point is more agnostic than atheist. A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and universes come from, or what is your big picture. John is mute on this, but his stucking on step 3 illustrates that he might be a religious believer in a material universe, or in physicalism. Perhaps. To be clear on atheism, I use modal logic (informally). if Bx means I believe in x, and if g means (god exists) A believer is characterized by Bg An atheist by B ~g An agnostic by ~Bg ~B~g But you can replace g by m (primitive matter), and be atheist with respect of matter, etc. Someone who say that he does not believe in God, usually take for granted other sort of God, that is they make a science, like physics, which is irreproachable by itself, into an explanation of everything, which is just another religion or pseudo religion, if not assumed clearly. I advocate that we can do theology as seriously as physics by making clear the assumptions. Like with comp which appears to be closer to Bg than to Bm. But g might be itself no more than arithmetical truth, or even a tiny part of it. Bruno On 10 Sep 2012, at 18:27, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If you are an atheist, prove that God does not exist. If you can't, you are a hypocrite in attacking those that do believe that God exists. You haven't a leg to stand on. A fool disbelieves only in the things he can prove not to exist, the wise man also disbelieves in things that are silly. A china teapot orbiting the planet Uranus is silly, and so is God. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: Re: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
Hi Richard Ruquist 1) Wolfram's new science does not do away with a Creator needed to create his new science. Wolfram's metaphysics are also essentially those of Descartes and Materialism, which have swept the problem of the impossibility of two different substances (mind/body) interacting under the rug. 2) You might have a good explanation for evil in a world dominagted by God is probably worth exploring, theology also gaves a number of possible `explanations, but I like Leibniz's concept that evilo is necessary in a contingent world. The solution to the problem of an all-powerful but all-good god is given in Leibniz's best possible world concept. This is spelled out in his Theodicy Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 07:31:17 Subject: Re: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, Hi Roger, Thank you for the link to Steve Wolfram's new book. What he says in the first few pages is that his new science does away with the need for an all-powerful supernatural being. However, it does appear that his new science has application to Leibniz's monads as well as the monads of string theory, the Calabi-Yau (compact) Manifolds, CYMs. While I have your attention I would like to mention that the best argument IMO for the need of a god is the Leibniz principle/assumption that god creates the best universe. In other words, god is needed to reduce the 3p in its quantum mind to a single physical 1p by always choosing the best quantum state from the number available in every single particle interaction in the universe. However, this is not the conventional god who can do anything it wants. In fact the choice of the best quantum state to be physical might be handled by a simple algorithm. But given the 'simple' nature of the monads and Wolfram's science of complexity, it seems that some sort of resulting cosmic consciousness might be needed to implement even a simple algorithm. I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss CYMs on this list, even though the CYMs are not simple, containing 500 or so topo holes through which constraining flux is wound. Assuming each flux has n possible quantum states yields n^500 different possible monad configurations, the so-called string landscape. (n=10 is usually assumed) I also want to mention that Tipler's OMEGA concept applies here. I presume that the quantum mind of god can instantly compute the OMEGA point at the end of time (including the selection process of always choosing the best possible single physical universe)- which IMO amounts to the best possible OMEGA Point(OP). With MWI there is likely to be an infinite number of OPs, which to me seems undesirable and even unlikely. However, in spite of 1p indeterminacy (ie., free will morality), where the actions of units of physical consciousnesses necessitate continual recomputation of the OMEGA point, I suspect that the laws of nature will maintain a rather fixed, single OP. Instantaneous computation is consistent with your (Roger's) concept of a timeless, unextended god. But I believe the same can be achieved by extended monads in an extended space where each monad instantly maps the entire universe to its interior. Physical experiments with physical Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs) verify the property of instantaneity (ie., the speed of light can have any value including infinity in a BEC), but do not prove that it is done this way by god, or in words I prefer, by the collective action of the BEC monads. As Wolfram says, the collective action of simple elements gives rise to the physical complexities that many attribute to god. Richard On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, and Steve Wolfram has come up with a similar idea of building the universe from very small units in A New Kind of Science. http://www.wolframscience.com/ Also, the I Ching constructs (taoism) the world combinatorily from units of yin and yang. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 13:20:45 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If I ever doubt that there is a God, the regularity of Newton's physics or the microscopic structure of a snowflake dispels such doubt. These show design. Design cannot be made randomly. So there must be some intelligence interweaved in Nature. I call that God. That nature has structure and laws, to me indicates that there must be some superintelligence at work. OK.
Re: Re: victims of faith
But unextended objects according with S. T. Aquinas exist in our mind and are reasonable, that is they are absent from contradictions, that is according with the facts of reality, which for Aquinas is part of the Revelation, which has two sides: the Natural Revelation ( The creation: Nature) and the Written Revelation: The bible Many facts of Natural Revelation suggest that the Creator proceed by evolution, by a complex process called popularly natural selection, and NS have rules that affect how behaviours and mental process work in humans and other animals (according with Aquinas, men and animals share the animal substance). NS assures that what we perceive is in relation a external physical reality, but it is NOT the external physical reality. In other words, the architecture of the mind, and the concepts that we manage are created to deal with the phisical reality trough our mental image of reality that the mind produces. We can not access the physical reality directly. Therefore every object is first and foremost, mental, included the extensional objects. The reality is therefore, mental. Therefore, any definition of Existence and Truth is in terms of mental categories. So both extensional and unextensional objects are subject of study of a science of the mind under the hypothesis that the mind and the external reality have such relation that I expressed, given the facts that Natural Revelation show to science, And the fact that according with Aquinas, God is perfect and because it is a perfect being could not falll in irrationalities nor in breakings of cause-effect. Therefore an evolutionary study of religion is a legitimate part of Natural Theology. 2012/9/12 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Scientific truth is truth about extended (physical) objects Religious or humanistic truth is truth about inextended (nonphysical) objects. Period. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-09-12, 07:22:14 *Subject:* Re: victims of faith Note that the natural definition of Truth and reality that arises from a evolutionarily-informed theory of biology psichology and sociology (sociobiology) is very simple: True and existent is whatever that make individuals and groups to be successful. Men and women exist in reality as objects of perception because these objects and their behaviours have a big importance for our survival, so we have specialized circuits for perceiving and thinking about them. The more circuits for processing something, the more true and existent in reality is. My social capital psychology theory postulates that we have a way to assess, in advance, how good the consequences of an idea are for us and for our group. 燭his instinctive evaluation determines if an idea is good and therefore, if it is true(given the above). This evaluation of an idea depend o its intrinsic explanatory power, but also in how this idea make our 爂roup strong and coordinated in relation with others. This applies to any kind of idea: scientific, religious or whatever. Both factors, explanatory power and social capital potential may collide, but by far the social capital component is the most important in human life. We do not spent much time discussing about the spin of the electron, because the explanatory power is easy to assess. But we make wars when there is a collision of ideas with social capital implied like all men are equal under the law, the individual has the right to seek happiness for himself and �another world of equality and happiness is possible if we remove the social obstacles for human development 燝ood and Truth is the same in many phylosophical systems.� A group and its associated beliefs works as an insurance company. In essence the rational risk analysis of a client before signing a contract with an insurance company is similar to the evaluation of the beliefs of a group燼lthough in this case it is unconscious and produces sentiments of conversion, goodness and truthfulness. 2012/9/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. religion is a label that appears when the爉ith爄s old enough it has enough believers and the object of mitification is far away in time. � People are reluctant to admit that they have unfounded beliefs. Specially if they have been educated in the belief that any belief is bad and into the belied that they have no beliefs. But to have a commong ground of beliefs is a prerequisite for individual and social life. 營 think that my theory of social capital, mytopoesis and belief and the assimilaion
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational, precise arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle or even adress the issue. Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, but then we still need a super-meta (etc...). I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic, no need of meta for that. You might confuse the simple truth 1+1=2, and the complex truth Paul understood that 1+1=2. Those are very different, but with comp, both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter- intuitive. There is no proof that can change this, and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now print by Dover) The undecidable, it contains all original papers by Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser. Sorry, but this shows that you miss my point. It is not about some subtle aspect of Gödel's proof, but about the main idea. And I think I understand the main idea quite well. If Gödels proof was written purely in arithmetic, than it could not be unambigous, and thus not really a proof. The embedding is not unique, and thus by looking at the arithmetic alone you can't have a unambigous proof. Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could prove utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean != or ^6 instead of =, the whole proof is nonsense. Thus Gödel's proof necessarily needs a meta-level, or alternatively a level-transcendent intelligence (I forgot that in my prior post) to be true, because only then can we fix the meaning of the Gödel numbers. You can, of course *believe* that the numbers really exists beyond their axioms and posses this transcendent intelligence, so that they somehow magically know what they are really representing. But this is just a belief and you can't show that this is true, nor take it to be granted that others share this assumption. Problem of pinning down real representation in itself aside. Can human prove to impartial observer that they magically know what they are really representing or that they really understand? How would we prove this? Why should I take for granted that humans do this, other than legitimacy through naturalized social norms, which really don't have that great a track record? The consequences of differing leaps of faith on axioms and ontological bets shouldn't be taboo, if scientific search is to remain sincere somehow, why restrict ourselves to the habitual ones? Fruitful discussion from both of you, so thanks for sharing. m -- 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: Reason is and ever ought to be, the slave of passion.
Even rational knowledge is guided by passion, because Thought by itself moves nothing (Aristotle) including the inhability to move though itself. But passions obey hidden reasons (An evolutionary psychologist would say) 2012/9/11 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Jason Resch Faith (trust) and love trump logic every time. If my neighbor has riches, it would be logical to rob him blind. Reason is and ever ought to be, the slave of passion. David Hume Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 08:53:41 Subject: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But what is unique about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs different to their own without any apparent awareness of the inconsistency. Some believers and some religions do, others not.� But this is not limited to religion.� You saw John Clark admit he was proud to reject ideas (even those with some evidence), in a effect, making a factual statement (implied idea X is not true) in the absence of supporting evidence. As an example showing that such certainty is a trait of all religion, see this quote concerning creation from the Rig Veda: 揥ho knows truly?� Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation?� The gods are subsequent to the creation of this.� Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?� Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor.� Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.� Jason -- 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. -- 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: The poverty of computers
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: makes a bridge between two fields, What two fields? The study of the notion of truth, (epistemology, philosophy, metaphysics, it is interdisciplinary) and theology. Translation from the original bafflegab: The truth is important. And by the way, there is no field of theology, it has nothing intelligent to say because it has not discovered any facts. Plato's questions are at the origin of science. But Plato lived 2500 years ago and we are no longer at the origin of science, it's time to move on. It is no use to say more if you don't have read it, and don't want to get informed. I didn't say I haven't read Plato, I said I knew more philosophy than he did, a lot more. Making you defending Aristotle theology, confusing it with the physical science. There is no doubt that somebody around here is confused because I have said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived. Even his reputation as a great logician is overstated, he used some very intricate pure logic and concluded with certainty that women MUST have fewer teeth than men. They don't. Aristotle had a wife, he could have counted her teeth at any time but never bothered to because like most philosophers he already knew the truth, or thought he did. I have never seen a paper in physics assuming a primitive physical reality, still less a paper showing how to test such idea. I have no idea what you mean but I will say this, if you have never seen a physics paper even attempt to do something then its probably not very important because they've attempted some pretty wacky things. 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.
Re: Fwd: [4DWorldx] thanks to Moon I found this creazy story about head transplants
This is actually an old story: Head Transplant: The Truly Disturbing Truly Real Story http://vimeo.com/20230127 Evgenii On 12.09.2012 05:07 Richard Ruquist said the following: When I read this I thought of you all. Richard -- Forwarded message -- From: Annapanth...@mail.com Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM Subject: [4DWorldx] thanks to Moon I found this creazy story about head transplants To: 4dwor...@yahoogroups.com ** Friday, 6 April, 2001, 10:59 GMT 11:59 UK *Frankenstein fears after head transplant* [image: A new brain could be available in the future] A new brain could be available in the future A controversial operation to transplant the whole head of a monkey onto a different body has proved a partial success. The scientist behind it wants to do the same thing to humans, but other members of the scientific community have condemned the experiments as grotesque. Professor Robert White, from Cleveland Ohio, transplanted a whole monkey's head onto another monkey's body, and the animal survived for some time after the operation. -- 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: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Any creator has to be greater than his creations. Why? The Universal Dovetailer, is smaller than what it does, and what it created. The Mandelbrot program is very small, but it creates the most complex object, full or subtle mixing of order and randomness. The complexity of the universal machine gives a threshold above which objects have more complex behavior than their description, somehow. It is a surprising, but known phenomenon (by logicians and computer scientist) that arithmetic, despite very simple elementary beings (0, and its successors), and laws operating on them, addition and multiplication, is full of complex mathematical processes, unsolvable or very hard problems, etc. Just think about the distribution of the prime numbers, or inform yourself. In arithmetic, above universality, the creators are all overwhelmed by their creation. They can even lost themselves in them. This can be also compared to Plotinus, where the ONE is fundamentally simple, and can't help itself not letting emanating from itself, the NOUS, Plato universal intelligence, which put order on Platonia, but also makes some mess, and then the inner god, the universal soul, does not help, and it can hurt. If we ant keep the fundamental principle on God, like being responsible for our existence, being unameable, then with comp there is a God, but It is not omnipotent, nor omniscient, apparently. Divine knowledge is a body freezer. The point is that God cannot be used as an explanation of whay we are here, if it is more complex than its creation. I agree with the others on this. It might be that the price to pay for any relative potence is a selective amnesia and/or consciousness differentiation, like in self- multiplication (amoeba, WM-duplication, etc.). I like to quote Sri Aurobindo here: What, you ask, was the beginning of it all? And it is this ... Existence that multiplied itself For sheer delight of being And plunged into numberless trillions of forms So that it might Find Itself Innumerably (Aurobindo) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 14:55:35 Subject: Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God, On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Intelligence is by (my) definition an autonomous function, so over-layers are not only forbidden, they are not needed. But God does have to follow laws he already created. If you jump off of a building you will fall to your death. I'm missing a possible problem there. You say that order in the universe is evidence of an intelligent designer but you don't say that order in the intelligent designer is evidence of a super-intelligent designer who designed him. If you say the designer was not himself designed then why not also say the universe was not itself designed? It is a good point. Craig made a similar one. You need God being conceptually simpler than its creation, to get something looking like an explanation. I think this is what has motivated Plotinus to put the ONE (described mainly as the SIMPLE by Plotinus) above the NOUS, which is already the MANY, very rich intelligible worlds of the ideas. With comp this is captured by the difference between the factual simple truth, like Ex( s(0)+x = s(s(s(0))) ), and the intelligible truth, which in arithmetic will concerned provability predicate by machine, using G鰀el's arithmetical predicate beweisbar(x). The simple cause is the number together with their additive and multiplicative laws, the many is the complex digital machine appearing from those laws, and their possible histories and coupling with other universal machines. Bruno -- 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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
Re: Why we debate religion: two completely different types of truth.
May not be of interest, but the Reform branch on Judaism has a prayer for Doubt in their High Holiday services. That may be one reason why some have become such good scientists. Richard On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:50, Roger Clough wrote: Why we debate religion: two completely different and frequently confused types of truth. There are two completely different types of truth. The first is rational or objective or public truth, discussed in philosophies of truth and logic. The second is truth known only privately or subjectively This is the kind of truth that police must rely on when a dead body needs identifying. There is an immediate certainty of identity that the surviving relative knows inside, but only he can be sure of that. This is also a part of the show-and-tell aspect of courtroom trials. The jury must decide on the guilt of the defendant v partly logiocally, but to a great extent from the show and tell of evidence. Objective truth is shareable but not determined personally, and may be debsatable by philsophers. Subjective truth is not shareable because it is private and personal. But to many (including me) it is the most certain form of truth, A mother will always be certain that it is or is not her son lying on the table in the morgue. And in another context, one cannot argue on matters of taste. This difference in forms of truth is where all of our religious debates come from. Religious truth is only certain to a an individual and cannot be shared. I mainly agree. But then why coming with factual assertion, about a Jesus guy. I can accept the parabolas, but I can't take a witnessing of 500 persons, in the writing of a quite biased guy (Paul), from a reasonable perspective, as an argument, and it all make dubious any assertion you can add. Your theory above is better, though, and close to the universal machine's own theory, actually. Science is only a modest and interrogative inquiry. It is rooted in the doubt, and ask only question. Theories have all interrogation mark. It is the separation between science and theology that makes people believing that science = truth, when the truth is that science = doubt, but with a willingness to make the assumptions as clear as it is needed to be sharable, and questioned. You say Religious truth is only certain too an individual and cannot be shared, but note that is the case also for consciousness, and all hallucinated states. If you cannot share, don't try, perhaps. As a computer scientist, and logician, I study what ideally correct machine can discover about themselves and that they cannot share, or even express, from different person points of view. Very small machines already provide quite non trivial observations on that. Books exists on the subject (Boolos, Smorynski, Smullyan, ...). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: Re: Re: victims of faith
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God, being inextended, If God is not extended then He must be very small and that could be the reason we don't see Him. God is like a germ. is invisible to the scientific method and logic I think you're correct about that, God makes no sense, none whatsoever. As far as Hell goes, I believe that burning in exquisite torture forever is hyperbole (an overstatement to emphasize a point). Jesus was a rabbi and rabbis often taught by means of hyperbole So Jesus was lying like a rug and He was doing so for the exact same reason that you or I lie, it helps to convince other people to do what we want them to do. But such phony scare tactics is not what I'd expect from someone who was supposed to be a moral paragon. With reference to 1) there is no logical reason to believe in God. Logic flies out of the window. In 100% agreement with you there. God is All-powerful but he's also righteous Did God create righteousness? If he did then saying God is righteous means nothing and the only reason for us to be righteous is so we don't anger God and have Him torture us forever with the greatest skill He can muster; so we obey God for exactly the same reason the people in occupied France obeyed the Nazis, fear. On the other hand if God didn't create righteousness then He has nothing to do with right and wrong except that He's supposed to do what's right just like everybody else. So he would not tease you or wish you harm unless you do evil things. God is threatening to do one hell of a lot more than just tease you! God may be lying through His teeth but imagine if He is not and imagine if the Christian God really did exist, it would be worse than living in North Korea. Here we have an all powerful demon addicted to flattery who can read your every thought and will torture you, not for a long time, but for ETERNITY if you take even one small step out of line or break just one of his many, many, many, rules and they includes thought crimes. To make matters worse you're not even sure exactly what all his rules are, the experts violently (and I do mean violently) disagree, so you never know if you're going to be tortured or how to avoid it. This seems pretty depressing to me and not at all moral, I'll take an indifferent universe over a sadistic one any day. Charles Darwin had something to say on this subject: Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine. All of these questions and more are answered in any catechism. Why did God make me? God made me to know love and praise Him. Are you really satisfied with those sort of infantile answers?! And how in hell can anybody love the invisible man in the sky when He's so damn unlovable? And how can one praise Him without being a hypocrite? And how did God develop such a huge inferiority complex that He needs constant flattery? Luther put his whole theology into his catechism, Martin or Lex? 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.
Re: victims of faith
On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't think that a man with a robotic body would be very sexy to a lady, would he ? Love begins in the gonads. By definition of comp, the lady can't see the difference. Apparently your daughter did not complain,did she?, as they still want to mary him. For her, it is just him. Applesoft's artificial gonads have a 150 years warranty. If you have a problem call an Applesoft center close by. (in some few centuries near futures). The difference between artificial and natural is artificial. And thus natural. It is natural for entities developing (big) egos relatively to their probable environments. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 15:05:44 Subject: Re: victims of faith On 11 Sep 2012, at 15:56, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What do we have that machines don't ? Intelligence, consciousnness, awareness. feelings-- in short, we have life, machines don't And what if your daughter did marry that man with an artificial body? How will you behave with him, and with your daughter? If this seems to you impossible, what in the brain is not Turing emulable (or Turing recoverable by 1-indeterminacy)? I feel unease with speculation leading to a restriction on the possible persons. Why not being agnostic at the least? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 09:04:05 Subject: Re: Re: victims of faith On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Religious communion with God and prayer are transcendental so not computable. Even those of the past who looked down on the barbaric and uncivilized native people believed they could be converted and saved. You profess that androids (like Data in star trek) is at an even lower place (than those who looked down on foreigners). What do we have that machines don't? We are all quarks and electrons, so what magic are the machines missing? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@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/ -- 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/ -- 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
Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational, precise arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle or even adress the issue. Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, but then we still need a super-meta (etc...). I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic, no need of meta for that. You might confuse the simple truth 1+1=2, and the complex truth Paul understood that 1+1=2. Those are very different, but with comp, both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter- intuitive. There is no proof that can change this, and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now print by Dover) The undecidable, it contains all original papers by Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser. Sorry, but this shows that you miss my point. It is not about some subtle aspect of Gödel's proof, but about the main idea. And I think I understand the main idea quite well. If Gödels proof was written purely in arithmetic, than it could not be unambigous, and thus not really a proof. The embedding is not unique, and thus by looking at the arithmetic alone you can't have a unambigous proof. Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could prove utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean != or ^6 instead of =, the whole proof is nonsense. Thus Gödel's proof necessarily needs a meta-level, or alternatively a level-transcendent intelligence (I forgot that in my prior post) to be true, because only then can we fix the meaning of the Gödel numbers. You can, of course *believe* that the numbers really exists beyond their axioms and posses this transcendent intelligence, so that they somehow magically know what they are really representing. But this is just a belief and you can't show that this is true, nor take it to be granted that others share this assumption. Problem of pinning down real representation in itself aside. Can human prove to impartial observer that they magically know what they are really representing or that they really understand? How would we prove this? Why should I take for granted that humans do this, other than legitimacy through naturalized social norms, which really don't have that great a track record? Can we even literally prove anything apart from axiomatic systems at all? I don't think so. What would we base the claim that something really is a proof on? The notion of proving seems to be a quite narrow and restricted one to me. Apart from that, it seems human understanding is just delusion in many cases, and the rest is very limited at best. Especially when we think we really understand fundamental issues we are the most deluded. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34425351.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 12 Sep 2012, at 14:05, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good discussion. We are not opertaing on the same level. You argue using rational, precise arguments, while I am precisely showing how these don't settle or even adress the issue. Like with Gödel, sure we can embed all the meta in arithmetic, but then we still need a super-meta (etc...). I don't think so. We need the understanding of elementary arithmetic, no need of meta for that. You might confuse the simple truth 1+1=2, and the complex truth Paul understood that 1+1=2. Those are very different, but with comp, both can be explained *entirely* in arithmetic. You have the right to be astonished, as this is not obvious at all, and rather counter- intuitive. There is no proof that can change this, and thus it is pointless to study proofs regarding this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). But they are. I think sincerely that you miss Gödel's proof. There will be opportunity I say more on this, here, or on the FOAR list. It is hard to sum up on few lines. May just buy the book by Davis (now print by Dover) The undecidable, it contains all original papers by Gödel, Post, Turing, Church, Kleene, and Rosser. Sorry, but this shows that you miss my point. It is not about some subtle aspect of Gödel's proof, but about the main idea. And I think I understand the main idea quite well. If Gödels proof was written purely in arithmetic, than it could not be unambigous, and thus not really a proof. What? this is nonsense. The embedding is not unique, and thus by looking at the arithmetic alone you can't have a unambigous proof. This does not follow either. *Many* embeddings do not prevent non ambiguous embedding. Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could prove utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean != or ^6 instead of =, the whole proof is nonsense. Sure, and if I interpret the soap for a pope, I can be in trouble. That is why we fix a non ambiguous embedding once and for all. What will be proved will be shown independent of the choice of the embeddings. Thus Gödel's proof necessarily needs a meta-level, Yes. the point is that the metalevel can be embedded non ambiguously in a faithfull manner in arithmetic. It is the heart of theoretical computer science. You really should study the subject. or alternatively a level-transcendent intelligence (I forgot that in my prior post) to be true, because only then can we fix the meaning of the Gödel numbers. Gödel could have used it, like in Tarski theorem, but Gödel ingenuosly don't use meaning or semantic in he proof. It is a very constructive proof, which examplifies the mechanisability of its main diagonalization procedure. This has lead to a very great amount of results, the most cool being Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem for the logic of self-reference. You can, of course *believe* that the numbers really exists beyond their axioms and posses this transcendent intelligence, What do you mean by exists beyond the axiom.? What transcendent intelligence is doing here? so that they somehow magically know what they are really representing. But this is just a belief and you can't show that this is true, nor take it to be granted that others share this assumption. No need of that belief. Machine's belief are just supposed to be made of the axioms and the rules generating them, which can include inputs, and other possible machines. It is model by Gödel's provability predicate for rich machines. I don't see how any explanation of Gödel could even adress the problem. You created a problem which is not there. It seems to be very fundamental to the idea of the proof itself, not the proof as such. Maybe you can explain how to solve it? But please don't say that we can embed the process of assigning Gödel numbers in arithmetic itself. ? a number like s(s(0))) can have its description, be 2^'s' * 3^(... , which will give a very big number, s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s... (s(s(s(0...))). That correspondence will be defined in term of addition, multiplication and logical symbols, equality. This would need another non-unique embedding of syntax, hence leading to the same problem (just worse). Not at all. You confuse the embedding and its description of the embedding, and the description of the description, but you get this trivially by using the Gödel number of a Gödel number. For more detail and further points about Gödel you may take a look at this website:
Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. The bad is in arithmetic. To believe we can eliminate it would be like believing we can eliminate the number 666 from N. We can suppress the room 13 and 17, even 666 in some hostels, but that is the best we can do. Still, we can reduce the harm, relatively, and learn to contemplate the spectacle, also. Bruno This reminds me of a standup bit, I forgot the comedian: *Often in hotels they don't have a 13th floor... But the people on the 14th floor know which floor they're really on... But this is not fair, for if they decided to commit suicide by jumping out of the window, they would die earlier! And people in a suicidal state tend to forget this, which is sad because I think people should be informed... especially concerning the nuances of something as grave and important as their own suicide, don't you think? * A comedian demanding arithmetic truth of sorts vs. superstition... It's necessary, otherwise we lie about grave, even if subtle nuances :) -- 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: The sin of NDAA
He means copies. I get two copies from you too. On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:48:27AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal mail exemplars ? what are they ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-12, 06:37:18 Subject: Re: The sin of NDAA On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:16, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Amen. What do you mean? If you can reassure me on Obama, or have some link to that purpose, I would be delighted, but as Russell suggests, it might be out-of-topic on this list, and there are already many posts. BTW I get most of your posts in two exemplars. Am I the only one? You might need to relaunch your mail application, perhaps. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/12/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-11, 12:58:10 Subject: Re: The sin of NDAA On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:20, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal It is ironic that Obama followed Bush policy economically (more spending) and also much like Bush in warfare, although a bit more timidly. Timidly? I read that Obama used more drones than anyone before, and, well I am not sure, I think he beats Bush in all directions. I have been very much disappointed by him. By signing the NDAA bill, vetoing all suggested precautions of language, counter-signing it by a promise of never using it (sic), (and btw violating his promise to never countersign such bill), violatig his promise on health politics, ... he gives me the chill. The human rights, by definition, applies to *all* humans. You cannot create a fuzzy class (suspect of threat) and decide that they have no human rights. Only dictatorships do that. It is a bit of a mystery. In one night, Obama has put on the war on terror a look very similar to the war on drugs. I knew the war on drugs is only fear selling business since long, but I was still naive on the war on terror. I can't help myself to doubt about the 9/11 now. Obama try do legalize at home indefinitely what we could still hope to be war-exceptional under Bush. In Europa the media makes the headline with the monstrosity of Bush, and the same media remains mute on the fact that Obama attempted to implement legally (!) those monstrosity at home (the 31 december 2011). The supreme court has judged the note anti-constitutional, so some hope remains, but for how long? Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:55:34 Subject: Re: The sin of NDAA On 09 Sep 2012, at 13:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal My feeling at the moment is to compare the sin of NDAA with that of collateral damage, and war itself, and fall back on the doctrine of just warfare. I would have still be open to that idea one year ago. But Obama did not kept his promise to decriminalize pot, to not let the feds interfere with the state on this, to at least try to refrain the war on drug, and to finish the war on terror. Not only Obama did not do that, but he has tried, through the NDAA, to make into an indefinite law what Bush succeeds to justify as warfare. I could have thought it was just a typo mistake, but Obama's administration has refuse any change to the language in the NDAA(*). So, it looks to me more as the events leading to the third reich in Germany, where the worst get power through democracy. Obama has convinced me in one night that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Now I think it is just the usual fear selling business, and they are planning the catastrophes selling. Although I have mocked the idea that 9/11 is an inside job, despite building seven, I dod not expect Obama signing a text which contains the usual dictator trick, which consists in abandoning the human right for a fuzzy category of the population, and allowing the military to overturn the laws and the constitution, and this after the war. That is not the sin of collateral damage, that is the sin of terrorism, simply. Obama could have said more simply that the terrorist have won. Al Qaeda looks more and more like a CIA construct, as frightening that might seem. The human right have to be applied to every one, or they are no more human rights. If suspects of whatever have no more rights, you are no more
Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:32:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I am intolerant of stupidity and deception, particularly when the idea of carbon credits pops up. This suggests that Global warming is just a method of raising taxes, diminishing coal and oil, and even globally sharing the wealth. Thankfully china won't go along with this stupidity. It all seems to be politics rather than science. I don't know enough about it to say too much about it. I think that the point is to make it political so that the greatest polluters will have an incentive to pollute less. Otherwise, why would they ever reduce emissions? Personally I think that the only issue that matters is overpopulation. As long as we have seven billion people making billions more people, nothing will stop the devaluation of they quality of human life, and of human lives. Whether it's the threat of running out of oil, food, water, or money, it doesn't really matter which comes first. It's like putting more and more fish in an overstocked fish tank, the bigger ones just eat more and more of the smaller ones while the whole thing fills up with crap. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-11, 00:40:08 *Subject:* Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ? Hi Roger, It's ok not to be obsessed with cleaning up the environment, but why be intolerant of people who are? Same with people who spend a lot of time talking in public about issues of racial discrimination. If you are going to speak and act on behalf of millions of people who are not speaking and acting, it is understandable that you might also be the type of person who is strongly motivated. What you don't seem to appreciate is that being able to not have to think about race is a luxury that non-whites do not have. That doesn't mean you have to make the world fair for everyone, but the least that we who have that luxury could do is acknowledge that we have that privilege. Have you ever considered what it would be like for you in a world with an alternate history? Where the Cherokee Nation developed guns and steel before the Europeans and colonized it using Siberian slaves instead? You could listen to descendants of those invaders and slavers discuss how the whining of pink people, their scapegoats and victims for centuries in a hostile land, is really not their cup of tea. Craig On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:19:44 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Not that I am against cleaning up the environment, but I am not obsessed with the idea. Integrating with Nature is also a main principle of the Communist Manifesto. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/10/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-09-09, 16:23:54 *Subject:* Re: Racism ? How's that implied ? On Sunday, September 9, 2012 2:58:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/9/2012 2:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, September 9, 2012 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Why are we even considering the thoughts of paranoids? Are they in control of our daily lives? Hi Stephen, I agree, I was responding to what Roger said about liberals: ironically and paradoxically they see the world in terms of race. Conservatives attempt to live by facts. I never saw racism in what what I wrote until you brought the subject up. which sounded to me like 'conservatives aren't racist, liberals are', which - although conservative thought has some admirable virtues, I can say without hesitation that tolerance for racial and gender diversity is not one of them. That's why I brought up JBS and KKK, to show the absurdity of that claim, since the most racist hate groups are known to be political right wing extremists and not left wing extremists. HI Craig, The contest of recrimination is not winnable, but let's try for the sake of the discussion. Personally I don't know of any left wing extremist groups in this country - not that there aren't any but even self-proclaimed anarchists seem to stay out of trouble. I guess that you have never heard of 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First! 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front I had heard of Earth First but not much. Yeah, I think it's fair to call them left wing eco-terrorists. Unfortunately the way they are going about it, using arson and destruction will only serve to discredit their cause and provide a ready excuse for
Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:06:44 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:20:49 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Look how lawful and rich a very simple program, less than 1K, can define: Statistically, shouldn't we see this simple 1K sequence frequently in nature? Well we do see it, on natural creations of a natural form of life: YouTube, posters, book covers, monitors. I thought it was pretty clear that I was using the term natural as distinct from artificial, i.e. human produced artifacts. My point was that if Mandelbrot is such a simple structure, why does it exist primarily as a result of a human being's understanding of the how to employ the math behind it and not in seashells, leaves, insects, bacteria, crystals, etc. I mean precisely. Shouldn't there be hundreds of species of beetle that have patterns on their backs which are derived exclusively from the Mandelbot set. The chance of a 1K pattern arising randomly (with no particular selection pressure) is 1 in 2 to the 8192nd power. So even though there are millions of beatle species, that doesn't come close. Why wouldn't there be selection pressure? As you said, we seem to like looking at it well enough. Why not select for a Mandelbrot peacock? Besides, every individual of every species presents hundreds of thousands of concurrent positions in their DNA to host the pattern - which maybe doesn't even need to be 1K all at once, maybe it can evolve like DNA did, 4 small modules that combine info 10 larger functional sequences, etc. Or it could devolve from a 10Mb pattern. Also, having heard Mandelbrot as audio data instead of visual, I can say that the impact of the experience is diminished by orders of magnitude. That seems like an unnatural transformation, Do you know the particulars of how the set was turned into audio? I have listened to several from different sources. They're easy to find on YouTube. Why does it seem like an unnatural transformation? As you said, visual Mandelbrot is all over posters and the internet...where are the popular movie soundracks and pop songs? From my perspective it seems to me that you are content to model the world by blind theory rather than try to make sense of what is true in practice. It may only be visual sense that makes something as meaningless and recursive as Mandelbrot look interesting to us. It is interesting for many reasons. I was again awestruck watching one of the videos today. It is do astounding such patterns come from such a simple definition. They don't come from the simple definition. They come from your retina and visual cortex. That's what I am trying to tell you. There is nothing there but the meaningless seed. Here's an even simpler example that I posted today: http://s33light.org/post/31397258898 The patterns that you see exist only at the level of description that your perception can make sense of. In reality all there is is one rotating yin/yang circle that has been multiplied and arranged in larger sizes in a very basic pattern. Even these aren't really objective patterns since in the level of reality that is one step beneath the rotating circles, there is just pixels on your screen lightening and darkening rhythmically. Beneath that, there are liquid crystals and retinal molecules being stimulated. If you put these patterns in an audio form, they would not carry the same information. The pattern is not in the form, it is in the pattern recognition through the form which allows inform-ation. Craig Jason Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GqxsilAo_mkJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/GqxsilAo_mkJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/KvpoK_Vkh5IJ. 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.
