Re: truth vs reality
On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is real and nothing else (physical things aren't real). This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs relatively to that universal number/supreme monad). And there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a dust) of continually changing reals, each real being a substance of one part. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 12:16:23 Subject: Re: How mathematical truth might enter our universe On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote: All, One of the questions in mathematics is where does mathematical truth come from, if it exists platonically, how does it manifest physically (e.g. as the utterances of mathematicians). I could explain, but it can be long, that it is impossible to explain where the natural numbers come from, or where the Fortran programs come from, of were the GoL comes from. Now if you assume the natural numbers, and the + and x laws, then I can prove the existence of the Fortran programs, and of GoL, etc. if you assume GoL, I can prove the existence of the numbers, etc. So the numbers, or anything Turing equivalent are mysterious. It is the least that we have to assume to get anything capable of supporting a computer, or a brain. But once we assume the numbers, then we can explain why they will eventually develop a mathematics (and physics) much richer than the numbers (including many infinities). Above arithmetic, the mathematics (and physics) are just number mind tools to simplify their lives when the relation with other (universal) numbers get too much complex, a bit like the complex Riemann Zeta function is a tool for making simpler the relation between the prime numbers and the study of their distribution. I had a thought inspired by one of Roger's posts regarding cause and effect extending outside of spacetime. I thought, there is nothing preventing the goings on in this universe from having causal implications outside our universe. Consider that an advanced civilization might choose to simulate our universe and inspect it. Then when they observe what happens in our universe the observations generate causal effects in their own universe. The same applies to our universe, we might choose to observe another universe through simulation, and our discoveries or observations of that other universe change us. Thus, the various universes that can exist out there are more interconnected than we might suppose. Our universe is an open book to those universes possessing sufficient computational power to simulate it. Likewise, how simple universes like certain small instances of the game of life are open books to us. The possibilities of gliders in the GoL has led to many discussions about GoL gliders, their existence in the GoL universe has led to the manifestation of physical changes in our own universe. I think the entrance of mathematical truth to our own universe is no different. Mathematicians have used their minds to simulate objects and structures that exist in other universes, in a sense they observe them, and then those mathematicians report their observations and discoveries concerning those objects, just as an advanced civilization might report discoveries about our universe, or we might report discoveries about the GoL universe. Thus the structures and objects which exist in other universes have directly changed the course of the evolution of our own. This explanation seems to assume universe(s) and observers, but with the CTM, we know we don't need to assume them, nor can we really use them to relate consciousness and matter. This should follow form the uda reasoning, normally. Apart from this, mathematics looks indeed like exploration of mathematical realities, but the physical reality is not one mathematical structure among others, it is a mathematical structure summing all the other mathematical structure, in some way, and in arithmetic. 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
Re: Against Mechanism
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to make things more complex for avoiding comp. No, it reveals that comp takes the machine that it runs on for granted. Not at all. The machine existence, and its relative running existence, are theorem in the tiny arithmetic. Tiny compared to what though? Tiny in the sense of needing few K to be described. As far as I'm concerned, the appearance of arithmetic truth from nothing is an oceanic gulf - far greater than that of a sensory- motor primitive, which has no possible explanation. First we cannot explain the numbers with less than the number (or Turing equivalent). So we have to assume them, if only to make sense of any theory in which you can define what you mean by sensory-motor. Then in arithmetic many things have no possible explanation. Arithmetic is easily explained as one of the many types of experiences Keep in mind that experiences is what I want explain. which allow us to refer to other experiences, but nothing in arithmetic will ever point to the taste of a carrot or a feeling of frustration. In your theory which deprived machine of having consciousness. It may leave room for undefined, non-comp 1p content, but that's all it is: room. Nothing points positively to realism and concrete sensory participation, only simulations...but what simulates the Turing machine itself? What props up the stability and erasure capacities of it's tape? What allows numbers to detect numbers? Comp doesn't need to be avoided when you realize that it isn't necessary in the first place. By postulating what we want to explain. There is no more need to explain it than there is a need to explain arithmetic truth. The difference is that we have no experience of arithmetic truth outside of sense, but we are surrounded by sense which persists in spite of having no arithmetic value. If you say so ... You get the whole unsolved mind-body problem back. It isn't a problem, it is the fundamental symmetry of Universe. If you don't have a mind-body distinction, then you are in a non- ordinary state of consciousness which does not commute to other beings in public space. You take the problem, and then say it is the solution. The cosmos isn't a problem, it is the source of all problems and solutions. Well, the cosmos is a problem with comp, and which makes comp interesting. That's the god- of-the-gap mistake. No, it's the recognition of the superlative nature of cosmos - beneath all gods and gaps, beneath all problems and solutions, is sense itself. We don't even know if there is one. We have of course already discuss this. You are just saying don't search. You are welcome to search, I only say that I have already found the only answer that can ever be universally true. Hmm... It looks *you* are talking everything for granted at the start, in the theory. I take only sense for granted because sense cannot be broken down into any more primitive elements. Everything else can be broken down to sense. The CTM + classical theory of knowledge can explain that feeling. With the CTM ( a better name for comp), that which perceives, understands, participates and discovers comp is explained entirely (except 1% of its consciousness) by the only two laws: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) Laws? What are those? How do they govern? Kxy is a shorhand for ((K x) y), and you are told by the first equation above that for all x and y, ((K x) y) = x. So ((K K) K) = K, or to use again the shorthand (which consists in eleimnainating the left parentheses): KKK = K. For the same reason KSK = S KSS = S K(S K) K = (S K) etc. For example SKK is an identity operator: SKKx = Kx(Kx), by the second equation, = x, by the first equation. S and K behavior is ruled by the two axioms above, and gives already a Turing universal language/system/machine. Axioms are philosophical. They don't make things happen. Systems don't appear without some capacity to generate and participate in them which exists first. You presume that there is such a thing a Law, but when I ask what you mean by that, you give more details on this specific proposition. I'm asking about the proposition itself though? What Turing universal language allows S and K to 'behave', or to exist or to relate to each other? Any one, if you don't like combinators. But we have to start from
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:27, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip This means literally that if the theory below (A, B, C, ... J) is correct A, B, C ..., J have to be theorem in arithmetic (and some definition *in* arithmetic). Agreed OK. Here from Davies 2005 is what I consider to be appropriate ST axioms: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/1342351251/name/0602420v1.pdf A. The universes are described by quantum mechanics. B. Space has an integer number of dimensions. There is one dimension of time. C. Spacetime has a causal structure described by pseudo-Riemannian geometry. D. There exists a universe-generating mechanism subject to some form of transcendent physical law. E. Physics involves an optimization principle (e.g. an action principle) leading to well defined laws, at least at relatively low energy. F.The multiverse and its constituent universes are described by mathematics. G.The mathematical operations involve computable functions and standard logic. H.There are well-defined “states of the world” that have properties which may be specified mathematically. I. The basic physical laws, and the underlying principle/s from which they derive, are independent of the states. J. At least one universe contains observers, whose observations include sets of rational numbers that are related to the (more general) mathematical objects describing the universe by a specific and restricted projection rule, which is also mathematical. I do not claim the ability to defend all these axioms or even understand them all for that matter. But I think a little more needs to be said about A. Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Again from Davies 2005 In addition, one can consider describing states in a space defined over different fields, such as the reals (Stueckelberg, 1960) or the quaternions (Adler, 1995) rather than the complex numbers. These alternative schemes possess distinctly different properties. For example, if entanglement is defined in terms of rebits rather than qubits, then states that are separable in the former case may not be separable in the latter (Caves, Fuchs and Rungta (2001) “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two rebits,” Found. of Physics Letts. 14, 199.,2001). And as I recently learned, in quantum information theory, Negative quantum entropy can be traced back to “conditional” density matrices which admit eigenvalues larger than unity for quantum entangled systems (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9610005v1.pdf). It is not clear that your simple arithmetic axioms can derive complex variables, UDA is a proof that IF ctm is correct, then, if complex variable are unavoidable, this has to be justified in term of machine's psychology, that is in term of number relative selmf-reference. Same for all other axioms. My point is that universes based on real numbers and/or quaternions, etc., are perhaps also unavoidable. Is that so?...part of the infinities of infinities? Real numbers are unavoidable, and in my opinion, we will need the octonions, and other non associative algebra. But it is too early to introduce them. It will depends on the extension of the material hypostases in the first order modal logical level. You can see this as a poisonous gift of computer science. With comp the fundamental science has to backtrack to Plato if not Pythagorus, in some way. The physical universes are projections made by dreaming numbers, to put things shortly. My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi- multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Yet it works up to now. We already have evidences that comp (CTM) will lead to the axioms A. But may be it will take a billions years to get the Higgs boson (in case it exists). If so, the billions of years, I prefer to start with the ST axioms and some experimental properties, like of BEC and physical constants, and like you see what their consequences are. No problems with this. I try to put light on the mind body problem, not on application. My point is technical: IF comp is correct, then physics is not the fundamental science. Physics is reducible to arithmetic, like today biochemistry can be said reducible to physics. I have no problem with physics being reducible. But I question
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
Dear Craig, You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to Eugenesism. But I can not see how the idea that men are genetically (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism. By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a dolphin?) different from my specie, you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only humans) apart from natural selection. The god of diversity? Gaia? randomness? State planned education?. 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. All species are only variations on the same organism. As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are victims of a heavy prejuice. I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs. I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is inconvenient. It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the personality of those who I am debating with. And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a species-specific nature is worht the title of eugenesist. I don't understand, but it sounds like you are asking why I would say that ideas about inherent gender qualities rooted in immutable evolutionary truths are eugenic. If it isn't clear to you then there is nothing that I can tell you which will help you see. You can demote this at your please, keeping telling about spiritualism or that there are partenogenetic frogs and there are planets with no blue skies. There are frogs that sing, by the way. I don´t kniow if this would help to make a point in your argumentation. Both of us have have put clear our standpoints. Sure, although I think that your standpoint is from the 19th century and has been factually discredited since then. 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/-/OiS8g8m6P3EJ. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Dear Craig, You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. Dear Alberto, You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others. Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to Eugenesism. But I can not see how the idea that men are genetically (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism. I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord Hunchbacque.) I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd? By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a dolphin?) different from my specie, (FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie ) you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as more primitive than biology. If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only humans) apart from natural selection. I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that free will is an illusion. The god of diversity? Gaia? randomness? State planned education?. Sense. Sensibly, Craig 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. All species are only variations on the same organism. As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are victims of a heavy prejuice. I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs. I don´t know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is inconvenient. It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might be wrong. It doesn't bother me though, because I debate these issues because I am interested in the root of the issue, not the root of the personality of those who I am debating with. And I want to know in the name of what the existence of a species-specific nature is worht the title of eugenesist. I don't understand, but it sounds like
the truth of science and the truth of religion
Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, which I suggest are only true for me, giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is real and nothing else (physical things aren't real). This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs relatively to that universal number/supreme monad). And there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a dust) of continually changing reals, each real being a substance of one part. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 12:16:23 Subject: Re: How mathematical truth might enter our universe On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote: All, One of the questions in mathematics is where does mathematical truth come from, if it exists platonically, how does it manifest physically (e.g. as the utterances of mathematicians). I could explain, but it can be long, that it is impossible to explain where the natural numbers come from, or where the Fortran programs come from, of were the GoL comes from. Now if you assume the natural numbers, and the + and x laws, then I can prove the existence of the Fortran programs, and of GoL, etc. if you assume GoL, I can prove the existence of the numbers, etc. So the numbers, or anything Turing equivalent are mysterious. It is the least that we have to assume to get anything capable of supporting a computer, or a brain. But once we assume the numbers, then we can explain why they will eventually develop a mathematics (and physics) much richer than the numbers (including many infinities). Above arithmetic, the mathematics (and physics) are just number mind tools to simplify their lives when the relation with other (universal) numbers get too much complex, a bit like the complex Riemann Zeta function is a tool for making simpler the relation between the prime numbers and the study of their distribution. I had a thought inspired by one of Roger's posts regarding cause and effect extending outside of spacetime. I thought, there is nothing preventing the goings on in this universe from having causal implications outside our universe. Consider that an advanced civilization might choose to simulate our universe and inspect it. Then when they observe what happens in our universe the observations generate causal effects in their own universe. The same applies to our universe, we might choose to observe another universe through simulation, and our discoveries or observations of that other universe change us. Thus, the various universes that can exist out there are more interconnected than we might suppose. Our universe is an open book to those universes possessing sufficient computational power to simulate it. Likewise, how simple universes like certain small instances of the game of life are open books to us. The possibilities of gliders in the GoL has led to many discussions about GoL gliders, their existence
Doesn't the UTM insure that comp is true ?
Hi Bruno Marchal What I don't understand about comp is if there is a UTM that can calculate whatever is needed to emulate our behavior, how can comp ever be false (except possibly by those aspects hidden by Godel ) ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 05:22:45 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to make things more complex for avoiding comp. No, it reveals that comp takes the machine that it runs on for granted. Not at all. The machine existence, and its relative running existence, are theorem in the tiny arithmetic. Tiny compared to what though? Tiny in the sense of needing few K to be described. As far as I'm concerned, the appearance of arithmetic truth from nothing is an oceanic gulf - far greater than that of a sensory- motor primitive, which has no possible explanation. First we cannot explain the numbers with less than the number (or Turing equivalent). So we have to assume them, if only to make sense of any theory in which you can define what you mean by sensory-motor. Then in arithmetic many things have no possible explanation. Arithmetic is easily explained as one of the many types of experiences Keep in mind that experiences is what I want explain. which allow us to refer to other experiences, but nothing in arithmetic will ever point to the taste of a carrot or a feeling of frustration. In your theory which deprived machine of having consciousness. It may leave room for undefined, non-comp 1p content, but that's all it is: room. Nothing points positively to realism and concrete sensory participation, only simulations...but what simulates the Turing machine itself? What props up the stability and erasure capacities of it's tape? What allows numbers to detect numbers? Comp doesn't need to be avoided when you realize that it isn't necessary in the first place. By postulating what we want to explain. There is no more need to explain it than there is a need to explain arithmetic truth. The difference is that we have no experience of arithmetic truth outside of sense, but we are surrounded by sense which persists in spite of having no arithmetic value. If you say so ... You get the whole unsolved mind-body problem back. It isn't a problem, it is the fundamental symmetry of Universe. If you don't have a mind-body distinction, then you are in a non- ordinary state of consciousness which does not commute to other beings in public space. You take the problem, and then say it is the solution. The cosmos isn't a problem, it is the source of all problems and solutions. Well, the cosmos is a problem with comp, and which makes comp interesting. That's the god- of-the-gap mistake. No, it's the recognition of the superlative nature of cosmos - beneath all gods and gaps, beneath all problems and solutions, is sense itself. We don't even know if there is one. We have of course already discuss this. You are just saying don't search. You are welcome to search, I only say that I have already found the only answer that can ever be universally true. Hmm... It looks *you* are talking everything for granted at the start, in the theory. I take only sense for granted because sense cannot be broken down into any more primitive elements. Everything else can be broken down to sense. The CTM + classical theory of knowledge can explain that feeling. With the CTM ( a better name for comp), that which perceives, understands, participates and discovers comp is explained entirely (except 1% of its consciousness) by the only two laws: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) Laws? What are those? How do they govern? Kxy is a shorhand for ((K x) y), and you are told by the first equation above that for all x and y, ((K x) y) = x. So ((K K) K) = K, or to use again the shorthand (which consists in eleimnainating the left parentheses): KKK = K. For the same reason KSK = S KSS = S K(S K) K = (S K) etc. For example SKK is an identity operator: SKKx = Kx(Kx), by the second equation, = x, by the first equation. S and K behavior is ruled by the two axioms above, and gives already a Turing
Truth is a personal choice-- warts and all
Hi Bruno I forgot to add the most important corollary to my discuission of truth as being multifarious--- that of choice. Choice of belief. Or faith. If there are many forms of truth, depending on how they are defined, but at the same time you must at least hang on to one form of truth to navigate through the world, then you choose the one, for whatever reason, that seems to be best. The best guide to wherever you want to go. To me, the Word is the best choice, warts and all. But that's necessarily a personal view. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 08:06:01 Subject: the truth of science and the truth of religion Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, which I suggest are only true for me, giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is real and nothing else (physical things aren't real). This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs relatively to that universal number/supreme monad). And there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a dust) of continually changing reals, each real being a substance of one part. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 12:16:23 Subject: Re: How mathematical truth might enter our universe On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote: All, One of the questions in mathematics is where does mathematical truth come from, if it exists platonically, how does it manifest physically (e.g. as the utterances of mathematicians). I could explain, but it can be long, that it is impossible to explain where the natural numbers come from, or where the Fortran programs come from, of were the GoL comes from. Now if you assume the natural numbers, and the + and x laws, then I can prove the existence of the Fortran programs, and of GoL, etc. if you assume GoL, I can prove the existence of the numbers, etc. So the numbers, or anything Turing equivalent are mysterious. It is the least that we have to assume to get anything capable of supporting a computer, or a brain. But once we assume the numbers, then we can explain why they will eventually develop a mathematics (and physics) much richer than the numbers (including many infinities). Above arithmetic, the mathematics (and physics) are just number mind tools to simplify their lives when the relation with other (universal) numbers get too much complex, a bit like the complex Riemann Zeta function is a tool for making simpler the relation between the prime numbers and the study of their distribution. I had a thought inspired by one of Roger's posts regarding cause and effect extending outside of spacetime. I thought, there is nothing preventing the goings on in this universe from having causal implications
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
Hi Craig Weinberg What drives to totalitarianism is the lust for power. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 07:46:58 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Dear Craig, You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. Dear Alberto, You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others. Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to Eugenesism. But I can not see how the idea that men are genetically (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism. I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord Hunchbacque.) I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd? By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a dolphin?) different from my specie, (FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie ) you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as more primitive than biology. If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only humans) apart from natural selection. I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that free will is an illusion. The god of diversity? Gaia? randomness? State planned education?. Sense. Sensibly, Craig 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. All species are only variations on the same organism. As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are victims of a heavy prejuice. I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard always wins. Just ask the dinosaurs. I don? know if this is political or religious or both. I like to go to the bottom of the motivation of a discussion,. sorry if this is inconvenient. It's not inconvenient, it's exposing the left-brain driven defense mechanisms which come up in debates. Faced with a more reasonable argument, some lash out personally, looking for some motive based on blood or character defect so they don't have to face the possibility that they might be wrong. It doesn't bother
Re: Re: The harmony of the spheres
Hi Stephen P. King I obviously didn't say that clearly. The stack of cards as I called them, being a monad's perceptions, are each a snapshot of the universe of other monads' perceptions at a specific time. But since time isn't a feature of monad space, the perceptions are more accurately referred to by Leibniz scholars, as being indexes. Pages in a history book. Each page is singular and complete. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 14:11:12 Subject: Re: The harmony of the spheres On 12/12/2012 1:23 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? The perceptions or system states are?ike a stack of cards, inside each monad, giving the states of all of the other monads in the universe as would potentially be seen from that monad if it had eyes and a window, giving the card an infinite set of reflections.? Dear Roger, ?? The percept of a monad is singular and an integral whole. It is never separate parts. Its 'orderings must be considered in those terms. ? The monad does not actually change on its own; instead, the supreme monad just issues it a fresh perception card, which represents its now-current state. So it?hanges not in a physical sense but to a new idea or perception state. ?? Wrong. There is no monad that can do something that no other can do. Only the Perpect of a monad is different. THis forbids the idea of a supreme monad. Their relations are rhyzomic, not hierarchical. ? Each of these states has been pre-calculated (or pre-composed) in the pre-established harmony, which is like an orchestra score, with one part harmoniously played by each monad.? The harmony of the spheres, sotospeak. ?? But this Harmony is not one that is like an ordered list or recipe. It is like the entrainment of synchronized systems. Thinking of the Harmony as pre-calculated is deeply problematic as there is no time in which that calculation could have taken place prior to the 'creation' of monads. In fact, monads are eternal, they are never created or destroyed as they are not 'objects' that could be created or destroyed. ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: life is teleological
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:32:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Teleology or intending from inside toward a goal is the science of final causation, to use Aristotle's term. Because from inside, it requires intelligence. Such is life. Or driving a car. Science or determinism deals with effective causation (pushing from outside). No self-directing intelligence is needed. I agree with that, although to be precise, effective causation is not so much a pushing as a falling or flowing. This is why evolution is effective causation. There's no intelligence there. Some species die out, others live on. The species themselves have intelligence, but that doesn't always give them an evolutionary advantage. Sometime the stupid ones sleep in their caves while the tiger kills off the smart ones hunting in the jungle. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-12, 15:41:47 *Subject:* Re: life is teleological On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:48:31 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: Hi Telmo, I agree with everything you said. However, a goal is something that can only be formulated in some kind of mind - it's a mental construct. So to say life has a goal makes no sense, *except* as the implicit statement that e.g. we interpret that life's goal is to survive. All goals are interpretations... e.g, the goal of a thermostat is to regulate the temperature is still an interpretive statement, because there is a level of description of a thermostat that is perfectly valid yet yields no concept of regulation. Exactly right. The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) is that teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even if the goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as much as the mammals who superseded them. Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily - sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over and above natural selection. Craig So then the statement that the goal of life is to survive is ok... so long as we acknowledge that goals are always in the mind of the interpreter. Terren On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Hi Roger, Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what the word means. And the goal of life is to survive. So evolution is teleological. Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time. In other words, life is intelligent. Suppose I postulate that the goal of stars is to emit light. Are they intelligent? If not why? What's the difference? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it. in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there are others that are evident. It depends on the context. for example , woman have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive faster than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that you can guess why. It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that we are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story land. There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html ) - does that mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more aggressive females than males should call into
Re: Re: Mental causes and effects (those outside of spacetime)
Hi Stephen P. King Of course, but zinc still remains the same chemical, zinc Substances can turn into lollipops. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 14:23:10 Subject: Re: Mental causes and effects (those outside of spacetime) On 12/12/2012 1:27 PM, Roger Clough wrote: i Stephen P. King The simple substances keep changing, they are not like chemical atoms. Dear Roger, Chemical atoms are cyclical entities in multiple ways. Their mass is defined by the E= hf; where f is a frequency. The orbits of the electrons have a cyclicity. Many kinds of change are in a chemical atom. The object is that which is constant when those particular changes are occurring. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
Hi Alberto, so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology before life, like me. I don`t find this incompatible with natural selection But it is. The big achievement of Darwinism (and the more complete version, moden synthesis) was to explain the origin of biological complexity without requiring some pre-existing, guiding intelligence. It follows directly from lower levels of abstraction (physics-chemistry-biology). You might disagree with Darwinism, and that's fine. But we're not talking about the same thing anymore. (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it). Natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the phenomenon. No politics there, just scientific ontology. You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. You enjoy the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That´t funny. There I agree with you. . 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com doing -- Alberto. -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology before life, like me. Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of. I don`t find this incompatible with natural selection (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it) Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term: Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he understood that it is not teleological. . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence. You enjoy the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That´t funny. I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 then you have an excuse. Craig . 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: doing -- Alberto. -- 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/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:43:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg What drives to totalitarianism is the lust for power. People don't always know that they lust for power. They can also think that they are saving the world, or helping people restore their former glory. Nobody rolls out of be thinking 'I have a lust for power...it's time to become a totalitarian.' [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-13, 07:46:58 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:47:19 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Dear Craig, You have much to learn about evolution. there have been a lot of developments since Darwin. You adhere to a caricature that is outdated. Dear Alberto, You make a lot of assumptions about me and what I should do. I try to avoid doing that. It's not polite and it is misinforms others. Almost everything can drive to totalitarianism, The idea that nothing is innate drives to totalitarian social engineering. the idea that men are different because they are genetically (innately) different drives to Eugenesism. But I can not see how the idea that men are genetically (innately) equal could could drive to eugenesism. I don't know about genetically equal, but I would say that all humans are innately potentially equivalent. What might be initially a disadvantageous inherited trait may very well turn out to generate a compensating intentional trait (i.e. Napoleon), or might find them at an advantage in a different set of conditions which arise (i.e. the King of England likes the sound of your name and promotes you from hunchback latrine boy to Lord Hunchbacque.) I'm not so much concerned about what the effects of the truth might be, or which truths should be avoided to be safe. If anything, that is the most common impetus for fascism - to herd other human beings like cattle in the direction that you deem wise for them. Who appointed you or me shepherd? By the way, unless you are a variation of the primeval bacterias (are you a dolphin?) different from my specie, (FYI 'species' is the singular form of species. The word specie refers to currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie ) you will agree that the fast moral evaluation mechanism that you posted at the beginning of this discussion comes as the result of something. Yes, it comes as the result of the nature of awareness and intention as more primitive than biology. If you reject natural selection as the process that conform the human psichology as an adaptation to the social and phisical medium, What do you think that produced this remarcable moral ability in humans (and only humans) apart from natural selection. I think that our range of contemporary human capacities are the result of countless feedback loops of personal interactions and events on many levels simultaneously and sequentially. These range in frequency from the sub-personal to the personal to the super-personal and include many genetic and environmental factors. As far as the moral ability in the article, I don't know that it is more pronounced in humans than in other species, just that it is more pronounced in humans than it should be if you believe that free will is an illusion. The god of diversity? Gaia? randomness? State planned education?. Sense. Sensibly, Craig 2012/12/12 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:46:27 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Well. I have not all the time i wish for this. You keep saying that there are othes species where... Yes. And there are atoms that are radiactive. What are two species to do one with each other?. All species are only variations on the same organism. As a minimum, For the next half million years, men and femenine sea horses will be more agressive and risk taking than their opposite sex. This is guaranteed by the pace that evolution takes to change a large set of coordinated genes. The people like you that accept the innate , natural -selection driven nature of animal behaviour but reject it form men are victims of a heavy prejuice. I'm not a victim of anything, as far as I know. It's interesting how you always bring it back to a personal attack when your arguments fail to yield any insights. It sounds like you are making an argument for Social Darwinism, which is of course, fraudulent and a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. Survival of the fittest means only survival of the best fit to ecological conditions, not that the meanest toughest bastard always wins. Just ask the
Re: Re: life is teleological
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:40:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Since evolution is evolution of living creatures, who must have the desire to live and grow and mate, A lot of living creatures don't mate. While I agree that life is about desire as much as evolution, I don't see the two as related. Creatures evolve with or without desire. Everything evolves. Crystals evolved from minerals. it is goal-oriented, and thus at least partly teleological. Everything is partly teleological. Teleonomy (I had to look it up) is defined as only apparent puposeful-ness. How do those that assign telonomy to evolution know that it is only apparent ? That sounds like a dodge to me. It's not my idea and it's not a new one either. http://philpapers.org/rec/LAGTRO I don't think that was the paper I read actually, but the one that I did read was compelling in making the distinction between the two. It's unshakably obvious to me now. Teleonomy is a quant game. Teleology is everything else. Do you feel that your life is only apparently purposeful ? No, but my life has nothing to do with reproduction or natural selection. I say that if life appears to be purposeful, it IS purposeful. If you think you're having fun, you're having fun. I agree, of course, but evolution isn't having fun, and it's only purpose is diversification and consolidation. You are conflating the mechanics of natural selection with the progressing quality of life. They are only tangentially related. You are aware, I assume, that some mammals evolved to go back into the sea. It's not always a forward arrow. Some species devolve qualitatively. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-12, 15:43:15 *Subject:* Re: life is teleological On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:56:39 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what the word means. And the goal of life is to survive. So evolution is teleological. In other words, life is intelligent. Just repeating my comment above: The difference between teleology and teleonomy (evolution) is that teleonomy is the accumulation of unintentional consequences. Even if the goal of life were to survive, that goal has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection. I'm sure that the dinosaurs wanted to survive as much as the mammals who superseded them. Teleology is about initiating sequences and carrying them out voluntarily - sometimes in spite of consequences or in direct opposition to them. Teleology is the defiance of evolution - it is artificial selection over and above natural selection. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-12-11, 16:03:57 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:46:23 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Yes, I sent a search link for you to know the opinions about it. in EP this your example does not offer a clear hypothesis. But there are others that are evident. It depends on the context. for example , woman have more accurate facial recognition habilities, but men perceive faster than women faces of angry men that are loking at him. I think that you can guess why. It's the guessing why which I find unscientific. It helps us feel that we are very clever, but really it is a slippery slope into just-so story land. There are some species where the females are more aggressive ( http://www.culture-of-peace.info/biology/chapter4-6.html ) - does that mean that the females in those species will definitely show the reverse of the pattern that you mention? Just the fact that some species have more aggressive females than males should call into question any functionalist theories based on gender, and if gender in general doesn't say anything very reliable about psychology, then why should we place much value on any of these kinds of assumptions. Evolution is not teleological, it is the opposite. Who we are is a function of the specific experiences of specific individuals who were lucky in specific circumstances. That's it. There's no explanatory power in sweeping generalizations which credit evolution with particular psychological strategies. Sometimes behaviors are broadly adaptive species-wide, and sometimes they are incidental, and it is nearly impossible to tell them apart, especially thousands of years after the fact. Craig The alignment detection is
Re: Re: three logically, not physically, nested monads
Hi Stephen P. King Forgive me, but your objection doesn't seem to apply very clearly to monads. Part/whole relations in a monad are best understood in terms of predicate logic. A monad is defined as a complete concept, that is, a subject with enough predicates to specify it as different from all other monads (which are also complete concepts). Otherwise by identity of indiscernibles it could not be. So minimum would refer to the minimum set of predicates needed to create a complete concept or monad. Maximum would be the same unless you want to add more without conflict or creating a new (possibly non-existent and therefore only imaginary) monad. Now the predicates are said to be logically (not physically) inside the subject, so if there are levels of refinement of the predicates such as dog-large-brown the browness would be logically, not physically, inside the large snd the large inside the subject, that being dog. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 14:32:34 Subject: Re: three logically, not physically, nested monads On 12/12/2012 1:43 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1) No two monads can be the same, so at least one of them within each type has to be the dominant one. This is like a representative govt wherein the dominant one governs its subset. And it is governed by higher levels. Dear Roger, We cannot use the conventional mereology when considering monads; one must use an organic mereology. The compositions of a pair of monads is a new monad that is distinct from its parents and yet part of them. Monads are always wholes, just as living things are always integral wholes. 2) As that suggests, there are levels of monads, each monad containing a myriad of monads, not physically but as a logical subset. The relations between monads is Non-well Founded. There is no minimum nor maximal monad. Each is infinite. Here would be an example of three monads : Animal-dog-small-barking Animal-dog-large-barking Animal-dog-large-not-barking No, there are 6 monads in that example. The characteristics only occur once. Animal, dog, small, large, barking, not-barking are each a behavior/change that defines a monad. You continuwe to use the wrong organizing principle to think of monads. 3) Above animals you have man, and to my mind at least you have a higher level than man, say intellectual with a spiritual level (it is not specified), which I suppose you could think of as Jesus, and above and beyond Jesus, God (just an eye, not a monad) looking down through all of the monads, seeing down through all perfectly, constnatly updating their perceptions, causing everything to happen. Any change that is beyond the change defining a monad is equivalent to the creation of a new monad if we think of them as objects. But monads are actually eternal, it is the synchronization of their percepts that creates the appearance of creation and destruction. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
You said it: in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not happen. That´s why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than natural selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and their society according with its will. 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology before life, like me. Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of. I don`t find this incompatible with natural selection (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it) Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term: Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he understood that it is not teleological. . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence. You enjoy the fact that NS made female hyenas to behave in some politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave as is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That´t funny. I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 then you have an excuse. Craig . 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com doing -- Alberto. -- 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/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Against Mechanism
Craig, If in your theory sense is fundamental, a hence explains everything, how could your theory explain concepts like: Gravity Quantum mechanics Fine tuning It seems you need some formal laws and definitions concerning sense in order to build from it as a basis of understanding. What might those laws of sense be? Jason On Dec 13, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:22:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to make things more complex for avoiding comp. No, it reveals that comp takes the machine that it runs on for granted. Not at all. The machine existence, and its relative running existence, are theorem in the tiny arithmetic. Tiny compared to what though? Tiny in the sense of needing few K to be described. But if the universe contains no K to begin with, then it is insurmountably un-tiny, no? As far as I'm concerned, the appearance of arithmetic truth from nothing is an oceanic gulf - far greater than that of a sensory- motor primitive, which has no possible explanation. First we cannot explain the numbers with less than the number (or Turing equivalent). So we have to assume them, That's what I keep telling you though, I have already done this. Numbers cannot be assumed and they can be explained as epiphenomenal protocols within sense. if only to make sense of any theory in which you can define what you mean by sensory-motor. Now sensory-motor really cannot be explained with less than sensory- motor. That's because it is the legitimate universal primitive. That's why 'seeing is believing' and 'there is no substitute for experience' and 'you had to be there' and 'it's lost in translation'. Experience is trans-rational. Logic arises from experience, not the other way around. It isn't numbers who dream, it is dreams who count. See? You are experiencing sensory-motor now - it is all that anything has ever experienced. All 'explanations' arise through it, from it, and to it as isomorphisms of sense- making. Juxtapostion of like experiences on different levels, from the concrete and personal to the abstract and generic. Then in arithmetic many things have no possible explanation. That's what I'm saying. In sense, everything has lots of explanations. New explanations all the time. Explanations are made of sense. Arithmetic is easily explained as one of the many types of experiences Keep in mind that experiences is what I want explain. That's circular. Explanation is already an experience. You are trying to put the shoebox into the shoe. which allow us to refer to other experiences, but nothing in arithmetic will ever point to the taste of a carrot or a feeling of frustration. In your theory which deprived machine of having consciousness. Any machine that physically exists must be executed through some material which, on some level of description, has some level of awareness - molecules if nothing else. That doesn't mean though, if you make a walking machine out of PVC pipes (which are fantastic btw) that the walker as a whole hosts a unified awareness. Whatever awareness we project onto it is ultimately a reflection of our own sensory expectations and the sensory-motive intentions of the engineer(s) who created it. We watch TV, but the TV doesn't watch TV. We use a computer, but the computer doesn't use it's own computations to make sense. It reminds us very much of consciousness, but ultimately that reminder is a sculpture made of collections of metal pins and glassy films rather than living cells divided from a mammalian sexual syzygy event. It may leave room for undefined, non-comp 1p content, but that's all it is: room. Nothing points positively to realism and concrete sensory participation, only simulations...but what simulates the Turing machine itself? What props up the stability and erasure capacities of it's tape? What allows numbers to detect numbers? Comp doesn't need to be avoided when you realize that it isn't necessary in the first place. By postulating what we want to explain. There is no more need to explain it than there is a need to explain arithmetic truth. The difference is that we have no experience of arithmetic truth outside of sense, but we are surrounded by sense which persists in spite of
Re: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
Hi Alberto G. Corona It's much simpler than that, I think. Progressives hate everything resembles anything held to be good, beautiful, or true. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 10:13:03 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows You said it: in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not happen. That? why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than ?atural selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and their society according with its will. 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology before life, like me. Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of. ? I don`t find this?ncompatible?ith natural selection (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it) Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term: Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he understood that it is not teleological. ? . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence. ? You enjoy the fact that NS made female?yenas to behave in?ome politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave ?s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That? funny. I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 then you have an excuse. Craig ? . 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com doing -- Alberto. -- 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/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: My prejudice is that the projection from dreams of the mind is to a unique physical universe rather than every possible one. On the contrary. It leads to many-dreams, and it is an open question if this leads to a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, or a multi-multi-multiverse, etc. Is CTM capable of such a projection even if it is not Occam? CTM predicts it a priori. And it is OCCAM, in the sense that it is the simplest conceptual theory (just addition and multiplication of non negative integers). Bruno, I presume here you mean that CTM predicts many dreams a priori. Is the projection to one SWI universe and/or multiple MWI universes also predicted a priori? My concern is that consciousness is predicted at the many dreams stage before projection and that consciousness could decide (a risky term) on a single SWI physical universe with quantum probability. In other words, the realm of many dreams contains all possible eigenfunctions at various amplitudes. But in my view, if all eigenfunctions become real in different physical worlds, the amplitude information is lost despite Deutsch's measure argument. That is, amplitude information is only conserved as frequency of events in a single physical world integrated over many trials. For Deutsch's argument to be correct the same many worlds eigenfunctions must exist in every universe of the multiverse, which in my mind makes the MWI multiverse an illusion. Richard -- 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.
What Christmas is really all about -- A Christmas Flash Mob
What Christmas is Really All About--- A Christmas Flash Mob Pity the atheists who don't get to be moved by this http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vnt7euRF5Pgvq=medium -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona It's much simpler than that, I think. Progressives hate everything resembles anything held to be good, beautiful, or true. Then your thoughts are simple-minded indeed. Gandhi, MLK, Einstein were haters of goodness, beauty, and truth? Progressives aren't artists or musicians? You can believe in black and white demagoguery if you like..that's exactly what Progressives want to leave behind. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-13, 10:13:03 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brain study shows You said it: in part because it (evolution) carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea Evolution is descriptive, is the fact. natural selection is the theory that explain it. A scientific theory impose constraints with what may and may not happen. For example, child caring and risk taking at the same time may not happen. That� why progressives prefer the term evolution rather than �atural selection. They want no constraints for his will of the transformation of themselves and their society according with its will. 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:48:45 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: so awareness and intention are before biology, so you seem to admit a teleology before life, like me. Teleology and teleonomy both predate life. They are what time is made of. � I don`t find this�ncompatible�ith natural selection (or evolution, as left-leaning people likes to call it) Hahaha, I wasn't aware that the very term evolution was now politicized. Actually it looks like Darwin preferred another term: Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of The Origin of Species (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of progress not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution . http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evolution So the reason that evolution was not Darwin's choice is precisely because he understood that it is not teleological. � . You seem to admit natural selection up to a point but you reject it when we are talking to sensible human things like the sexual roles. Yes, natural selection only shapes things that already exist, it doesn't bring awareness or qualities of awareness into existence. � You enjoy the fact that NS made female�yenas to behave in�ome politically correct ways (it seems). but you reject that NS selection make female humans behave �s is in almost all the rest of the animal kingdom. That� funny. I think it's funny that you think I'm citing some evidence supporting a left wing agenda. I'm only showing you that gender is not written in stone. It's something that most people are already aware of - although if you are over 60 then you have an excuse. Craig � . 2012/12/13 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com doing -- Alberto. -- 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/-/sdpVQn09vMYJ. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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.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/-/KrxIG-s2MLgJ. 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: Against Mechanism
On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus they are theories which can be tested and differentiated. Except his proposed experiment relies on a hypothetical quantum computer that is conscious. Yes but Deutsch argues, convincingly I thought, that the reason it's so difficult to test is not the Many World's theory's fault, the reason is that the conventional view says that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that usesquantum properties. In Deutsch's experiment to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds other than this one a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal plate that has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer has detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. The quantum mind now signs a document saying that it has observed each and every electron and knows what slit each electron went through. It is very important that the document does not say which slit the electrons went through, it only says that they went through one slit only, and the mind has knowledge of which one. Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the memory of what slits the electrons went through. But all other memories and the document remains undamaged. But why should I think this is possible? I'd like to see the actual mechanism or Hamiltonian that allows this. And then the electrons continue on their way and hit the photographic plate. Now develop the photographic plate and look at it, if you see interference bands then the many world interpretation is correct. No, it only means the 'consciousness collapses the wave-function' theory is incorrect. It doesn't follow that MWI is correct. If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? Creating a record of it. I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI. MWI has the same problem as decoherence theory (except it tries to ignore it): How or what chooses the basis in which the reduced density matrix becomes approximately orthogonal and what is the significance of it not being exact. Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious. Decoherence theory hopes to show it is some objective feature of the experiment, e.g. the Schmidt decomposition and purification has been proposed http://ipg.epfl.ch/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=en:courses:2009-2010:qit:lect5quantinfo0910.pdf Neither has really said how to deal with the inexactness of orthogonality, but once you assume you can ignore the off diagonal terms then QM just predicts probabilities, as Omnes says. That works FAPP. But there is no conceptual reason to ignore the off diagonal terms, given that they can play role physically testable. It is instrumentalist. If you define a world by the transitive closure of interactions, then the linearity of the SWE and the linearity of the tensor product entails the existence of the many worlds. The many worlds is just the literal reading of QM applied to our world including us. And I think QM itself, the wave, is already a literal reading of arithmetic by itself, ... but I can't convince people who believes in Something or Someone selecting their realities and not the others. 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 truth of science and the truth of religion
On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As an aside, my resistance to the idea that there is only one truth comes from partisans claiming that their idea of truth is the only one. Those are the bastards we have to fight. That there is one truth is only a bet on universality. But a faith in such a truth can only be given by the right for any individual to question any currently proposed truth, in metaphysics, and the most rigorous defense of liberty of thought and expression. The unique truth is the one we search, not the found anyone could say I got it (except perhaps a philosopher but then he deserves the bad reputation). Publicly we can only propose theory, which really means question. For example, atheists claim that God cannot exist because that existence is scientifically unproveable. I don't think atheist are that dumb. The non existence of God is also not scientifically provable. Our own consciousness, which few doubt the existence, is, in many theory, non scientifically provable. That the sun will rise tomorrow is also non scientifically provable out of theory. The atheists believe in the God Matter, (a primary physical universe) and they believe that there are no other Gods. I agree. Instead, as a Christian, I believe that the Word is the truth that God has revealed of himself, which is also a definition of Jesus. Hmm... I should try wine but my experience is that I got liver problem with the legal drugs. I might imagine here a parabolic description of the Dx =xx trick. But that dioes not mean that spiritual truth can explain evolution or the Big Bang. I beg to differ on this. So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. In the theory of chakras truth is the chakra near the vocal chords, meaning that truth is in words. Or communicable truth is in words, but the heart knows many truths solipsistically that cannot be accurately be communicable or proveable. The heart knows a lot! But there are many path to truth, many many paths. they should not be confused with the truth. You would not be glad if the pilot of the plane told you that as he want to be fair, just and objective, he will let the passengers drive the plane. Truth is a queen which win all the wars, without any army, even without words. But no bodies at all can ever say to *know* it. Every bodies can propose a theory, which is only a question. That being the case, and if the Kingdom of God is within us, the One can provide us individually with personal truths, such as my identity or memory, Correct, but even this is no proof, as the Devil can do the same. which I suggest are only true for me, There is a sense in which if they are really true for you, that truth is true for God, and so for everyone even if they cannot know it. giving another branch of the necessary truths besides those of logic. Logic is poor, but with the numbers (and +, and *), you get already the universal mess. God get lost but perhaps his Mother cares. Which would be the wordless truths of Goodness and of Beauty. Plausibly. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 04:54:23 Subject: Re: truth vs reality On 12 Dec 2012, at 19:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I hate to be a spoiler, but, being a pragmatist and nominalist, to me, the word truth is a stumbling block and a red herring. To me, the One contains many types of truth, differing according to their definitions. Well, all the hypostases comes from the one, so this makes sense. To me, the word real would be a better one, and to a follower of Leibniz such as I am, only each monad is real and nothing else (physical things aren't real). This is coherent with identifying the monads with the numbers, at least when coupled with some universal number (they become programs relatively to that universal number/supreme monad). And there being an infinitely different set of monads, each of which keeps changing, there are an infinite set (actually, a dust) of continually changing reals, each real being a substance of one part. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/12/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 12:16:23 Subject: Re: How mathematical truth might enter our universe On 12 Dec 2012, at 17:00, Jason Resch wrote: All, One of the questions in mathematics is where does mathematical truth come from, if it exists platonically, how does it manifest physically (e.g. as the utterances of
Re: Doesn't the UTM insure that comp is true ?
On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:09, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal What I don't understand about comp is if there is a UTM that can calculate whatever is needed to emulate our behavior, how can comp ever be false (except possibly by those aspects hidden by Godel ) ? Well if there is a UTM that can calculate whatever needed to emulate our behavior, and if you still want comp, you need zombie to make comp false. That an UTM can emulate our behavior is the BEHAVIORAL-MECHANISM hypothesis. That such UTM is conscious, is the STRONG AI hypothesis. That we are such UTM emulable machine is the COMP, alias CTM hypothesis. COMP - STRONG-AI - BEH-MEC And Gödel's theorem is really just the first theorem in exact machine's self-reference theory, it is really a chance for the mechanist philosophy. Judson Webb is right on that. It locally protects Church thesis, and it makes the universal machine a sort of universal dissident, allergic to authoritative arguments (at least at the start!). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 05:22:45 Subject: Re: Against Mechanism On 12 Dec 2012, at 20:00, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:49:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:03:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2012, at 19:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your servitor: 1) Arithmetic (comp) :) Bruno To which I add: 0) That which perceives, understands, participates, and gives rise to comp. OK. But this is just to make things more complex for avoiding comp. No, it reveals that comp takes the machine that it runs on for granted. Not at all. The machine existence, and its relative running existence, are theorem in the tiny arithmetic. Tiny compared to what though? Tiny in the sense of needing few K to be described. As far as I'm concerned, the appearance of arithmetic truth from nothing is an oceanic gulf - far greater than that of a sensory- motor primitive, which has no possible explanation. First we cannot explain the numbers with less than the number (or Turing equivalent). So we have to assume them, if only to make sense of any theory in which you can define what you mean by sensory-motor. Then in arithmetic many things have no possible explanation. Arithmetic is easily explained as one of the many types of experiences Keep in mind that experiences is what I want explain. which allow us to refer to other experiences, but nothing in arithmetic will ever point to the taste of a carrot or a feeling of frustration. In your theory which deprived machine of having consciousness. It may leave room for undefined, non-comp 1p content, but that's all it is: room. Nothing points positively to realism and concrete sensory participation, only simulations...but what simulates the Turing machine itself? What props up the stability and erasure capacities of it's tape? What allows numbers to detect numbers? Comp doesn't need to be avoided when you realize that it isn't necessary in the first place. By postulating what we want to explain. There is no more need to explain it than there is a need to explain arithmetic truth. The difference is that we have no experience of arithmetic truth outside of sense, but we are surrounded by sense which persists in spite of having no arithmetic value. If you say so ... You get the whole unsolved mind-body problem back. It isn't a problem, it is the fundamental symmetry of Universe. If you don't have a mind-body distinction, then you are in a non- ordinary state of consciousness which does not commute to other beings in public space. You take the problem, and then say it is the solution. The cosmos isn't a problem, it is the source of all problems and solutions. Well, the cosmos is a problem with comp, and which makes comp interesting. That's the god- of-the-gap mistake. No, it's the recognition of the superlative nature of cosmos - beneath all gods and gaps, beneath all problems and solutions, is sense itself. We don't even know if there is one. We have of course already discuss this. You are just saying don't search. You are welcome to search, I only say that I have already found the only answer that can ever be universally true. Hmm... It looks *you* are talking everything for granted at the start, in the theory. I take only sense for granted because sense cannot be broken down into any more primitive elements. Everything else can be broken down to sense. The CTM + classical theory of knowledge can explain
Re: Doesn't the UTM insure that comp is true ?
On 12/13/2012 1:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:09, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal What I don't understand about comp is if there is a UTM that can calculate whatever is needed to emulate our behavior, how can comp ever be false (except possibly by those aspects hidden by Godel ) ? Well if there is a UTM that can calculate whatever needed to emulate our behavior, and if you still want comp, you need zombie to make comp false. That an UTM can emulate our behavior is the BEHAVIORAL-MECHANISM hypothesis. That such UTM is conscious, is the STRONG AI hypothesis. That we are such UTM emulable machine is the COMP, alias CTM hypothesis. COMP - STRONG-AI - BEH-MEC And Gödel's theorem is really just the first theorem in exact machine's self-reference theory, it is really a chance for the mechanist philosophy. Judson Webb is right on that. It locally protects Church thesis, and it makes the universal machine a sort of universal dissident, allergic to authoritative arguments (at least at the start!). Bruno Dear Bruno, Comp implies virtual zombies, not physical zombies, no? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Against Mechanism
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about it. In the many worlds interpretation neither choice nor consciousness nor mind in general have anything to do with the way the laws of physics work, however in order to devise a experiment that attempts to prove that Many Worlds makes better predictions than other interpretations where mind is important it is obviously necessary to incorporate mind into the experiment. 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Dec 2012, at 04:39, meekerdb wrote: On 12/12/2012 4:01 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/12/2012 9:25 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/11/2012 9:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Everett's QM is not a theory; it's just an interpretations. Not quite. Deutsch's proposed experiment with reversible computation and an AI yields different results for the CI and MWI, thus they are theories which can be tested and differentiated. Except his proposed experiment relies on a hypothetical quantum computer that is conscious. Yes but Deutsch argues, convincingly I thought, that the reason it's so difficult to test is not the Many World's theory's fault, the reason is that the conventional view says that conscious observers obey different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's right we need a mind that uses quantum properties. In Deutsch's experiment to prove or disprove the existence of many worlds other than this one a conscious quantum computer shoots electrons at a metal plate that has 2 small slits in it. It does this one at a time. The quantum computer has detectors near each slit so it knows which slit the various electrons went through. The quantum mind now signs a document saying that it has observed each and every electron and knows what slit each electron went through. It is very important that the document does not say which slit the electrons went through, it only says that they went through one slit only, and the mind has knowledge of which one. Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy the memory of what slits the electrons went through. But all other memories and the document remains undamaged. But why should I think this is possible? I'd like to see the actual mechanism or Hamiltonian that allows this. And then the electrons continue on their way and hit the photographic plate. Now develop the photographic plate and look at it, if you see interference bands then the many world interpretation is correct. No, it only means the 'consciousness collapses the wave-function' theory is incorrect. It doesn't follow that MWI is correct. If observing a definite result doesn't collapse the wave function then what does? Creating a record of it. I think the experiment is meant to show collapse does not happen. And if there is no collapse then you have the MWI. MWI has the same problem as decoherence theory (except it tries to ignore it): How or what chooses the basis in which the reduced density matrix becomes approximately orthogonal and what is the significance of it not being exact. Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious. Decoherence theory hopes to show it is some objective feature of the experiment, e.g. the Schmidt decomposition and purification has been proposed http://ipg.epfl.ch/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=en:courses:2009-2010:qit:lect5quantinfo0910.pdf Neither has really said how to deal with the inexactness of orthogonality, but once you assume you can ignore the off diagonal terms then QM just predicts probabilities, as Omnes says. That works FAPP. But there is no conceptual reason to ignore the off diagonal terms, given that they can play role physically testable. It is instrumentalist. But MWI has the same problem. There are superpositions of conscious states too, but the cross trems are ignored FAPP just as in an instrumentalist interpretation. It essentially boils down to the problem of explaining the classical worlds emergence from the quantum. If you define a world by the transitive closure of interactions, then the linearity of the SWE and the linearity of the tensor product entails the existence of the many worlds. The many worlds is just the literal reading of QM applied to our world including us. How I define a world's in a model only effects the model. There is no 'literal reading' of QM that works in this world except FAPP. Maybe a successful theory of consciousness will change that, but so far I see CTM as relying on the same FAPP diagonalization of density matrices in a basis which is chosen - not predicted. Brent And I think QM itself, the wave, is already a literal reading of arithmetic by itself, ... but I can't convince people who believes in Something or Someone selecting their realities and not the others. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion
On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about it. In the many worlds interpretation neither choice nor consciousness nor mind in general have anything to do with the way the laws of physics work, however in order to devise a experiment that attempts to prove that Many Worlds makes better predictions than other interpretations where mind is important it is obviously necessary to incorporate mind into the experiment. Which agrees with my point that the experiment is only designed to test the Wigner theory that consciousness collapses the wave-function. Rejecting Wigner's interpretation (which he dropped later anyway) is not the same as proving MWI. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Against Mechanism
2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about it. In the many worlds interpretation neither choice nor consciousness nor mind in general have anything to do with the way the laws of physics work, however in order to devise a experiment that attempts to prove that Many Worlds makes better predictions than other interpretations where mind is important it is obviously necessary to incorporate mind into the experiment. Which agrees with my point that the experiment is only designed to test the Wigner theory that consciousness collapses the wave-function. Rejecting Wigner's interpretation (which he dropped later anyway) is not the same as proving MWI. Brent Isn't that prove wrong any collapse explanations ? Quentin -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 truth of science and the truth of religion
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Perhaps the one truth is that there are many possible inconsistent truths, but only one set of consistent truths for each of us, or for each universe, whatever.(;) Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 truth of science and the truth of religion
On 12/13/2012 2:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Brent -- I agree with this statement 100%. I see it as having long range implications and why it is the case should be understood. I have tried to argue an informal proof of this idea in terms of the impossibility of determining SAT for the Boolean algebraic representation of 'all that exists', but it seems that no one understands or is willing to discuss the argument. I see it as eliminating the possibility of the a priori or ontologically fundamental fixed structure such as what *Parminides *or Plato would have us believe. This is where I disagree mostly with Bruno. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 truth of science and the truth of religion
On 12/13/2012 2:48 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Perhaps the one truth is that there are many possible inconsistent truths, but only one set of consistent truths for each of us, or for each universe, whatever.(;) Dear Richard, I agree! How these truths are woven together is of considerable interest, as such is that ToE's attempt. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Against Mechanism
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the experimenterenter into the lab notebook?? You are hopeless. I've answered this at least 10 times. Avoided the question at least 10 times. Jason #1 says Washington and Jason #2 says Moscow, there is only one lab notebook and only one experimenter, so what one and only one check mark should the experimenter put in that one and only one lab notebook, the one next to the word Washington or the one next to the word Moscow? Can anyone (the 1 or 2 remaining John Clarks, being the only person (or people) left on Earth) say whether he was transported randomly to one of the two locations, or duplicated to two different locations? That depends on how much is known. Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and just said walk into the chamber and I did so and found myself in Moscow I would have no way of knowing that there was another John Clark in Washington, nor would I have any idea why of all the cities in the world you chose to transport me to Moscow, I would not even know that a reason existed. My bet: you will find some excuse for not answering or merely ignore this question You loose. as it brings too close to first person indeterminacy for your comfort. Well of course I'm uncomfortable with it, most people are, most people want to know what the future will hold but we don't; and that's all first person indeterminacy is, a pompous way of saying I dunno. And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how? I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you? And you proved matter is something not found in mathematics how? I don't know how to fly to Tokyo on the blueprints of a 747. Do you? If pronouns are not ambiguous John Clark may or may not have the ability to provide answers, but at least John Clark will understand the question. Or if John Clark is uncomfortable with where he perceives the line of questions and reasoning to be heading be may make up some excuse about pronouns or answer a different question than was asked. Then simply call John Clark's bluff and stop using personal pronouns with abandon as it their meaning was as clear in a world with duplicating machines as it is in our world without them. So both are you but you only see through the eyes of one of them. So which one is blind. Neither is blind, but each sees through only one pair of eyes. OK. You (subjectively) survived Yes, and subjective survival is all I'm interested in, I'm not even sure what objective survival means. as one of them, One? Which one? if MWI is true in each universe there is one and only one photographic plate and one and only one spot on it; Not in the cosmological form of MWI. Bullshit. As I said before, no information is gained unless you are the one who enters the duplication chamber. And that's the difference, a physicist doesn't have to personally squeeze through those 2 tiny slits to do the experiment, that's the electrons job, nevertheless he can learn something from just watching it. Nothing is learned from watching Bruno's experiment. You measure the spin state of an electron on the x-axis and find it is left. MWI says your duplicate in the other branch found it was right. One of you saw the left-state and became the saw the left-state man and the other saw the right-state and became the saw the right-state man. Through the split, duplication, and observance of something different, each duplicate has acquired the subjective feeling of observing a random unpredictable event. Yes. Enough time and electrons have been wasted repeating ourselves. I agree, many free electrons have given their lives for this thread and there is not much to show for their sacrifice. 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: Against Mechanism
On 12/13/2012 3:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/13/2012 11:46 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/12/13 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/13/2012 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Copenhagen said the choice is made by the experimenter and apparently Deutsch agrees with this because he thinks it's significant that his AI is conscious No Deutsch does not agree with this, I know because I've talked to him about it. In the many worlds interpretation neither choice nor consciousness nor mind in general have anything to do with the way the laws of physics work, however in order to devise a experiment that attempts to prove that Many Worlds makes better predictions than other interpretations where mind is important it is obviously necessary to incorporate mind into the experiment. Which agrees with my point that the experiment is only designed to test the Wigner theory that consciousness collapses the wave-function. Rejecting Wigner's interpretation (which he dropped later anyway) is not the same as proving MWI. Brent Isn't that prove wrong any collapse explanations ? No it just proves wrong theories that say the conscious knowledge of the quantum computer, which is not erased, collapses the wf. That's why I say I'd like to see the experimental setup or at least the theoretical Hamiltonian. Suppose the interference fringes are observed - then we say OK erasing the which-way, but keeping the some-way, information is possible. Suppose the interference fringes aren't observed - then we say it isn't really possible (with the given experiment anyway) to erase the which-way information and keep the some-way information. Although the AI doesn't know which-way, the information is 'out there' just like in the buckyball Young's slit experiment. Brent Hi Brent, Wait... For the the hypothetical quantum computer, what plays the role of the environment (that is an effectively infinite heat reservoir) that the IR radiation of the buckyball's couples to such that they (at some temp) behave classically? Here are a couples of on-line articles: http://www.julianvossandreae.com/Work/C60article/c60article.pdf http://www.flayrah.com/3351/physicist-mulls-double-slit-cat-cannon-experiment -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm. Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible way, neither determined nor random. Since everything is either determined or random, if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion. In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really relevant. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm. Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible way, neither determined nor random. Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random right? So it must be determined? So are you saying Free will is an illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a logically impossible way... Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you are talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have any more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author of your words? The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will. Since everything is either determined or random, It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency. if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion. Illusions are a figment of expectation. What you call an optical illusion, I call a living encyclopedia of visual perception and optics. Something can only be an illusion if you mistakenly interpret it as something else. In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really relevant. If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary control over their actions and random or deterministic unconscious physical processes. Think about it, Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/-/NDStqkYX_M0J. 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm. Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible way, neither determined nor random. Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing... This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible importance*. Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely and see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your back. 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/-/gtq8PwQyva4J. 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: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm. Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible way, neither determined nor random. Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random right? So it must be determined? So are you saying Free will is an illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a logically impossible way... Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you are talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have any more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author of your words? The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will. You're perhaps conflating the feeling with the physical processes underpinning that feeling. I feel all sorts of things, but I don't feel neurotransmitters and action potentials. No conclusion can be drawn from what I feel about the physical processes. Consider that the ancient Greeks did not even realise that the brain is the organ of thinking. So when I say I feel my actions are free that means something, but it does NOT mean that my brain processes are neither random nor determined. Since everything is either determined or random, It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom. if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion. Illusions are a figment of expectation. What you call an optical illusion, I call a living encyclopedia of visual perception and optics. Something can only be an illusion if you mistakenly interpret it as something else. In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really relevant. If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary control over their actions and random or deterministic unconscious physical processes. That it is voluntary control has no bearing on the question of whether the underlying processes are determined or random. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple propensity to cause harm. Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible way, neither determined nor random. Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing... The dichotomy is intentional/unintentional, not intentional/determined-or-random. It could be intentional and determined, intentional and random, unintentional and determined or unintentional and random. This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible importance*. Yes, that's what I have been saying. We care about whether something is intentional or unintentional, and unless we are engaged in discussions such as this we don't even consider whether the underlying physics is determined or random. Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely and see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your back. 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/-/gtq8PwQyva4J. 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. -- 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.
