Could morphisms be related to mirror neurons ?
VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html Mirror neurons are motor neurons in the brain that serve to allow us to imitate or repeat the external actions of others. Monkey see, monkey do. See the above video for a more complete explanation. Intuitively, these suggest possible relationships between the following phenomena (to give a partial listing): 1. Morphisms 2. A holographic universe (copies of the whole in each part) 3. Computationalism (the computer copying or emulation of brain processes) 4. Mirror neurons 5. Monkey see, monkey do. 6. Monadic perception. Universal reflections of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, back to a given monad. a possible basis of habits. 7. Social relationships 8. Etc. etc. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- 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: Could morphisms be related to mirror neurons ?
You might add universal quantum entanglement to the list below as a common feature of all. - [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list,- mindbr...@yahoogroups.com,inclusional...@yahoogroups.com,inclusional...@jiscmail.ac.uk Time: 2013-01-05, 05:39:03 Subject: Could morphisms be related to mirror neurons ? VS Ramachandran: The neurons that shaped civilization http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html Mirror neurons are motor neurons in the brain that serve to allow us to imitate or repeat the external actions of others. Monkey see, monkey do. See the above video for a more complete explanation. Intuitively, these suggest possible relationships between the following phenomena (to give a partial listing): 1. Morphisms 2. A holographic universe (copies of the whole in each part) 3. Computationalism (the computer copying or emulation of brain processes) 4. Mirror neurons 5. Monkey see, monkey do. 6. Monadic perception. Universal reflections of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe, back to a given monad. a possible basis of habits. 7. Social relationships 8. Etc. etc. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- 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: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars). Bruno -- 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/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Everythingsters, When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: 1. Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYOC_IFmWzE by loadedshaman http://www.youtube.com/user/loadedshaman•1 year ago•15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert *Sheldrake*, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 2. [image: Thumbnail]1:05:49 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MOzlSF0a8M Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences. Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
On 03 Jan 2013, at 19:26, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: On 1/2/2013 5:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Leibniz's view, in his theodicy , which I hold to also, is that the world down here, that God created, is necessarily imperfect, so, as they say crap happens. This is because things can't be good everywhere at the same time. So there is no heaven. There might be a heaven, but the price is that there might be a hell too, and a complex Mandelbrot like boundary between. Bruno Looking at the plight of the average person on earth, I conclude that hell is on earth. Therefore by your thinking there might just be a heaven. Richard OK. 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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A dialog on monads, the PEH, and possible alternatives
Hi Stephen P. King SNIP ROGER: He had done away with two-substance cartesian dualism by considering both mind and body from a mental or logical aspect. STEVE: Yes, but at a price. I am, you could say, trying to make the price reasonable. His PEH is, IMHO, too costly ontologically speaking. I am seeking to replace it with a ongoing computation idea. ROGER: Good idea. I had replaced it with thermodynamics, but that only works in the large. Right now I am exploring Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonances. rse the phenomenal world still existed, so he still needed some appropriate way of mentally designating material objects. STEVE: Sure, and we can capture the materialness of physical reality with appropriate concepts while not having to conjure utopian fantasies of perfection. The way that computers can simulate each other perfectly captures the interaction model what L proposed for interaction between monads, but to use it we need a different way of thinking. IMHO, the pseudo-telepathy of quantum games theory is perfect but still too theoretical as it exists today. [Also,] QM allows for this kind of telepathy! ROGER: Sounds like you have some great ideas. (ROGER continuing to expound L's concept of substance) These were all substances, but L only considered as real or permanent only indivisible substances (substances of only one part-- without internal boundaries.) These indivisible real objects he called monads. STEVE: My claim is that we can dispense completely with substances and use relative invariances instead. ROGER: Cool. These (monads) have the same or at least very similar characteristics as morphic fields STEVE: I agree. ROGER: which I am continuing to explore, partly because they are supported by some empirical data. ... I had previously said that time is not a feature in monadic space, which had essentially ruled out experiences except as snapshots. That seems now to be too extreme. STEVE: I agree [presumably with my previous ruling out of experiences] this is a feature of the PEH idea, which I am trying to show to be flawed. SNIP yes, but as if for each and every monad thus setting up a 'multisolipsistic' regime as Andrew Soltau discusses in his work. ROGER: Personally I believe that the denial of windows is deliberately to disempower the monads so that only the omniscient supreme monad is aware, as we ordinarily think of the term. In essence the physical universe is simply the body of one great soul or person. STEVE: Yes, but to do so makes the role of free will degenerate. This is too high a price, IMHO. It is like the hyper-Calvinist doctrine. ROGER: God gave man free will to do good or evil, so determinism can't be a Christian doctrine. It would have been possible to know in advance what man would do (the PEH) , but knowing and causing are two different things. At the same time, they are difficult to understand, and easily confused, and moreover if you toss in the doctrine that man can do nothing good without God's help, and allow with the book of Job that God could allow evil to be done to man, the issue gets very very murky. But I have no problem with the PEH, which God could do if He simply wanted to, a priori. Along with, and seemingly a necessity to, his creation of the world.So again I am sticking with Leibniz. (ROGER previously) The supreme monad however can see everything with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and instantly updates the perceptions of each monad. I use the since the actual perceptions are indirect as described above. A single monad reflects all of the other monads, but only from his perspective. Only the Supreme Monad sees things as they really are (from all perspectives at once (incomprehensible to us) instead of the single perspective we call the phenomenol world). STEPHEN: Why is this necessary? Why not have any one monad reflect in its process all other monads? Every monad is in a sense 'the supreme monad' in this way. No need for a hierarchical structure... My vision of L's idea was that all monads reflected all others. The relation between them is that of a network, not a hierarchical tree. It is interesting to note that if the network is large enough, there will almost always be tree graphs definable in it as subsets. This leads to a predominance of the appearance of a hierarchy for individual monads within the network. ROGER: I think that the reaon is that since thoughts cannot act on another, neither can monads. Hence Leibniz's very complicated explanation of what happens when one ball strikes another. He has though these isssues out to some depth. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations
On 04 Jan 2013, at 01:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/3/2013 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It would still be amazing that nature use quantum correcting machinery at some fundamental level. That might be explainable with comp. The measure on the computational histories can be made higher if there are fundamental instructions for hunting the white rabbits. Dear Bruno, Have you noticed that Pratt's residuation automatically prevents White Rabbits by only allows new physical events that do not imply contradictions of previously allowed events? But his idea is based on a process ontology, not one that is a priori fixed. The whole 1-person white rabbit problem comes from the fact that the white rabbits (events/process/beings) are consistent, like dreams, or like Bf for the Löbian machines. 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 . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's lectures. All of his speculations are supported with empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website, others in his books and lectures. I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below, It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data, so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up. So where's all of McKenna's data ? I think he died about a decade ago of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?). His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Everythingsters, When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman?1 year ago?15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences. Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly. PGC ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: [FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory
On 04 Jan 2013, at 02:34, meekerdb wrote: On 1/3/2013 5:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, You might be interested in this! How about giving us a 500 word summary including an example of it's application. Good point. It is not uninteresting, but is very technical, and as a foundation of math can be used for many things. Grothendieck's Galois theory would need a 50h course before we can say sensible things. I use much simpler math, but most people have already difficulties. Bruno Brent Original Message Subject:[FOM] Preprint: Topological Galois Theory Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:08:04 +0100 From: Olivia Caramello oc...@hermes.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu To: Foundations of Mathematics f...@cs.nyu.edu Dear All, The following preprint is available from the Mathematics ArXiv at the address http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0300 : O. Caramello, Topological Galois Theory Abstract: We introduce an abstract topos-theoretic framework for building Galois-type theories in a variety of different mathematical contexts; such theories are obtained from representations of certain atomic two-valued toposes as toposes of continuous actions of a topological group. Our framework subsumes in particular Grothendieck's Galois theory and allows to build Galois-type equivalences in new contexts, such as for example graph theory and finite group theory. This work represents a concrete implementation of the abstract methodologies introduced in the paper The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory, which was advertised on this list two years ago. Other recent papers of mine applying the same general principles in other fields are available for download at the address http://www.oliviacaramello.com/Papers/Papers.htm . Best wishes for 2013, Olivia Caramello No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 04 Jan 2013, at 09:24, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 12:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO Sheldrake is one of the very few who have had the courage to prove and call materialism bad science. You don't know how to count. The world is full of mystics and the superstitious who don't even know what materialism means. They are 90% of the Earth's population - the ignorant 90%. I think he is the vanguard of good science, which is not blinded by materialism's dogmas. So why doesn't he do an experiment that tests his theory and can be replicated? A necessary revolution is in the making, for one thing because materialism can't explain consciousness because of its dogmas (everything must be physical). That doesn't mean that anything that is not materialism can explain consciousness. Materialism at least explain why getting hit on the head changes your consciousness. It does not. Or you have to tell the flaw in UDA, or to give your (no- comp) theory of mind, and the materialist explanation. Bruno Brent The first principle of religion is to fool yourself - and you are the easiest person for you to fool. --- with apologies to R. Feynman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
[no subject]
Hi Telmo Menezes Thanks. But can such biomolecular structures develop into a living cell ? Sheldrake's morphisms all pertain to living entities. Monads do also, except that for Leibniz, the whole universe is alive. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 16:57:26 Subject: Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific macro-structures. Here's a simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330 There's a field of biology dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough ?rote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs ? ? or field. Ok. ? What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. ? If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb By quanta I meant quantum fields. These are merely mathematical fields of no substance. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 16:49:55 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/4/2013 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb 1) Materialists don't have any dogmas. Just ask one of them. Theists have nothing but dogmas and you don't have to ask them, they tell you, e.g. one of their dogmas is that materialism is wrong, humans have immortal souls, and God will punish you if you don't like Him. 2) quanta are not materials. If electrons and quarks aren't material, what is? 3) materialism cannot accept empty space, since it isn't a material. What is this accept? Is it like have faith in? Does it mean accept as dogma? Most models of the physical world include empty space (although 'empty' is relative to the model). Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:14:17 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/3/2013 11:47 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Most scientific publications are based on the 19th century religious cult of materialism, which dogmatically rejects mind and spirit for atheistic purposes (not reasons, there are none). Do you have any citations showing where this dogma is written down? It cannot deal with fields at all, Ever hear of quantum *field* theory. for example the theory of relativity, since that theory asserts that there is no such thing as space (and yet it works). General relativity is a theory of metric space. M does not believe in fields, for they are anathema: immaterial, purely mathematical. So of course monads and morphisms are nonsense to a materialist. He lives in a fantasy world. You must be living in some other world to think scientist cannot deal with fields - a concept they invented. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-03, 18:32:37 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote: While you may investigate such things you will be at a loss to publish them except on the internet. Even the Cornell internet archives arXiv.com refuses to publish such results or such thinking. The last person to get such thinking published on arXiv was Nobelist Brian Josephson almost a decade ago http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0312012. Thankfully Peter Gibbs has created a similar list vixra.org where almost anything rejected by arXiv can be published, for example my last paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard I'm sceptical of Sheldrake's explanation in terms of morphic fields (or even monads). It makes no sense. However, the empirical effect he observed may well stand. We should probe such results, test for any methodological flaws, and if they continue to hold up, look for alternative explanations that might work. Of course it is a hard row to hoe. A few years ago, I had some empirical results that literally flew in the face of neutral evolution thoery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). I could not get these results published, and got treated by scorn by journal referees. Then after about a year of thought, I worked out the mechanism - in the end it was quite a simple, but nevertheless real effect. This time, the paper was accepted without question. You can see the resulting paper at arXiv:nlin.AO/0404012 In spite of thise result having quite profound implications for things like the molecular clock idea, AFAIK, nobody has investigated whether anything like this happens in real biology. It does also stand as an example of what is required to publish contra-paradigmatic results. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 08:31:56 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I wrote a review paper for the Quantum Mind 2003 Tuscan, AZ Conference a decade ago that upon rereading could have well been about morphic fields. The morphic field would be the non-local consciousness that I and others then claimed to be a property of a Dark Matter axion condensate that was a BEC composed of nearly motionless cosmic axions. In particular the Quantum Information Theory derived by Boris Iskatov for such a medium had solutions (described in the paper) that could well explain some of the empirical effects claimed for the morphic field. An open question in this paper is the coupling mechanism between physical consciousness in the brain and the non-local consciousness of the axion condensate. I now believe that the coupling is between a physical brain BEC and the axion BEC, except that I also now believe that the particles of compactified space of string theory, also a BEC, more actively manifest a non-local consciousness based on CTM. The paper also reviews empirical evidence for non-local consciousness presented at that conference that may of of interest: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html Richard Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. More from the paper: Briefly the model of consciousness is that Cooper-pair layers of positive and negative half-spin axions couple to the ?orporeal? physical brain on one (metaphorical) side, and to an ?ncorporeal? higher self or soul composed of half-spin axions on the other. The incorporeal layer is said by Jerome to be a living, sentient life-form. The actual coupling mechanism to the brain is also incorporeal, i.e. not chemical or electrical, consistent with Bohm theory below. How is this qualitatively different from Descartes postulation of the Pinial gland as the point where res extensa and res cognitas met and interact? The Stone duality idea works so much better that applies to any logical structure and its dual, particles or axion are just versions of Stone spaces in my thinking! (And there is no dependence on temperature for their isomorphism to hold!) -- Onward! Stephen I expect that a physical BEC pervades the entire brain if not the body sorta along the lines of the Penrose-Hamerof microtuble model. I previously mentioned to you that the Calabi-Tau compact manifolds appear to have the properties of a Stone space. But I cannot remember my reasoning. I also do not understand the relationship of the axions to the compact manifolds. However, on another list a fellow made an interesting case based on evolution that the volume of the pineal gland contains our thinking. Richard 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. -- 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.
Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via a computer
Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain step by step: a) Computers are themselves conscious (which can neither be proven nor disproven) and are therefore capable of perception. or 2) The flesh of the brain is simultaneously objective and subjective. Thus an ordinary (by which I mean not conscious) computer can work on it objectively yet produce a subjective image by some manipulation of the flesh of the brain. One perhaps might call this milking of the brain. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- 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: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That's like betting that the Catholic Church won't make Martin Luther a saint again this year. I don't see the analogy. The Catholic Church, like all religions, claims to have all the answers and the last thing they'd want is to dig up difficult questions; but physicists at CERN have spent 10 billion dollars on a particle accelerator for the sole purpose of finding something that they can not explain. And so far, to their considerable disappointment, they have not been successful. If you notice, no private phenomena can be easily substantiated. If psi were a private phenomena I would have no problem with it, the problem is that people can't stop blabbing about it and claiming that it gave them actionable intelligence that they otherwise would not have. There won't be any publications proving the fact that we laugh because things are funny, That's because the existence of funny things is not in dispute, and the non-existence of psi is no longer either. Research of psi may indeed be misguided May? Decades of research with absolutely positively NOTHING to show for it, not even evidence that there is something there to study, if that isn't misguided what is? it is not likely that the old guard of physics will ever be able to get beyond their own prejudice, and will go to their graves hanging on to the legacies of the 19th and 20th centuries And just like today in the 19th century fans of junk science were complaining that they were not given enough respect by mainstream scientists, but history has proven that they were given all the respect they deserved. By the way, I've been on the everything list for all of 2012 and, although I strongly disagreed with some of the things said, I marveled that it was blissfully free of downright junk science. But then just a few days ago at the beginning of this new year somebody mentioned Rupert Sheldrake and overnight the IQ of the list dropped by 40 points. 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: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via a computer
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific consciousness breakthrough. Look again at the image comparisons. There is nothing being reconstructed, there is only the visual noise of many superimposed shapes which least dis-resembles the test image. It's not even stage magic, it's just a search engine. There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain step by step: What they did was take lots of images and correlate patterns in the V1 region of the brain with those that corresponded V1 patterns in others who had viewed the known images. It's statistical guesswork and it is complete crap. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie Crick and Koch found in their 1995 study that The conscious visual representation is likely to be distributed over more than one area of the cerebral cortex and possibly over certain subcortical structures as well. We have argued (Crick and Koch, 1995a) that in primates, contrary to most received opinion, it is not located in cortical area V1 (also called the striate cortex or area 17). Some of the experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is outlined below. This is not to say that what goes on in V1 is not important, and indeed may be crucial, for most forms of vivid visual awareness. What we suggest is that the neural activity there is not directly correlated with what is seen. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html What was found in their study, through experiments which isolated the effects in the brain which are related to looking (i.e. directing your eyeballs to move around) from those related to seeing (the appearance of images, colors, etc) is that the activity in the V1 is exactly the same whether the person sees anything or not. What the visual reconstruction is based on is the activity in the occipitotemporal visual cortex. (downstream of V1 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305490196) Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects who watched natural movies and fit the model separately to individual voxels. https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 So what they did is analogous to tracing the rectangle pattern that your eyes make when generally tracing the contrast boundary of a door-like image and then comparing that pattern to patterns made by other people's eyes tracing the known images of doors. It's really no closer to any direct access to your interior state than any data-mining advertiser gets by chasing after your web history to determine that you might buy prostate vitamins if you are watching a Rolling Stones YouTube. a) Computers are themselves conscious (which can neither be proven nor disproven) and are therefore capable of perception. Nothing can be considered conscious unless it has the capacity to act in its own interest. Computers, by virtue of their perpetual servitude to human will, are not conscious. or 2) The flesh of the brain is simultaneously objective and subjective. Thus an ordinary (by which I mean not conscious) computer can work on it objectively yet produce a subjective image by some manipulation of the flesh of the brain. One perhaps might call this milking of the brain. The flesh of the brain is indeed simultaneously objective and subjective (as are all living cells and perhaps all molecules and atoms), but the noise comparisons being done in this experiment aren't milking anything but the hype machine of pop-sci neuro-fluff. It is cool that they are able to refine the matching of patterns in the brain to patterns which can be identify computationally, but without the expectation of a visual image corresponding to these patterns in the first place, it is meaningless as far as understanding consciousness. What it does do though is provide a new hunger for invasive neurological technologies to analyze the behavior of your brain and draw statistical conclusions from...something which
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:05:24 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: That's like betting that the Catholic Church won't make Martin Luther a saint again this year. I don't see the analogy. I'm not surprised. The Catholic Church, like all religions, claims to have all the answers and the last thing they'd want is to dig up difficult questions; but physicists at CERN have spent 10 billion dollars on a particle accelerator for the sole purpose of finding something that they can not explain. And so far, to their considerable disappointment, they have not been successful. You mean that physicists have been given 10 billion dollars to spend on particle accelerators (and comfortable salaries as well, among other things I would imagine). If someone was going to give me 10 billion dollars I think that I could try to find something that I could not explain also. Not saying that scientific curiosity is fake, only that you are applying a naive double standard to Big Science over Big Religion. As always - follow the money. What physics has confirmed is that its model pf matter is self-consistent, not that it has scientifically explained what forces and fields actually are. If you notice, no private phenomena can be easily substantiated. If psi were a private phenomena I would have no problem with it, the problem is that people can't stop blabbing about it and claiming that it gave them actionable intelligence that they otherwise would not have. Actionable intelligence is private. It only becomes public if we try to prove it publicly, but like the double slit experiment, sometimes the act of trying to prove things - even intending to prove things is not a neutral act. Each moment of our experience has many different layers of interaction and feedback, some explicit and local, others intuitive, implicit, and perhaps relating to a 'larger now'. We use intuition all the time. Don't you ever notice how things often work out smoothly when you take coincidences and lucky timing as an invitation to 'go with it' rather than rigidly sticking with your pre-arranged schedule? There won't be any publications proving the fact that we laugh because things are funny, That's because the existence of funny things is not in dispute, and the non-existence of psi is no longer either. If people who had no sense of humor were in charge of peer reviews, then I think that you would find that the existence of funny things would be in dispute and that the non-existence of them would not be either. Research of psi may indeed be misguided May? Decades of research with absolutely positively NOTHING to show for it, not even evidence that there is something there to study, if that isn't misguided what is? In science though, we can't claim that we know for certain that any course of research is misguided, only that it has not proved anything so far. The record of AI development is similarly fruitless at demonstrating computer awareness. it is not likely that the old guard of physics will ever be able to get beyond their own prejudice, and will go to their graves hanging on to the legacies of the 19th and 20th centuries And just like today in the 19th century fans of junk science were complaining that they were not given enough respect by mainstream scientists, but history has proven that they were given all the respect they deserved. Medical science played with leeches and incantations for a long time before other methods were developed. What psi researchers have done so far may be no better than Paracelsus did, but so what? That doesn't mean that what they are looking at can be explained away by 20th century physics. We don't say 'pfft, stupid medieval doctors not only failed to cure the plague, but they helped spread it' and dismiss the whole idea of medicine based on that. By the way, I've been on the everything list for all of 2012 and, although I strongly disagreed with some of the things said, I marveled that it was blissfully free of downright junk science. But then just a few days ago at the beginning of this new year somebody mentioned Rupert Sheldrake and overnight the IQ of the list dropped by 40 points. You know that Rupert Sheldrake was the Director of Studies in Biochemistry and Cell biology at Cambridge, right? and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. From 1974 to 1985 he worked in Hyderabad in India as Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics If you are expecting pioneers in frontier fields not to be flaky compared to the hordes of careerists in the established fields of science, then it is always going to look to you that we have the best possible understanding of science right now and that all deviation from it is stupidity or heresy. That isn't how
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. That's not charity, it's protecting your genes. So my motive makes a difference in the result? No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions. 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: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars). Bruno Many investigators of consciousness hypothesize that consciousness is not computable and may be the result of Godelian incompleteness. I had thought that you Bruno were of the same mind. Is that so? The above paragraph makes me wonder Richard -- 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/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:10:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars). So instead of assuming that we are conscious, you assume that the brain is a computer and computation is conscious. Why is that an improvement? Craig Bruno -- 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/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ. 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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/-/5y_-Kzk1gloJ. 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/4/2013 6:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. Hi Richard, This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us some thing like representability? What does representability mean to you? Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is listed or categorized under Representational Qualia Theory but I do not really have an appreciation for what that means The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation??? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/ That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand- a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article is a clarifying sentence: Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying what exists in another BEC. Hi Richard, Yes. Copying states and representing states are not the same thing. Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do not know how. Representations are about things, they are not themselves things in the physical sense and yet physical processes can act as media on which representations can be rendered. Representations are strange in that they can be about other representations, even themselves. It is this property, more than any other, that distinguished minds from bodies. But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM BEC of string theory can be copied into the BEC of (human brain) physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a mind/body duality. Richard yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt explains this in his paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 6:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 8:31 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Richard, I will take a look, but I confess to being a bit skeptical of any substantist theory... How can substances communicate with each other representationally? Sorry but I do not understand what this last sentence means. BECs certainly can copy each others configurations. Hi Richard, This ability to copy each others configuration , does it give us some thing like representability? What does representability mean to you? Well in the Consciousness Canonizer my string consciousness model is listed or categorized under Representational Qualia Theory but I do not really have an appreciation for what that means The Stanford Encyl has an article on Representational Theories of Consciousness which says that intentionality is representation??? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/ That defines a word in terms of another word that I do not understand- a problem I often have on this list. However further into the article is a clarifying sentence: Like public, social cases of representation such as writing or mapmaking, intentional states such as beliefs have truth-value; they entail or imply other beliefs; they are (it seems) composed of concepts and depend for their truth on a match between their internal structures and the way the world is; and so it is natural to regard their aboutness as a matter of mental referring or designation. So I conclude that this is quite different issue from one BEC copying what exists in another BEC. Hi Richard, Yes. Copying states and representing states are not the same thing. Representionality is closer to IMO Godelian incompleteness or Marchal's CTM wherein beliefs and truth, etc. can be represented. I do not know how. Representations are about things, they are not themselves things in the physical sense and yet physical processes can act as media on which representations can be rendered. Representations are strange in that they can be about other representations, even themselves. It is this property, more than any other, that distinguished minds from bodies. But my conjecture is that whatever representations exist in the CTM BEC of string theory can be copied into the BEC of (human brain) physical consciousness, and vice versa. This is essentially a mind/body duality. Richard yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt explains this in his paper: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf -- Onward! Stephen On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE. But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for me, to know if that is true. 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. -- 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 best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/5/2013 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb You say, It's that cartoon known as the Christian Bible. Brent For Christians, it's far more important to believe in a god than to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. That's why they had only two significant publications, and the most recent one is 2000 years old. --- Ludwig Krippahl, biologist Those are baseless insults, typical of liberalspeak. If they have a basis,let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spouting baseless prejudices. Matthew 10:34 *Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. * ... 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, *Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels*: 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, *Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment*: but the righteous into life eternal. Luke 19:27 *But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. * Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when *the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord*, and from the glory of his power; Brent The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites. --- Thomas Jefferson -- 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: Science is a religion by itself.
On 04 Jan 2013, at 10:47, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plane. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. § 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= ∞ ,p= 0, t=∞ . § 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. § 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. § 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . § 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . § 6. Proton: (p). § 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. § 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. That's human hypotheses. (With implicit theological Aristotelian assumption, I think). § 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. § 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. That's quick. ===. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus Best, 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial. 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: The evolution of good and evil
On 03 Jan 2013, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal IMHO Good is no more arbitrary than life is. I agree. At some level. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-02, 14:55:31 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self- interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin- selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group- selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but I think some are). Bruno Man has the Good, He searches for the Best, He finds the Bad, And He stays with the Bad by Fear of finding the Worst. (A french poet) On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: There are two opposing forces in the universe, those which enhance life, which we call Good, and those which diminish life, which we call Evil. CRAIG: I can't relate to cut and dried ideas of Good and Evil or enhancing or diminishing of life. It seems completely disconnected from reality to me. If it was that obvious, why wouldn't everyone just do the Good things and avoid Evil things? Obviously our experiences have many layers and qualities which change dynamically. Anything can be interpreted as enhancing or diminishing life. Chemotherapy Good or Evil? ROGER: Good people tend to do good things, evil people to do evil things. Chemotherapy is thought to do more good than evil. SNIP [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/1/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:04, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Religion cannot save you, it cannot even make you a better person. Only God can do that. I would say that, religion, well understood, can help. The problem is in the well understood, of course :) Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 10:37:13 Subject: Re: The evolution of good and evil On 03 Jan 2013, at 10:17, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jan 2013, at 13:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: In my opinion, good and evil are just names we attach to brain processes we all have in common. These brain processes make us pursue the best interest of society instead of our own self- interest. I believe they have two main sources: 1) Biological evolution. In the long term, the DNA of the species as more chances of thriving if the individuals are altruistic to a degree. The exact mechanism here is debatable, it could be kin- selection (affinity for people with similar DNA) or group-selection, which is more controversial. There is some compelling evidence to support this theory. Social insects are extremely altruistic, and at the same time social insect females share more DNA than most animals. Another clue that this is correct comes from experimental psychology: we tend to associate physical beauty with goodness and different races with evil. 2) Social constructs created to address the prisoner's dilema: for a society to thrive, a certain level of altruism is necessary. From the individual's point of view, however, it is irrational to be altruistic to that degree. The solution: tell people that they're going to hell if they're not good (or some variation of that theme). Religions have a positive impact in our species success, and their main job is to solve the prisoner's dilema. They are, nevertheless, a ruse. And a bad one, especially as a ruse. Everyone know what good is and bad is, for them. So it is better to do the good for the sake of the good than from anything coming from any authority. I expect a person liking me to do the good to me by selfishness, and not because she or he fears some punishment or because they would feel guilty or something. I remember an extreme case where I was in a long flight sitting next to a representative of a given religion. At some point he asked for a blanket and covered me with it when I was half-asleep, but he wouldn't talk and seemed repulsed by me. The ruse is a diabolical trap. All attempts to define good and evil as a fundamental property of the universe that I've seen so far quickly descend into circular reasoning: good is what good people do, good people are the ones who do good things. Good and evil cannot be defined but there are many examples. Basically the good start when constraints are satisfied. If you are hungry and can eat, that's the good. Wandering on a field of mines might not be that good, for you, but (perhaps) good for your children and grandchildren. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in the quality of my genetic material! :) Er well, try do the children before going on the field of mines! It seems to me that nature illustrates that selfishness and altruism are natural complement of each other. I would oppose it to egocentrism, where a special kind of extreme selfishness develop as it rules out the selfishness of others in non reasonable proportions. Interestingly enough, left-wing atheists end up being similar to the religious: they believe in a base line level of altruism in human beings that is not supported by evidence. I am not so sure about that. Most humans would be more happier just knowing than more humans can be happier (if it is not their neighbors). I agree. But will they pay the cost? Will they chose giving to charity or buying the BMW? Giving charity does not help the humans to be more happy. If they are altruist they should buy the BMW. When money represent work, or speculation on work: that makes human more happier in the middle run. When money represent lies, that leads to misery. When money is a gift: that's a total poison. Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. I think that some problem comes from too much altruistic dreams, and few awkward real practice, but they keep growing. Presently alas the 'natural altruism is confronted to the usual fear sellers, and all this is aggravated by dilution of responsibility, motivated by will of control, motivated by the fear of the unknown, manipulated by minorities (not always aware of this, but
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. That's not charity, it's protecting your genes. So my motive makes a difference in the result? No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions. So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect. Which is what Bruno said in the first place. 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: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--- habit computer
On 1/5/2013 10:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:10:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: BTW my stichk is that consciousness comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the megaverse and in each universe. Richard Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings. Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars). So instead of assuming that we are conscious, you assume that the brain is a computer and computation is conscious. Why is that an improvement? Because computation is well defined and it implicitly creates modal categories that might model the different categories or degrees of awarness and self-awarness. So it may make testable predictions. 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf -- Onward! Stephen On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE. But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for me, to know if that is true. Richard Hi Richard, Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates. -- 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.
Stanislaw Lem Story
http://www.vice.com/read/a-puzzle-320-v19n9 -- 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: The self-taming of the universe
I think that there is no literal field. Self-organization requires only a capacity to experience and effect change. When a car breaks down, there is no field of organization which is going to appear and fix it - the car is fixed by the sensory-motor capacities of the car's owner and nothing else. Someone discerns that the car is broken, cares that it is broken, and is able to invest that care into electrical changes into their own brain which direct a human body to interact with its world. If you look at a person fixing their car from the outside, knowing nothing, you might conclude that there is a field which attracts a mechanic to the car being transmitted through the telephone or some such thing, but that is only a model of the situation in which subjectivity is not accounted for. If you believe in a universe where matter lacks the capacity to sense itself, then you have to compensate by imagining that space has magical properties, hence 'force' and 'field'. Voila - a universe of emptiness haunted by unexplained tendencies with scientific sounding names. Craig On Friday, January 4, 2013 2:22:23 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: IMHO Sheldrake's morphic fields are organizing fields which result in the self-taming or organization of random fields. So they are anti-entropic or energy-forming. We see such taming in the formation of planets from swirling dust particles, in the formation of tornadoes, and in the precipitation of ice crystals as water cools. Black holes are another possible example. Priogogine has discussed this phenomenon in great detail. This self-organization is caused by the overcoming of the kinetic energy of vibration of random dispersions of particles through cooling. In this process, kinetic energy is dissipated through the internal attractions between individual particles. The individual attracting forces could include electrical attractions and the forces of gravity. Thus chance movements are gradually overcome by the mechanism of attractions between particles to organized fields called habits or morphic fields. -- 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/-/J1hpwPvKc0kJ. 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: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Saturday, January 5, 2013 4:28:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: You mean that physicists have been given 10 billion dollars to spend on particle accelerators (and comfortable salaries as well, among other things I would imagine). Yes. If someone was going to give me 10 billion dollars I think that I could try to find something that I could not explain also. And physicists have *tried* to do that also, so far no luck, but nothing gets their blood moving like a experimental result they can't explain. If psi was real physicists would love it, if psi was real it would have been proven to everybody's satisfaction in the 17'th century, if psi was real high school kids would be repeating the 300 year old experiments in their science fair projects, if psi was real I personally would love it too, in fact it's hard to imagine anyone not loving something as cool as psi. But unfortunately psi is not real. We use intuition all the time. I have no quarrel with intuition, I have no problem with using rules of thumb and or probability to make decisions, it's pseudo science that I don't like. If people who had no sense of humor were in charge of peer reviews, then I think that you would find that the existence of funny things would be in dispute Even people who have no sense of humor can deduce that other people do have it, Would they if only 0.001% of the population had a sense of humor? If movies and books and cartoons were made for the other 99.999% and contained no humorous references? and even if the peer review editors had no psi ability themselves they could deduce that other people had them if they did. But they don't so they can't. Maybe, but not necessarily. We have words for things like luck and kismet and destiny, which could not easily be modeled as physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing at all to them in all cases. In science though, we can't claim that we know for certain that any course of research is misguided, only that it has not proved anything so far. We know with certainty that all the paranormal research of the last century has produced absolutely nothing and they might as well of kept their hands in their pockets for the last hundred years; so if you were a talented researcher with good judgement would you pick that field, would you spend your finite resources on that crap? I'm not personally drawn to investigate those areas, but then again, I have my own framework for understanding non-ordinary awareness. If I were personally impacted by some psi-related event or capacity, I don't see any reason not to spend time and effort looking into it. We don't all have to be watching infinitesimal particle collisions on multi-billion dollar racetracks. The record of AI development is similarly fruitless at demonstrating computer awareness. Computers are far smarter than they were 10 years ago, but making machines behave intelligently is supposed to be the easy AI problem, the hard problem is making them conscious; armchair philosophers are constantly spinning theories that they think will solve the hard problem, you've done it yourself, and yet they don't even attempt to solve the easy problem. Why is it that you can solve the hard problem but don't even claim to know the first thing about solving the easy problem? It's because the easy problem is far far more difficult than the hard problem. The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. It is like trying to reconstruct the recipe for apple pie using a mass spectrometer and electron microscope. It is not easy by any means, but it is much easier than trying to explain why and there is a such thing as an experience of tasting the flavor of apple pie. In naming the two problems hard and easy, Chalmers was just trying to make the point that it is a whole different order of difficult. The easy problem is quantitatively difficult, but progress is inevitable with applied effort. The hard problem is qualitatively difficult, so that not only is progress not inevitable, but it is not necessarily a realistic possibility. You know that Rupert Sheldrake was the Director of Studies in Biochemistry and Cell biology at Cambridge, right?and a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. From 1974 to 1985 he worked in Hyderabad in India as Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute My beef with Sheldrake has nothing to do with him helping farmers grow more food, my complaint is that he's a crackpot. He wouldn't be the first scientist to go nuts, Brian Josephson was a much better scientist than Sheldrake ever was and in the early 60's wrote an absolutely brilliant paper on superconductivity and won a Nobel Prize, but very
Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On 1/5/2013 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: The easy problem is harder than the hard problem in the sense that it is the long way around. No, it's harder because you can tell when you've failed. 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf -- Onward! Stephen On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE. But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for me, to know if that is true. Richard Hi Richard, Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates. -- Onward! Stephen It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs? -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/5/2013 9:03 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 1/5/2013 2:54 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: yes, this does straight to the mind-body problem. I am proposing a solution to it that is different from Bruno's (and can subsume Bruno's idea), it is dual aspect monism. Minds and bodies are two distinct aspects of one and the same neutral oneness of all that exists. Vaughan Pratt explains this in his paper:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf -- Onward! Stephen On reading Pratt it appears that he elevates mind/body duality to a TOE. But I have not read in sufficient depth, assuming that is possible for me, to know if that is true. Richard Hi Richard, Yes, he is advancing a particular vision, but I would not call this piece a TOE, it is part of a TOE that he advocates. -- Onward! Stephen It Pratt's mind/body duality mechanism an alternative to mind/body coupling via BECs? Dear Richard, yes, there is an isomorphsim between the two, no need for coupling. ;-) -- 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.
