How does comp explain interference?

[Jason Resch]

One question that comes to my mind is how computationalism might lead to
the phenomenon of interference.  How is it that infinite programs going
through a state can interfere?

Might interference be something local to the geography of this particular
universe, or is it something comp predicts to be global for all physics for
all observers?

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

What is subjectivity ? What is the subjective pole like?

[Roger Clough]

What is subjectivity ? What is the subjective pole like?

Consciousness can be thought of as a dipole
(by analogy, like a magnetic dipole) with subjectivity 
(the subject) at one end and objectivity (object) at the other. 

consciousness = subject + object

You have to have both poles to be conscious.

Subjectity is beyond spacetime  (like Cosmic Mind or 
Heaven, like Plato's One, or the Oversoul) while 
the objective world is that of science, in spacetime,
where things happen contingently in time.
In a fwew words, that is the relationship
between science and religion. One can't do
without the other.

Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/16/2013 
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Jun 2013, at 17:28, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it has
>> been a generated 'rush to judgement.
>>
>>
>> OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and-now,
>> so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I think.
>>
>> Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and
>> ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non
>> renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with
>> renewable plants (and he proved it, including  the rentability).
>>
>> So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet, including
>> possible international taxation to offer a living to those exploiting
>> forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the planet.
>>
>> We can do it, so why don't we do it?
>>
>> Probably because we failed to separate the state from private interests
>> and corporatism.
>>
>> Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then politicians
>> should be man and woman doing a "social service", and would govern
>> following the idea the people voted for, no matter what they have voted
>> themselves.
>>
>> Something like that.
>>
>> But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will
>> improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which makes
>> the whole middle class into hostage of bandits.
>>
>>
> Good points.  There is actually such a movement in the US for voting on
> issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/
>
> It seems like passage of such an initiative may be the only way to free
> ourselves from the current system.  It seems to be little known today, but
> in the early Roman republic people voted directly on laws themselves (not
> just their representatives).
>
>
> Actually, I am not in favor of that (in general). Especially when the
> media have lost their independence. You can show them a movie or TV show,
> and makes people voting for any extremities.
>
> You want the death penalty? You do a movie on a sordid serial killer.
>  You want do the war against the X, you do the usual propaganda against X,
> with the usual confusion between "->" and "<-".
>  You want Coca Cola illegal, you do ... well, what they did for cannabis.
>

True, but propagandizing a populace is more difficult and expensive than
buying a small number of politicians.  Moreover, when the people suffer
from the laws they vote for, they are more apt to change them.  With
representative government, leaders never want to admit mistakes and the
people continue to suffer under bad laws.


>
> Even pools are dangerous and easily manipulable, and such kind of
> directness can be exploited by those having short term interests. Pools
> should be illegal some months before election.
>
>  I think we need to give power to some people for some laps of time.
> People should vote on ideas, with some spectrum for the ways to implement
> the idea, but also some rules for avoiding corruption or excess of
> corruption (as democracies cannot avoid them entirely).
>
> Of course here I criticize direct democraties, like they did implement
> partially in Switzerland.
> Looking at your link, it is different, but some point there still give me
> some chilling ... Hmm,  I have to look closer, as this is an attempt to
>  counteract directly and practically what exists, but then a mention like
> "Does not modify Congress, the President, or the judicial system" looks
> disturbing. I don't know. Sometimes the medication makes the disease
> lasting longer ...
>

The type of initiative system that ncid proposes is quite different from
existing initiative programs.  A whole deliberative process is defined
where the law and its effects are evaluated, researched, etc. prior to the
vote.  There is quite a lot in the details and it is quite interesting.
Here is a short video by the author of the law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bHEkNtPD4M




>
> That people can initiate law is nice, though.
> I would like to initiate the prohibition of prohibition. Oops :)
>
>
:-)

What is freedom of speech without freedom of thought?  When we upload
ourselves it will be all the more clear that making certain substances
illegal is tantamount to making certain computations (thoughts, ways of
thinking, and states of consciousness) illegal.

Jason




> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  -Original Message-
>> From: Jason Resch 
>> To: Everything List 
>> Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
>> Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter
>>
>>  Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes
>> today:
>>
>>
>>- My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is
>>gro

Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist

[meekerdb]

On 6/16/2013 12:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote:

Hi Rog

As you have described them a materialist could not be a "combination of both" 
rationalism and empiricism,  because you have them as diametrically opposed. If 
"reason alone" is the source of knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined 
to be. Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much of a hoot 
about how knowledge is aquired.


More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches of 
intuitionism.


Chris Peck is right here.



The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting with a realm of 
ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be 
"deductive" then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable 
leaps of intuition.


Where does the persuasive power of logic come from?  Why do you believe, "Either X or 
not-X" is true?  Is it not a matter of intuition?


Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist.





Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning.


Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the axiom, and not in 
the reasoning.


Why not in the rules of inference too?  Rejecting non-constructive proofs is a change in 
reasoning.  I don't think there is such a sharp division between axioms and rules of 
inference as you imply.


Brent



Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent reality such that A 
v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A).


If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is no genuine 
difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an intuitionist should still say no 
to the doctor, as the FPI is not constructive. "Washington V Moscow" needs a 
non-intuitionist "OR".


Bruno







Brent

If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And infact that is 
Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic, 
ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the 
scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer programs which 
can only deduce things logically.


You really seem to have things back to front in this post.

Regards


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

[meekerdb]

On 6/16/2013 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But the problem is not 
the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary physical reality, which is not 
sustained by any evidences.


?? What's the evidence arithmetic is primary?  The only evidence for a theory is that it 
works.  You seem to criticize primary physical reality because it doesn't include a more 
fundamental theory showing that it's primary - but that would a contradiction.  Whatever 
the most fundamental model is cannot have a justification showing it is fundamental.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 17:28, Jason Resch wrote:





On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that  
it has been a generated 'rush to judgement.


OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and- 
now, so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies,  
I think.


Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet  
and ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the  
non renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely  
with renewable plants (and he proved it, including  the rentability).


So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet,  
including possible international taxation to offer a living to those  
exploiting forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on  
the planet.


We can do it, so why don't we do it?

Probably because we failed to separate the state from private  
interests and corporatism.


Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then  
politicians should be man and woman doing a "social service", and  
would govern following the idea the people voted for, no matter what  
they have voted themselves.


Something like that.

But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics  
will improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax,  
which makes the whole middle class into hostage of bandits.



Good points.  There is actually such a movement in the US for voting  
on issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/
It seems like passage of such an initiative may be the only way to  
free ourselves from the current system.  It seems to be little known  
today, but in the early Roman republic people voted directly on laws  
themselves (not just their representatives).


Actually, I am not in favor of that (in general). Especially when the  
media have lost their independence. You can show them a movie or TV  
show, and makes people voting for any extremities.


You want the death penalty? You do a movie on a sordid serial killer.
 You want do the war against the X, you do the usual propaganda  
against X, with the usual confusion between "->" and "<-".
 You want Coca Cola illegal, you do ... well, what they did for  
cannabis.


Even pools are dangerous and easily manipulable, and such kind of  
directness can be exploited by those having short term interests.  
Pools should be illegal some months before election.


 I think we need to give power to some people for some laps of time.  
People should vote on ideas, with some spectrum for the ways to  
implement the idea, but also some rules for avoiding corruption or  
excess of corruption (as democracies cannot avoid them entirely).


Of course here I criticize direct democraties, like they did implement  
partially in Switzerland.
Looking at your link, it is different, but some point there still give  
me some chilling ... Hmm,  I have to look closer, as this is an  
attempt to  counteract directly and practically what exists, but then  
a mention like "Does not modify Congress, the President, or the  
judicial system" looks disturbing. I don't know. Sometimes the  
medication makes the disease lasting longer ...


That people can initiate law is nice, though.
I would like to initiate the prohibition of prohibition. Oops :)

Bruno








Jason



Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter

Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes  
today:


My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is  
grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of  
climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe  
the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say,  
I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to  
speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they  
can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they  
do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the  
atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing  
the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and  
farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world  
that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of  
things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a  
scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer  
models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really  
happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the  
climate model experts end up believing their own models.
"Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", in Edge (8 August  
2007)
I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. It's  
a real problem, bu

Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it has
> been a generated 'rush to judgement.
>
>
> OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and-now,
> so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I think.
>
> Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and
> ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non
> renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with
> renewable plants (and he proved it, including  the rentability).
>
> So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet, including
> possible international taxation to offer a living to those exploiting
> forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the planet.
>
> We can do it, so why don't we do it?
>
> Probably because we failed to separate the state from private interests
> and corporatism.
>
> Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then politicians
> should be man and woman doing a "social service", and would govern
> following the idea the people voted for, no matter what they have voted
> themselves.
>
> Something like that.
>
> But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will
> improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which makes
> the whole middle class into hostage of bandits.
>
>
Good points.  There is actually such a movement in the US for voting on
issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/   It seems like passage
of such an initiative may be the only way to free ourselves from the
current system.  It seems to be little known today, but in the early Roman
republic people voted directly on laws themselves (not just their
representatives).

Jason




> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
> Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter
>
>  Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today:
>
>
>- My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is
>grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate
>model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers
>predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in
>meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied
>the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the
>equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the
>fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of
>describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields
>and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we
>live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we
>do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an
>air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter
>clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the
>clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own
>models.
>   - "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", in *Edge* (8
>   August 2007)
>
>
>- I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. *It's
>a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to
>believe.* The idea that global warming is the most important problem
>facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts
>people's attention from much more serious problems.
>   - Interview in *Salon* (29 September 
> 2007)
>
>
>- All the books that I have seen about the science and the economics
>of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main
>point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a
>worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that
>we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste
>products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of
>righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. ... Environmentalism has
>replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.
>   - *The New York Review of Books* (12 June 2008)
>
> What do others think about his comments?  Are his critiques valid?
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Bret, there was a study from the University of Waterloo which holds, not
>> CO2 but CFC's as the primary villain in AGW. Before this both methane and
>> carbon dust, have been identified as well as your old buddy, CO2. The
>> abatement in global heating may also 

Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:49, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Saying
that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you  
don't

claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is
only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious  
god

that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a
computer...



I agree.

My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate".


I know. I also notice that you don't join bullying bandwagons (even
when the target somewhat deserves it) and you deserve kudos for that.


Thanks Telmo.


Bruno








Telmo.


Roger, like many, is
just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the 19th  
century.


Bruno








Telmo.



Bruno








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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it  
has been a generated 'rush to judgement.


OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and- 
now, so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I  
think.


Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and  
ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non  
renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with  
renewable plants (and he proved it, including  the rentability).


So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet,  
including possible international taxation to offer a living to those  
exploiting forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the  
planet.


We can do it, so why don't we do it?

Probably because we failed to separate the state from private  
interests and corporatism.


Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then  
politicians should be man and woman doing a "social service", and  
would govern following the idea the people voted for, no matter what  
they have voted themselves.


Something like that.

But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will  
improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which  
makes the whole middle class into hostage of bandits.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter

Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes  
today:


My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is  
grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of  
climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe  
the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I  
have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to  
speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they  
can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they  
do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere  
and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds,  
the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and  
forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live  
in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do  
not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an  
air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on  
winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the  
swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up  
believing their own models.
"Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", in Edge (8 August  
2007)
I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. It's a  
real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to  
believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem  
facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It  
distracts people's attention from much more serious problems.

Interview in Salon (29 September 2007)
All the books that I have seen about the science and the economics  
of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the  
main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific.  
There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call  
environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that  
despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is  
a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as  
possible. ... Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading  
secular religion.

The New York Review of Books (12 June 2008)
What do others think about his comments?  Are his critiques valid?
Jason




On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM,  wrote:
Bret, there was a study from the University of Waterloo which holds,  
not CO2 but CFC's as the primary villain in AGW. Before this both  
methane and carbon dust, have been identified as well as your old  
buddy, CO2. The abatement in global heating may also be coming from  
the world switching over to natural gas (mee thane  as the UK says  
it) for electrical generation. Sadly, the abandonment by Germany and  
Italy since Fukushima 2011, have cause these nukes to be shut down,  
and their re-started of old coal plants, using US coal. On the CFC  
evidence, this sort of goes along with the retirement of CFC's from  
use as a refrigerant in the 1990's, worldwide. The US move to shale  
gas must be accelerating the cooling of the atmosphere too.

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter

Whenever someone posts an article from a denialist blog like  
whatsupwiththat which quotes a newspaper opinion p

Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 16 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
 On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough 
 wrote:
>
>
> Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?



 For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
 run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in
 basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional
 execution (if/then expressions).

> Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
>
> by Roger Clough
>
> Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the
> brain
> is a monad



 Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know
 that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have
 activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks
 and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be
 Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these
 things we found out since Leibniz was around.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp
>>> measure
>>> problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we
>>> should experience a priori, by the FPI.
>>>
>>> So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white
>>> rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's  "Occam
>>> catastrophe".
>>>
>>> Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and
>>> the
>>> FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of
>>> consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this
>>> problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in
>>> arithmetic.
>>> It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more
>>> consciousness than creating or producing it.
>>
>>
>> I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist
>> camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness,
>> for example.
>>
>> My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the
>> Leibnizian sense.
>
>
> That does not make any sense, indeed.
>
>
>
>
>> It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about
>> neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence
>> of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct?
>
>
> Correct, but with comp we are assuming some 3p level, like (sigma_1)
> arithmetic.
> And then we can explain that such tiny assumption is not derivable from any
> other theory (unless it is Turing equivalent).
>
> It looks like magic, but the numbers explains why it is impossible to
> understand where the numbers comes from, they are truly mysterious, somehow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Saying
>> that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't
>> claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is
>> only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god
>> that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a
>> computer...
>
>
> I agree.
>
> My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate".

I know. I also notice that you don't join bullying bandwagons (even
when the target somewhat deserves it) and you deserve kudos for that.

Telmo.

> Roger, like many, is
> just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the 19th century.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 Telmo.

> and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived
> (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect
> the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>
> Olbers' paradox
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
>
>
> "Olbers' paradox in action
> In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after
> the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also
> called
> the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the
> night
> sky
> conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static
> universe.
> The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a
> non-static
> universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and
> populated
> by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at
> the
> (very bright)
> surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This
> contradicts the observed
> darkness of the night."
>
> --
> You received this message bec

Re: This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof. Dennett. Getting from "me" to "I"'

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:

This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof.  
Dennett. Getting from "me" to "I"'


Self-reference could be a subject/predicate relation. But that  
doesn't say enough because

there are two possible perspectives:

1) "He is a man." Here you are referencing yourself in the 3rd  
person or objective persepective. Bruno Marchall calls this "3p" .


2) "I am a man." This is 1st person. Marshall calls this "1p." 1p is  
the subjective form of self-reference.


Do you see the difference ? Materialism and computer language only  
gives us the objective (descriptive) or 3p format

because it does not contain a subjective element.


You get it when you apply Theaetetus definition of knowledge to the  
description of the machine's belief (that's 3p, but then theaetetus'  
definition is Bp & p, and crazily enough, incompleteness makes it a  
working definition for a non nameable (by the subject) notion of 1p.


This is not obvious, as incompleteness is by itself not obvious, but  
it works, and refute your point.









Leibniz gets around this problem by including a subjective element,  
which is

that which perceives the world through the top monad. This subjectrive
element is universal and isa what Plato called the One or Oversoul.


OK, but machines get it too.





To include such a subjective element, you need to have a point in the
brain which is something like a king, that does all of the  
perceiving and

governing. He is not a simple homunculus, he makes sense of what the
visual signals in the optical nerves provides us with.


Yes that "point" exists, for machine's too.





Am I making any sense to you materialists? Can you see the  
difference between
the "I" perspectiove (what i say above) and the  "me" of  
conventional materialistic theory ?


They can, but as long as they want to keep weak materialism (the  
belief in some primary matter), they are obliged to eliminate it to  
remain consistent.


But Leibniz still hold on some primary matter. It is better to  
backtrack to those who understood the first that "primary matter" is  
not supported by any evidences, as the dream argument already suggests.


Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof. Dennett. Getting from "me" to "I"'

[Roger Clough]

This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof. Dennett. Getting 
from "me" to "I"' 

Self-reference could be a subject/predicate relation. But that doesn't say 
enough because
there are two possible perspectives:

1) "He is a man." Here you are referencing yourself in the 3rd person or 
objective persepective. Bruno Marchall calls this "3p" .

2) "I am a man." This is 1st person. Marshall calls this "1p." 1p is the 
subjective form of self-reference.

Do you see the difference ? Materialism and computer language only gives us the 
objective (descriptive) or 3p format
because it does not contain a subjective element.

Leibniz gets around this problem by including a subjective element, which is
that which perceives the world through the top monad. This subjectrive
element is universal and isa what Plato called the One or Oversoul.

To include such a subjective element, you need to have a point in the
brain which is something like a king, that does all of the perceiving and
governing. He is not a simple homunculus, he makes sense of what the
visual signals in the optical nerves provides us with.

Am I making any sense to you materialists? Can you see the difference between
the "I" perspectiove (what i say above) and the  "me" of conventional 
materialistic theory ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof. Dennett. Getting from "me" to "I"'

[Roger Clough]

This note is addressed to all materialists, especially Prof. Dennett. Getting 
from "me" to "I"' 

Self-reference could be a subject/predicate relation. But that doesn't say 
enough because
there are two possible perspectives:

1) "He is a man." Here you are referencing yourself in the 3rd person or 
objective persepective. Bruno Marchall calls this "3p" .

2) "I am a man." This is 1st person. Marshall calls this "1p." 1p is the 
subjective form of self-reference.

Do you see the difference ? Materialism and computer language only gives us the 
objective (descriptive) or 3p format
because it does not contain a subjective element.

Leibniz gets around this problem by including a subjective element, which is
that which perceives the world through the top monad. This subjectrive
element is universal and isa what Plato called the One or Oversoul.

To include such a subjective element, you need to have a point in the
brain which is something like a king, that does all of the perceiving and
governing. He is not a simple homunculus, he makes sense of what the
visual signals in the optical nerves provides us with.

Am I making any sense to you materialists? Can you see the difference between
the "I" perspectiove (what i say above) and the  "me" of conventional 
materialistic theory ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 09:17, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough  
 wrote:


Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?



For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in
basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional
execution (if/then expressions).


Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons

by Roger Clough

Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in  
the

brain
is a monad



Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know
that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have
activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex  
networks
and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness  
to be

Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these
things we found out since Leibniz was around.




But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp  
measure
problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be  
what we

should experience a priori, by the FPI.

So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the  
white
rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's  "Occam  
catastrophe".


Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p,  
and the

FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of
consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this
problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in  
arithmetic.
It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter  
more

consciousness than creating or producing it.


I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist
camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness,
for example.

My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the
Leibnizian sense.


That does not make any sense, indeed.




It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about
neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence
of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct?


Correct, but with comp we are assuming some 3p level, like (sigma_1)  
arithmetic.
And then we can explain that such tiny assumption is not derivable  
from any other theory (unless it is Turing equivalent).


It looks like magic, but the numbers explains why it is impossible to  
understand where the numbers comes from, they are truly mysterious,  
somehow.







Saying
that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't
claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is
only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god
that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a
computer...


I agree.

My defense of Roger was of the type "devil's advocate". Roger, like  
many, is just unaware that machines are more than we thought in the  
19th century.


Bruno







Telmo.



Bruno







Telmo.


and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived
(Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect
the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Olbers' paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Olbers' paradox in action
In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named  
after
the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and  
also called
the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness  
of the

night
sky
conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static  
universe.
The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence  
for a

non-static
universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and
populated
by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must  
end at the

(very bright)
surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright.  
This

contradicts the observed
darkness of the night."

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

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegr

Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Jun 2013, at 22:29, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

It would be nice if it somehow was programable (I think) since we  
could make things better, as well as destroy everything.


We are not programmable by us, but comp just say that we are Turing  
emulable at some level (and we cannot know-for-sure what that level is).





But what is new about that? Do you thus, give this person any  
creedence then, or not really?


http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-reality/feature/symbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-reality/1460

Sincerely,



I am a machine ===> whatever is not me is not a machine.

This is not obvious to prove. It does not follow from simple logic,  
but from the FPI (first person indeterminacy).


See UDA 1-7, perhaps.

Don't confuse the thesis that "we" are machine (comp), and that the  
physical universe is a machine, as they are incompatible. Now if the  
universe is a machine, we are machine, but that is impossible (by UDA)  
so the physical universe cannot be a machine (with or without comp).



Bruno






Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including  
materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist



On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:33, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I wonder if a more precise way of stating this is to say, that like  
Platonism, there must be an underlying programming to the cosmos.  
That would cover the Idealism central feature.


Arithmetical realism entails the the experienceable cosmos *cannot*  
be programmed, as it emerges from a sort of competitions between all  
"digital approximations" of it.


Bruno







-Original Message-
From: chris peck 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 3:40 am
Subject: RE: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including  
materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist


Hi Rog

As you have described them a materialist could not be a  
"combination of both" rationalism and empiricism,  because you have  
them as diametrically opposed. If "reason alone" is the source of  
knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be.  
Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much  
of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired.


More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches  
of intuitionism. The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to  
the mind connecting with a realm of ideas is neither an act of  
reason nor sensory experience. Moreover, If logic is to be  
"deductive" then, by definition, conclusions must never follow from  
unexplainable leaps of intuition. If they do they have not been  
logically deduced, have they? And infact that is Penrose's point :  
leaps of intuition can not be modelled computationally. logic,  
ofcourse, can be. since, allegedly, minds can grope for and master  
facts beyond the scope of deduction, they must be qualitatively  
different from computer programs which can only deduce things  
logically.


You really seem to have things back to front in this post.

Regards

--- Original Message ---

From: "Roger Clough" 
Sent: 15 June 2013 1:47 AM
To: "- Roger Clough" 
Subject: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including  
materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist


In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists,  
empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist


Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense  
experience.
Rationalism is the doctrine that reason alone is a  source of  
knowledge and is independent of experience.

Materialism is a combination of both philosophies.

These may sound like completely diffierent doctrines, but my point  
here is that

all of these pursuits ultimately rely on intuition.
They  afre both subbranches of intjuitionism.

Why ? Concerning rationalism, even deductive logic requires  
intuition to arrive at a conclusilon.

Concering empiricism, it is fairly obvious to see that experience
alone cannot provide us any conclusion. If you dpoubt that,
consider Peirce's three categories, in which Secondness is
the category of intuion, leading us from an experience to a fact.

So Penrose's recent excursion into Platonism should be taken more  
seriously,
for ultimately his criticizers, the empiricists and the  
rationalists, are both Platonists.



Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/14/2013
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because yo

Re: In Defense of Penrose. That everybody --including materialists, empiricists and rationalists--is a Platonist

[Bruno Marchal]

On 15 Jun 2013, at 21:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/15/2013 12:40 AM, chris peck wrote:

Hi Rog

As you have described them a materialist could not be a  
"combination of both" rationalism and empiricism,  because you have  
them as diametrically opposed. If "reason alone" is the source of  
knowledge, then experience isn't and can't be combined to be.  
Besides, Materialism is an ontological theory and doesn't give much  
of a hoot about how knowledge is aquired.


More to the point neither rationalism nor empiricism are branches  
of intuitionism.


Chris Peck is right here.



The moment of inspiration Penrose attributes to the mind connecting  
with a realm of ideas is neither an act of reason nor sensory  
experience. Moreover, If logic is to be "deductive" then, by  
definition, conclusions must never follow from unexplainable leaps  
of intuition.


Where does the persuasive power of logic come from?  Why do you  
believe, "Either X or not-X" is true?  Is it not a matter of  
intuition?


Yes, but not in the sense of the intuitionist.





Isn't logic just an attempt to formalize intuitive reasoning.


Only reasoning, where the intuition is used only in the choice of the  
axiom, and not in the reasoning.


Basically intuitionism reject the idea that there is an independent  
reality such that A v ~A applies to it. They accept only ~ ~(A V ~A).


If we limit reality to sigma_1 truth, like in the comp TOE, there is  
no genuine difference between intuitionism and platonism. But an  
intuitionist should still say no to the doctor, as the FPI is not  
constructive. "Washington V Moscow" needs a non-intuitionist "OR".


Bruno







Brent

If they do they have not been logically deduced, have they? And  
infact that is Penrose's point : leaps of intuition can not be  
modelled computationally. logic, ofcourse, can be. since,  
allegedly, minds can grope for and master facts beyond the scope of  
deduction, they must be qualitatively different from computer  
programs which can only deduce things logically.


You really seem to have things back to front in this post.

Regards


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and how to implement it

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Jun 2013, at 07:20, Roger Clough wrote:

The missing perceiver in materialism and artificial intelligence and  
how to implement it


Unless you have a perceive (a subject) with a point of view, a  
broadband living mind, you have nothing.



Some machines have already discovered their own many different points  
of view.






The perceiver has the ability to see the world


Which world?




from his own pinpoint or narrow-band point of view
and scan it through all angles in nroadband.

Here;s what saomputer science has:

no consciousness, just a blind deaf and dumb description of an  
object = just data = an objective or public world. (what computers  
are confined to live in).


Most are just dualist. They are indeed easily shown inconsistent. But  
the problem is not the absence of mind, it is the believe in a primary  
physical reality, which is not sustained by any evidences.







Here's what Leibniz gives us:

Personal consciousness, that being (subject + object) = a personal  
experience =  a personal or subjective worldc


Leibniz seems to be the only one who gives a fairly  understandable   
account. Here's one of my versions of his view:


http://www.academia.edu/3661917/The_secret_of_perception._How_our_individual_minds_all_perceive_through_the_One_Mind

"The secret of perception. Particular minds and how they relate to  
the overall or Cosmic MindThe problem of perception in materialistic  
thinking is that it
forces us tothink that there is a homunculo usLeibniz has a more  
complicated understanding of particular minds and how they relate  
toCosmic Mind.In
Leibniz's metaphysics, there is only one mind (the Perceiver or  
Cosmic Mind or God) thatperceives and acts, doing this through the  
Surpreme (most dominant) monad.It perceives the whole universe with
perfect clarity.Only it can perceive and act, because its monads  
(which includes our minds) have no windows.The monads (our minds)  
perceive only indirectly, as the Supreme Monad is the only--what we  
would call-- "conscious" mind. We only think and perceive  
indirectly,as the Supreme Monad continually and instantly updates  
its universe of monads. Thus there is no problem communing with God  
(the Cosmic Mind)as we do so continually and necessarily, although  
only aqccording to our own abilitiesand perspective. sThat we  
ourselves, not God, appear to be the perceiver is thus only  
apparent.Also,
 because Cosmic Mind sees the entire universe as viewed by a  
kaleidoscope of individual monads, the perceptions it returns to us  
contains not only whatwe see (the universe from our
own individual perspectives) but what theperceptions of all of the  
other monads. Thus each monad knows everythingin the universe, but  
only from its own perspective, and monads
being monads,not perfectly clear but distorted.Thus, as Paul says,  
“For now we see dimly, as in a mirror, but the n we shallsee  
cleasrly, face to face.Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/16/2013



Leibniz is still far late compared to the antic Platonists, which are  
the only one coherent with facts and theories (comp, QM, etc.)


Bruno






Also  see my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
__
DreamMail - Enjoy good email software  www.dreammail.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why aren't we blinded by thoughts ? Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 15 Jun 2013, at 16:55, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Roger Clough  wrote:
>>>
>>> Why aren't we blinded by a myriad of thoughts ?
>>
>>
>> For the same reason computers can selectively access their memories,
>> run some algorithms and not others and so on. This is understood in
>> basic computer science by any of the many variations of conditional
>> execution (if/then expressions).
>>
>>> Olber's Paradox and the limited outreach of neurons
>>>
>>> by Roger Clough
>>>
>>> Adapting to Leibniz's philosophy of mind, each of the neurons in the
>>> brain
>>> is a monad
>>
>>
>> Neurons are cells. We know a lot about how cells work. We also know
>> that neurons communicate through neurotransmitters, that they have
>> activation thresholds and that they organize in super-complex networks
>> and that they are building blocks with sufficient expressiveness to be
>> Turing complete. Your theory has to be able to account for all these
>> things we found out since Leibniz was around.
>
>
>
> But here Roger Clough was perhaps intuiting something like the comp measure
> problem, where the white rabbits and the white noise seems to be what we
> should experience a priori, by the FPI.
>
> So I can *interpret* that Olber-Clough blindness phenomena as the white
> rabbit problem in comp, perhaps related to Russell's  "Occam catastrophe".
>
> Your answer ,Telmo, was on the 3p level, but the experience are 1p, and the
> FPI makes harder to explain the apparent consistency and stability of
> consciousness. Then the non triviality of computer science makes this
> problem into a problem in computer science and thus a problem in arithmetic.
> It fits with the idea that a brain, or a universal machine filter more
> consciousness than creating or producing it.

I'm ok with all this, and as I said before I'm not on the materialist
camp -- I don't believe in the neurological origin of consciousness,
for example.

My problem here is with the statement that neurons are monads in the
Leibnizian sense. It throws under the rug a lot of stuff we know about
neurons. I agree that my answer was on the 3p level, but the existence
of these 3p mechanisms has to be explained by a TOE, correct? Saying
that intelligence has nothing to do with computation (I know you don't
claim this, but Roger does) is a bit like saying that the earth is
only 6000 years old: one would have to believe in a very malicious god
that plants false evidence. Because the brain sure looks like a
computer...

Telmo.

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> and all of tbhe monads in the universe are perceived
>>> (Leibniz uses the word "reflected", since all of the monads reflect
>>> the perceptions of all of the others through the Chief MONAD
>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
>>>
>>> Olbers' paradox
>>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>> Jump to: navigation, search
>>>
>>>
>>> "Olbers' paradox in action
>>> In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after
>>> the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758�1840) and also called
>>> the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the
>>> night
>>> sky
>>> conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.
>>> The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a
>>> non-static
>>> universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static and
>>> populated
>>> by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the
>>> (very bright)
>>> surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This
>>> contradicts the observed
>>> darkness of the night."
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@go