Where's the liberal press and al Charleton on this one ? Recently killed.

[Roger Clough]

Hi 


Where's the liberal press and al Charleton on this one ? Recently killed.

6-Month-Old Baby Shot And Killed In Chicago 
Tweet 
 
Jonylah Watkins
The gun violence in Chicago has reached an all-time low. This morning, 
6-month-old Jonylah Watkins died from injuries she suffered following a 
drive-by shooting yesterday.
Chicago Police are reporting Jonlyah and her father, Jonathan Watkins, were 
inside his car yesterday when a gunman opened fire as Jonathan changed his 
daughter’s diaper in the front seat. The baby and her father were struck 
several times and listed in critical condition yesterday.
This morning at 6 AM, after hours of surgery, the baby was pronounced dead. One 
gunshot wound caused the fatal injuries, according to hospital spokesman John 
Easton. ”This morning, the baby passed away,” said the Rev. Corey Brooks, a 
spokesman for the family, “We have another tragedy in the city of Chicago.” 
Jonathan Watkins, 29, was shot in his left side and right buttock and sustained 
a graze wound to the face, police said. He is still listed in 
serious-to-critical condition, fire officials said.
The girl’s 20-year-old mother was at work at when the shooting happened. She 
had been shot in the leg last spring while pregnant with Jonylah, they said. 
”She’s very distraught, she’s in a lot of pain,” Brooks said this morning. 
“They just got married several weeks ago. This is a tough time.” Rev. Brooks is 
adamant about finding Jonylah’s killer. “We’re going to help find who did 
this,” said Brooks, pastor of New Beginnings Church in Woodlawn, which is 
offering up to $5,000 for information leading police to the gunman. “We’re 
going to take back our neighborhood, we’re going to find who did this.”
The baby’s grandmother, Maryann Young, described the baby as a “fun-loving 
girl.”

 Please join Dr. Boyce Watkins and Min. Louis Farrakhan for a forum on “Wealth, 
Education, Family and Community” at the Forum Arena at The University of 
Illinois at Chicago on March 30.  You can get your free reservation to the 
event by clicking here. 
Subscribe to Your Black World by clicking here.  

__
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.

Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

[Craig Weinberg]

 

>From a worthwhile thread on 
>Quora
.

"Below are two shapes. One of them is called Kiki and the other is called 
Bouba.

(image http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bouba.png)
Almost all respondents when asked say that the jagged one is kiki and the 
rounded one is bouba. This can be observed across cultures. This is an 
innate ability of our brain by which one mode of sensation can cross over 
into another."

Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the 
connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?

-- 
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: General Relativity and Consciousness

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 10:49:20 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think functionalism (or more specifically, computationalism) is the 
> currently leading theory of mind among cognitive scientists and 
> philosophers.  It is neither a materialistic, eliminativist, dualist, nor 
> idealist conception of mind.
>  
>

Why isn't it dualist? You have the simulator (arithmetic truth, localized 
arbitrarily by spontaneous/inevitable Turing machine), and the simulated 
(an emergent non-arithmetic presence which appears magically within the 
simulation, for no reason).

Why isn't it idealist? Can computation be separated from ideal principles?

I think that most who subscribe to comp do so in an eliminativist way. 
Consciousness is seen as an epiphenomenon of unconscious computations.

As for Relativity, I don't really know what it can mean other than a 
context of sensory awareness in which one phenomenon is felt, seen, or 
otherwise experienced as being 'related' in some way. Relativity is already 
perception, or it is nothing.

Thanks,
Craig

-- 
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: Cybersemiotics

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, June 28, 2013 2:46:40 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> On 27.06.2013 03:15 Craig Weinberg said the following: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:07:08 AM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for 
> >> Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful 
> >> Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture, 
> >> INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> http://integral-review.org/documents/Brier,%20Cybersemiotics,%20Vol.%209,%20No.%202.pdf
>  
> >> 
>
> ... 
>
> > This was how I started - seeing semiotics as the bridge between mind 
> > and matter and therefore pattern as the fundamental feature of 
> > nature. The only problem that I have with it is that pattern 
> > ultimately in nothing without a capacity for pattern recognition, aka 
> > sense. Because we have sense, (or because we *are* sense) it is easy 
> > to take patterns for granted and not factor in our own capacity to 
> > render them as a coherent experience, but to be absolutely objective 
> > about the universe, we cannot overlook ourselves and our own privacy 
> > or reduce it to unconscious interactions. 
>
> The question what is "I" and "we" remains indeed. Yet, it seems to be 
> the same for your approach. 
>

My approach is to see sensory-motive experience as the fundamental. To ask 
what "is" relies on the sense of expectation that there 'is' any such thing 
as 'is'.
 

>
> By the way, pattern recognition on its own does not solve the problem of 
> universals. For pattern recognition, it is first necessary to split the 
> world to an agent and its surrounding. 
>

Before you can split anything you need to have a sense of what 'split' is.

Craig
 

>
> Evgenii 
>

-- 
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: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

[meekerdb]

On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the connections 
between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?


Why not?  Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable property. The 
difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is computable. So I'm not sure what you're 
getting at.  Or are you asking how "k" came to be associated with "broken line" or how the 
written letter "k" was associated with the phonetic sound of "k"?


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: Cross Modal Synesthetic Abstraction

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>
>
> Why not?  Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable
> property.  The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is computable.
> So I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Or are you asking how "k" came to
> be associated with "broken line" or how the written letter "k" was
> associated with the phonetic sound of "k"?
>
>
Right. Almost too easy, which makes me suspicious Craig has some weird
counter play ;-)

Indeed, why not? Rise and fall in values of acoustics + phonetics, shrill i
of kiki vs. roundness of bouba, are mapped to jagged form vs rounder form.
Spikes vs. curves in values of graphic pattern mirrored by disjunct vs.
conjunct in sound, which you could make visible by frequency response
graph. Spikes vs. curves, odd to even, states of randomness to organization
etc. Full buffet, eat all you can, choice is yours. PGC


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.
>
>
>

-- 
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: Capitalism : the way of creating wealth OUT OF THIN AIR

[chris peck]

Hi Roger

hmmm. sort of. Lowering interest rates, creating cheap money, in part 
encouraged banks to lend to people they ordinarily would not have. This put 
more buyers on the market and that increase in demand led to a rise in house 
prices. Of course, when the interest rates went up, those loans became much 
more expensive and people found they couldn't afford the mortgages they had 
taken. People began to default, demand decreased and then so did the house 
prices. 

But, there was a whole lot more to it than that. Deregulation, (ie. free market 
sensibility), allowed banks to collect together and carve up loans into complex 
derivatives and sell them on as 'high quality' assets. In other words, free 
market sensibility led to a situation in which banks no longer bore 
responsibility for the loans they made. They just made the IOUs and then sold 
them on to pension schemes. Consequently, they loaned to anybody because these 
derivatives enabled them to get an immediate return on the loans, rather than 
have to wait 40 years. Crucially, they made loans to people without demanding 
any kind of equity in the underlying asset. This meant that defaulting became 
an extremely attractive proposition once interest rates went up. So people 
defaulted willy nilly because they had no stake in the houses they had bought. 

So really it was deregulation that buggered things up and generated false hopes 
and deregulation that led to massively inflated house prices and then  bust.

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:11:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Capitalism : the way of creating wealth OUT OF THIN AIR
From: jami...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

How can an otherwise well educated and smart person write such stupidity? 
Capitalism creates wealth out of the sweat of the expolited and enslaved 
workforce they (the capitalists) keep on an economical/political leash. 
MONEY does not grow on trees. Doctor, you should know better! Dr. phil - D.Sc. 
John M

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough  wrote:





Capitalism : the way of creating wealth OUT OF THIN 
AIR
 
There are two ways of cheapening money: mechanically, by 
printing it, 
and emoltionally, by making it more easily available 
(less 
desirable) by lowering the interest rates. 

There is also a way of 
enriching money, and that is by NOT doing either of the above, 
by not 
interfering with the market. 

Here is why.

If somebody came along 
and told you that you can make gasoline out of water, you'd call him a 
con 
man. Can't be done. But I am here to tell you that you can create money out of 
thin air. 
The govt creates it by printing it, which is bad, for it cheapens 
money and thus creates no real wealth. 
This is the mechanical creation of 
wealth. But wealth can also be achieved by simply believing 
that it can be 
done (by naturally rising prices in hopes of future gain). 

Profit, the 
magic ingredient of capitalism, is the creation of wealth OUT OF THIN AIR, 
where 
nobody loses, 
if they both choose wisely enough. Both parties can profit-- 
the seller by receiving a higher price and 
the buyer by paying a higher 
price in the hope that he can resell it at an even higher price or make use of 

it in some other profitable way, such as buying in bulk. So the hope of the 
seller-- for a brighter day tomorrow-- 
is what creates wealth in the 
economy. 

Before the bubble burst, the housing market was an example of 
this, except that there was a third party-- the govt-- 
who made cheap money 
available by lowering the interest rate. That screwed things up by luring the 
buyer 
into thinking that the housing price would rise, but it didn't. That's 
not a free market, and that's why 
the bubble burst, because it was an 
unrealistic hope.

 

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) 
[1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at

http://independent.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.

 

 







-- 

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 fr