Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:44 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/22 meekerdb 
>>
>> On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable
>>> algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it
>>> must exist, because our brains contain it.
>>
>>
>> We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, if we had, then we
>> would had proven computationalism to be true... it's not the case. Maybe our
>> brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is
>> not possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that
>> computations alone lack. I'm not saying AI is not possible, I'm just saying
>> we haven't proved that "our brains contain it".
>>
>>
>> There's another possibility: That our brains are computational in nature,
>> but that they also depend on interactions with the environment (not
>> necessarily quantum entanglement, but possibly).
>
>
> Then it's not computational *in nature* because it needs that little
> ingredient, that's what I'm talking about when saying "Maybe our brain has
> some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not
> possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that computations
> alone lack."
>
>
> It's not non-computational if the external influence is also computational.
> But the reaction of a silicon neuron to a beta particle may be quite
> different from the reaction of a biological neuron.  So AI is still
> possible, but it may confound questions like,"Is the artificial
> consciousness the same as the biological."
>
>
>
>>
>> When Bruno has proposed replacing neurons with equivalent input-output
>> circuits I have objected that while it might still in most cases compute the
>> same function there are likely to be exceptional cases involving external
>> (to the brain) events that would cause it to be different.  This wouldn't
>> prevent AI,
>
>
> It would prevent it *if* we cannot attach that external event to the
> computation...
>
>
> No, it doesn't prevent intelligence, but it may make it different.
>
> if that external event was finitely describable, then it means you have not
> chosen the correct substitution level and computationalism alone holds.
>
>
> Yes, that's Bruno's answer, just regard the external world as part of the
> computation too, simulate the whole thing.  But I think that undermined his
> idea that computation replaces physics.  Physics isn't really replaced if it
> has to all be simulated.

But it might be relegated to the same status as social sciences, where
it provides workable approximations but has no hope of achieving a
TOE.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
> .. the only way to go out of that if for that event to be non-computational
> in nature.
>
> Regards,
> Quentin
>
>
> --
> 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: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11:20:09 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig
> *
> am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong 
> determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot possibly produce 
> desire - not because desire is special, but because it doesn't make any 
> sense. You are talking about putting in a gas pedal on a bowling ball.*
>
> I think I can meet you half way and agree that in a determined universe 
> wants, desires and anxieties would be futile. They wouldn't make sense from 
> an adaptive point of view.
>
> But I'm not convinced they make no logical sense. For example they could 
> be epiphenomena coming along for the ride, unnecessarily colouring the 
> unraveling of pre-written events.
>
> The determined universe might be inefficient, if you like, carrying along 
> with it baggage that isn't really used. The wants and anxieties would be 
> implied by the universe's initial conditions and not everything in those 
> conditions need be functional. I don't see a logical contradiction there. 
>

Can't that logic be used to justify anything though? "Why do we have 
telekinesis and and time travel-at-will?...Well, maybe its just an 
epiphenomenon that's left over from something else." It's unfalsifiable and 
no different from a religious faith, except in reverse. Instead of reaching 
for a supernatural explanation, determinism compulsively reaches for a 
sub-natural explanation. The compulsion is the same - taking comfort in the 
familiar. Instead of "God did it." it's just "Some unconscious mechanism 
did it.".

The whole point of determinism and physical closure is to avoid 
unjustifiable surprises. If we are going to allow that "desires" are 
conjured randomly in the midst of barren austerity for no conceivable 
purpose, then why bother to assert that there are any deterministic laws at 
all. Maybe they are epiphenomena coming along for the ride? Why not say 
that the laws of physics are a random conspiracy of brain chemicals, 
"zexires", which give the impression of validating each other because it 
makes us more tender and juicy for the hideous demons who raise us as 
cattle?

Thanks,
Craig



> All the best.
>
> --
> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:13:57 -0700
> From: whats...@gmail.com 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:33:06 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 21 August 2013 03:59, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
>
> >> It is possible to make the distinction between doing something by 
> accident 
> >> and intentionally, between enslavement and freedom, while still 
> >> acknowledging that brain mechanisms are either determined or random. 
> > 
> > 
> > Why would such a distinction be meaningful to a deterministic or random 
> > process though? I think you are smuggling our actual sense of intention 
> into 
> > this theoretical world which is only deterministic-random 
> (unintentional). 
>
> If you are saying that something cannot be emotionally meaningful if 
> it is random or determined you are wrong. Patients are anxious about 
> the result of a medical test even though they know the answer is 
> determined and gamblers are anxious about the outcome of their bet 
> even though they know it is random. 
>
>
> But that's only because of the impact that the random or determined 
> condition has on our free participation. We have anxiety because a 
> particular condition threatens to constrain our free will or cause 
> unpleasant sensations. They are inextricably linked. A sensation can only 
> be so unpleasant if we retain the power to escape it voluntarily. It is 
> only when we we think that a situation will be unpleasant and that we will 
> not be able to avoid it that anxiety is caused. We can't say whether we 
> would have anxiety in a deterministic universe unless we knew for sure that 
> we had been in a deterministic universe at at some point, but logically, it 
> would not make sense for any such thing as anxiety to arise in a universe 
> of involuntary spectators. What would be the justification of such an 
> emotion? Anxiety makes sense if you have free will. If anything anxiety is 
> caused by the ability to imagine the loss of the effectiveness of your free 
> will.
>  
>
>
> >> I do something intentionally if I want to do it and am aware that I am 
> >> doing it; this is compatible with either type of brain mechanism. 
> > 
> > 
> > Only if you have the possibility of something 'wanting' to do something 
> in 
> > the first place. Wanting doesn't make sense deterministically or 
> randomly. 
> > In the words of Yoda, 'there is no try, either do or do not'. 
>
> You know that you have wants, and you conclude from this that your 
> brain cannot function deterministically or randomly. You make this 
> claim repeatedly and without justification. 
>
>
> My brain has nothing to do with it. I am saying that the ontology of 
> desire is imposs

Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade

[Craig Weinberg]

"The emotional life of very many animals, including the human animal, is 
critical to their survival in fact."

Right, although only in fact, and not under the theory of strong 
determinism. In strong determinism the only thing that could matter to an 
animal's survival is its behavior. As long as they behave like animals, 
stay in family groups, have a social order, etc, no 'emotion' would impact 
that behavior in any way, especially if there were no free will. It's 
pretty easy to make something look like it has emotion - like this = :) 

But, of course that's because our consciousness includes metaphor and 
empathy. We might look at animals touching each other or fighting each 
other and say that there is emotion there, and there is, but in a 
theoretical deterministic universe, why would there be anything but the 
touching and fighting, just as there are storms in the atmosphere or 
supernovas exploding. Animals collide and bond with each other. So what?

Thanks,
Craig

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:07:00 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
>
> >> The determined universe might be inefficient, if you like, carrying 
> along with it baggage that isn't really used. The wants and anxieties would 
> be implied by the universe's initial conditions and not everything in those 
> conditions need be functional. I don't see a logical contradiction there.
>
>  
>
> Chris I follow what you are saying, but wouldn’t you also agree that it 
> seems like a whole lot of energy and evolutionary lineage is invested in 
> desire and the full panoply of the emotional spectra. Doesn’t it seem more 
> probable that it has been very much selected for by evolutionary pressure. 
> That it is not a mere hitchhiker along the ride on t crest of some 
> inevitable collapsing wave in a deterministic universe playing out the 
> preordained.
>
> Conservation of energy seems to be a first principal of all evolved 
> systems, the easier an organism can navigate the flows of its reality in 
> the huge numbers game of evolutionary pressure the better its chances are 
> of surviving and passing on its heredity. Nature favors the emergence of 
> efficient design (not always resulting in efficient designs  though but 
> that’s another story). It seems to me that the energy required in order to 
> maintain our emotional and felt/experienced existence; to maintain this 
> elaborate illusion of free will (it would be an illusion in a preordained 
> world) is so great that unless it played an essential role in our lives and 
> favored the individual’s hereditary success in whom it expressed then it 
> would have been evolved out of us and would have never developed in the 
> mammalian branch in the first place. 
>
> The emotional life of very many animals, including the human animal, is 
> critical to their survival in fact.
>
> Can something so critical be an accidental epiphenomena emerging out of 
> the inefficiency of the program? Besides wouldn’t the program evolve to be 
> as efficient as it could; doesn’t the conservation of energy apply to the 
> deterministic universe itself or does it get to play by different rules?
>
> By the way I enjoy how you argue your position, very cogent and well laid 
> out; it’s just that I feel that proposing that the poetry and depth of the 
> experience of feeling that all of us to one degree or another experience, 
> could be an accidental co-phenomena; a kind of side show that is a 
> distracting superficial phenomena of no bearing or consequence to the 
> underlying preordained script is not supported by the evidence that nature 
> places a lot of energy and attention on developing and evolving precisely 
> those phenomena in a lot of life forms we can study.
>
> Thanks for the interesting thread,
>
> Chris
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *chris peck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:20 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* RE: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
>
>  
>
> Hi Craig
> *
> am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong 
> determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot possibly produce 
> desire - not because desire is special, but because it doesn't make any 
> sense. You are talking about putting in a gas pedal on a bowling ball.*
>
> I think I can meet you half way and agree that in a determined universe 
> wants, desires and anxieties would be futile. They wouldn't make sense from 
> an adaptive point of view.
>
> But I'm not convinced they make no logical sense. For example they could 
> be epiphenomena coming along for the ride, unnecessarily colouring the 
> unraveling of pre-written events.
>
> The determined universe might be inefficient, if you like, carrying along 
> with it baggage that isn't really used. The wants and anxieties would be 
> implied by the universe's initial conditions and not everything in those 
> conditions need be functional. I don't see a logical con

RE: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade

[chris peck]

>>Can't that logic be used to justify anything though?

no. For example:

>> "Why do we have telekinesis and and time travel-at-will?...Well, maybe its 
>> just an epiphenomenon that's left over from something else."

it can't be used to justify that.

We have no reason to believe in telekinesis Craig nor time travel at will. 
Anxiety on the other hand is common. Yes?

>> Instead of reaching for a supernatural explanation, determinism compulsively 
>> reaches for a sub-natural explanation.

I don't think so. Determinism is a view people are driven to based on what they 
know about the world. Its an end point, a conclusion. It doesn't 'compulsively 
reach' for anything.

>>The compulsion is the same - taking comfort in the familiar. Instead of "God 
>>did it." it's just "Some unconscious mechanism did it.".

Comfort in the familiar? You think theres comfort to be had in determinism? 
That it is familiar? I don't think people feel that way.

Whatever. when people make claims as bold as yours, that determinism is 
logically incompatible with the existance of anxiety; then I want to see 
whether they are serious or just  bigging up pet theories with claims they 
can't justify. You're evading the question and kicking up mud.

>> The whole point of determinism and physical closure is to avoid 
>> unjustifiable surprises.

Like I said, there isn't a point to determinism. It is a conclusion that is 
reached.

>> If we are going to allow that "desires" are conjured randomly in the midst 
>> of barren austerity for no conceivable purpose, then why bother to assert 
>> that there are any deterministic laws at all.

Who's conjuring what and whats barren and austere??? What are you talking 
about? 

Look, It is because the world can be decribed by laws that are deterministic or 
probabilistic that we feel led to and caught between this pincer. Between 
randomness and fate. You put the cart way before the horse. 


>> aybe they are epiphenomena coming along for the ride? Why not say that the 
>> laws of physics are a random conspiracy of brain chemicals, "zexires", which 
>> give the impression of validating each other because it makes us more tender 
>> and juicy for the hideous demons who raise us as cattle?

You're out with fairies tonight Craig. Good luck to you.

Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:34:59 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade

"The emotional life of very many animals, including the human animal, is 
critical to their survival in fact."

Right, although only in fact, and not under the theory of strong determinism. 
In strong determinism the only thing that could matter to an animal's survival 
is its behavior. As long as they behave like animals, stay in family groups, 
have a social order, etc, no 'emotion' would impact that behavior in any way, 
especially if there were no free will. It's pretty easy to make something look 
like it has emotion - like this = :) 

But, of course that's because our consciousness includes metaphor and empathy. 
We might look at animals touching each other or fighting each other and say 
that there is emotion there, and there is, but in a theoretical deterministic 
universe, why would there be anything but the touching and fighting, just as 
there are storms in the atmosphere or supernovas exploding. Animals collide and 
bond with each other. So what?

Thanks,
Craig

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:07:00 AM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:>> The 
determined universe might be inefficient, if you like, carrying along with it 
baggage that isn't really used. The wants and anxieties would be implied by the 
universe's initial conditions and not everything in those conditions need be 
functional. I don't see a logical contradiction there. Chris I follow what you 
are saying, but wouldn’t you also agree that it seems like a whole lot of 
energy and evolutionary lineage is invested in desire and the full panoply of 
the emotional spectra. Doesn’t it seem more probable that it has been very much 
selected for by evolutionary pressure. That it is not a mere hitchhiker along 
the ride on t crest of some inevitable collapsing wave in a deterministic 
universe playing out the preordained.Conservation of energy seems to be a first 
principal of all evolved systems, the easier an organism can navigate the flows 
of its reality in the huge numbers game of evolutionary pressure the better its 
chances are of surviving and passing on its heredity. Nature favors the 
emergence of efficient design (not always resulting in efficient designs  
though but that’s another story). It seems to me that the energy required in 
order to maintain our emotional and felt/experienced existence; to maintain 
this elaborate illusion of free will (it would be an illusion in a preordained 
world) is so great that unless it played an essential role in our lives and 
favored the individual’s hereditary success in whom it expressed then it would 

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[Alberto G. Corona]

More than economical,I favor an ideological drive for history, which is
feeded back by economics of course. Economy is an important part of the
current state of things. But ideology depict what to do and which goals
achieve in the future with the current state of things.

The main source of totalitarianism in the 30´s was the excess of
expectations created in the intelectuals  during the great economic bubble
of the happy 20s. It is there when eugenesy was conceived as the way to
improve the human race under central control. Mass sterilization of ill
people was contemplated as the standard way to improve the healt and
intelligence of the population that was suppossed to handle the new
complicated machines that the infinite progress would produce. It was
during the Great Depression when this utopia was mixed with nationalistic
 every-nation-for-himself ideas in an increasing cold war of tariff
retaliations.

But the evil was already there, in the happy 20s when inhumane measures
such are sterilization where accepted and the economic boom was inflated by
excess of paper money supply by corrupt central bankers. In the 30 Jews
were hated in all Europe as the responsibles of the Depression.

Hitler invented nothing and he was acclaimed by many people in all the
world, like before was Mussolini.They were simply the logical leaders that
many people, with the mainstream ideas of their time were expecting.

All this remind me something


2013/8/22 Pierz 

> Well thank you for the lecture on cultural/historical relativism. But the
> fact remains ("fact" inasmuch as it is accepted by mainstream historians,
> unlike your alternate universe "facts") that Nazism could only take hold
> because of the economic privations resulting from the reparations imposed
> by the Allies in WW1. It's a speculation, not a fact, that had Hitler not
> risen to power, fascism would have become politically mainstream. There are
> countless contingent ways history might have worked out had WW2 not
> occurred and I am suggesting that it is a perfectly plausible and equally
> unverifiable speculation that economic recovery would have led to extreme
> ideologies falling from favour in Europe. Fascism was extreme even in its
> day, and economically comfortable democracies generally find Total War to
> be unconducive to enjoying their afternoon tea.
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:41:43 PM UTC+10, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
>> A rapid descent into extremism can be caused by factors such as
>> economic desperation. However, you can also have a gradual change in
>> society and then people are always indioctrinated that their current
>> norms and values are correct. So, there was a time when when drawing
>> and quartering was a normal form of punishment, and we gradually moved
>> away from that. If you move very fast away from this, then there will
>> be big differences in the opnions of people about wthe current system
>> being ok. or totally unacceptable.
>>
>> We are thus more vulnerable to extremism due to gradual changes in
>> society, e.g. a Hitler coming to power who doesn't need to start a war
>> (suppose e.g. that Poland would ahve been annexed without the Western
>> powers declaring war on Germany). So, Hitler could have remained a
>> popular dictator in Germany and the Holocaust would have had a
>> competely different character.
>>
>>  From the point of view of an extremist, the extremists views are the
>> norm. So, the extremist doesn't see that he is an extremist. It is only
>> in case of a rapid descent into extremism that there will be many other
>> peole who are not extremist who can see this, also the extremists would
>> find them having to defend their views more.
>>
>> You an then also ask if we are actually already extremists from some
>> reasonable point of view that our distant descendants may have. E.g.
>> the way we run the World economy with billions of people living in
>> poverty could be called totally immoral by people who live a century
>> from now. They could judge us in a similar way as the would judge Nazis.
>>
>> Or, as in a recent SF movie, you can have an alien visiting us who then
>> judges us to be guilty of mass genocide against the environment and who
>> then decides that we should all be exterminated so that life on Earth
>> can be saved from us.
>>
>> If in one reasonable value system something can be genocide on an
>> unimaginable scale, while in another one it is business as usual, then
>> the processes that led to this being flagged as "business as usual" in
>> our brains have their origin in arbitrary events in our history, as
>> there is no preference for the flagging as "business as usual" being
>> preferred given the way our brain works.
>>
>>
>> Saibal
>>
>>
>> Citeren Pierz :
>>
>> > "...since first of all the additional happiness in those non-WW3
>> > branches..." What I mean of course is the additional happiness in the
>> WW3
>> > branches. The non-WW3 branches are much *less* happy righ

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[spudboy100]

The Al Bana brothers who essentially started up the MB, as opposed to similar 
movements, like Abu Salafia. They started the MB formally in 1928, and liked 
Mussolini's fascists (everybody did back then!) and followed forward in their 
love of Adolf when he achieved state power. Alberto is correct about the 
Baathists in Syria and Iraq, and many Muslim writers compare (favorably) Mein 
Kampf (struggle) with the commands to perform Jihad (struggle) against the Qfar 
(infidels). These writers and jurists see it as the same, sad to say. 
Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) and his friends got in a fight with members 
of the Syrian Nazi Party (part of Assad's coalition), and now Dawkins is 
actually comparing the Jihadist actions to the Reich (bully for Dawkins waking 
up). Cheers for Alberto's post as well.

Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood


Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates.


Google: hitler arab countries television


 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main 
goal. you know. 


Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral thesis 
at the university about denial of the Holocaust. 


The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi 
party. 


There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or hitler-inspired 
ideas in the musling world.


If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim 
fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites






2013/8/21 meekerdb 

  

On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G.  Corona wrote:


That Hitler is the most respected western figure in  the muslim word is a 
fact. 


What is the evidence  for this?  Are there polls?
  
  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.







-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[spudboy100]

Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho' their are 
huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good guys).  A PEW 
opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views out-sorry to say. It's 
not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda, if one is not, using a little 
truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a big truth, about how the Faithful view 
the world, and to educate, and accept the facts as they are. What to do about 
this if we are correct is complicated.  Frankly, I am guessing that we might 
mitigate this dilemma by focusing on the prime motivation within Islam--Life 
after Death. It is, as we yanks say, "what gets them out of bed in the morning" 
It's even more central to Islam then it is to Christianity we can put our 
collective efforts there instead of focusing on personal attacks, or 
ideological correctness.

Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm
Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood



More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion human 
beings by our very own fascist troll
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood
 

Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates.

 

Google: hitler arab countries television

 

 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main 
goal. you know. 

 

Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral thesis 
at the university about denial of the Holocaust. 

 

The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi 
party. 

 

There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or hitler-inspired 
ideas in the musling world.

 

If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim 
fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites

 


 

2013/8/21 meekerdb 


On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word is a fact. 

 

What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?

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.






 

-- 
Alberto. 

-- 
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 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 Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[smitra]

In these sorts of polls the proper context is missing. Then you can 
easily fall in the same trap as the Germans who supported Hitler. In 
Egypt you actually see this very clearly, a large fraction of the 
population who are against the Muslim Brotherhood are saying that the 
hundreds of dead civilians are not the responsibility of the security 
forces that these civilians deserved to die for supporting the Muslim 
Brotherhood.


This is fascism, it is not per se that you have some evil dictator in 
power who is doing bad things, but it is a government who does "bad 
things" with the support of a large fraction of the population, and 
that then these "bad things" are perceived to be "good things".


Saibal



Citeren spudboy...@aol.com:



Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho' 
their are huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good 
guys).  A PEW opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views 
out-sorry to say. It's not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda, 
if one is not, using a little truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a 
big truth, about how the Faithful view the world, and to educate, and 
accept the facts as they are. What to do about this if we are correct 
is complicated.  Frankly, I am guessing that we might mitigate this 
dilemma by focusing on the prime motivation within Islam--Life after 
Death. It is, as we yanks say, "what gets them out of bed in the 
morning" It's even more central to Islam then it is to 
Christianity we can put our collective efforts there instead of 
focusing on personal attacks, or ideological correctness.


Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm
Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood



More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion 
human beings by our very own fascist troll


From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. 
Corona

Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood


Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates.



Google: hitler arab countries television



It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the 
same main goal. you know.




Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its 
doctoral thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust.




The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the 
Nazi party.




There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or 
hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world.




If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim 
fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites







2013/8/21 meekerdb 


On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word 
is a fact.




What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?

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.








--
Alberto.

--
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 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 email

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013  Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>  We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature,
>

There are only 3 possibilities:

 1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
thing can be done on a computer.

 2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they
are random and the same thing can be done on a $20 hardware random number
generator.

3) Sometimes our brains work by cause and effect processes and sometimes
they don't; if so then  they can be done on a computer and a a $20 hardware
random number generator.


> >  Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut
>

Then there are 2 possibilities:

1) There is a reason the shortcut works; if so then a computer can use the
algorithm too.

2) There was NO reason the shortcut worked; if so then it was just a lucky
guess and is unlikely to be repeated by either you or the computer.

  John K Clark

-- 
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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Quentin Anciaux]

mouahahahah

Excuse-me but cause and effect (reason or no reason) have nothing to do
weither a thing is computable or not.

Quentin


2013/8/22 John Clark 

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013  Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> >  We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature,
>>
>
> There are only 3 possibilities:
>
>  1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
> thing can be done on a computer.
>
>  2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they
> are random and the same thing can be done on a $20 hardware random number
> generator.
>
> 3) Sometimes our brains work by cause and effect processes and sometimes
> they don't; if so then  they can be done on a computer and a a $20 hardware
> random number generator.
>
>
>> >  Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut
>>
>
> Then there are 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) There is a reason the shortcut works; if so then a computer can use the
> algorithm too.
>
> 2) There was NO reason the shortcut worked; if so then it was just a lucky
> guess and is unlikely to be repeated by either you or the computer.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013  Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>> >  We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature,
>
>
> There are only 3 possibilities:
>
>  1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same thing
> can be done on a computer.
>
>  2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they
> are random and the same thing can be done on a $20 hardware random number
> generator.
>
> 3) Sometimes our brains work by cause and effect processes and sometimes
> they don't; if so then  they can be done on a computer and a a $20 hardware
> random number generator.
>
>>
>> >  Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut
>
>
> Then there are 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) There is a reason the shortcut works; if so then a computer can use the
> algorithm too.
>
> 2) There was NO reason the shortcut worked; if so then it was just a lucky
> guess and is unlikely to be repeated by either you or the computer.

There are many other conceivable options. I'll try one. Not saying I
believe in it, of course. My aim is to demonstrate that you are not
exhausting the possible scenarios:

We live inside a simulation created by ultra-intelligent beings in
some external universe. The simulation is not so good, and they keep
interrupting it to do error correction. The mechanisms they use to
correct errors exist outside the simulation we live in, but they end
up being the secret sauce of our own minds. If we build an AI, we
require the collaboration of our creators for it to work. We have no
way to force them to cooperate. The creators never reveal themselves
and they never cooperate in allowing our own creations to work. In
this scenario, comp is false as far as we're concerned.

I agree with Quentin, btw: causality has nothing to do with computation.

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
> --
> 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Would you agree that the universal dovetailer would get the job done?
>

I'm not exactly sure what job you're referring to and Bruno's use of a
carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of
sense to me.

>> Turing tells us we'll never find a algorithm that works perfectly on all
>> problems all of the time, so we'll just have to settle for an algorithm
>> that works pretty well on most problems most of the time.
>>
>
> > Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable
> algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it must
> exist, because our brains contain it.
>

We haven't found it yet because intelligence is hard, after all it took
Evolution over 3 billion years to find it and we've only been looking for
about 50. But Evolution is very very slow and very very stupid so I would
be a bit surprised if we find it in the next 10 years but astounded if we
don't find it in the next 100.


> > you're thinking of smartness as some unidimensional quantity.
>

No I'm not, I think it's crazy to think intelligence can be measured by a
scalar (like IQ) when even something a simple as the wind is composed of a
vector with 2 variables, speed and direction. To measure the most
complicated thing in the universe, intelligence, I expect you'd need a
tensor, and a very big one. But I don't think it will be long before
computers have more intelligence than any human who ever lived using any
measure of intelligence you care to name.

  John K Clark

-- 
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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[John Clark]

On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

> Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and
> itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by any
> possible program no matter how detailed?
>

Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that
is they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same
thing.

2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined,
that is they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator
can do the same thing.

And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular
processes and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a
sign of inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for
spaghetti code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write
AA 10,000 times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim
with that sort of thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like
digestion (which has nothing to do with intelligence) has even more
convoluted kludges.

Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically
complex transient
dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary
Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess
program?

  John K Clark






  John K Clark

-- 
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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> > Would you agree that the universal dovetailer would get the job done?
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure what job you're referring to

The job of overcoming the issues introduced by the halting problem.

> and Bruno's use of a
> carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of
> sense to me.

Bruno did not invent the term "dovetailing" nor is he the only person
to use it in computer science. A simple google search will show you
this. I know you're a smart guy and understand the metaphor, so you're
just complaining for the sake of complaining. Do you also disapprove
of the use of a sewing term to describe a type of computation
(threading)?

>
>>> >> Turing tells us we'll never find a algorithm that works perfectly on
>>> >> all problems all of the time, so we'll just have to settle for an 
>>> >> algorithm
>>> >> that works pretty well on most problems most of the time.
>>
>>
>> > Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable
>> > algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it must
>> > exist, because our brains contain it.
>
>
> We haven't found it yet because intelligence is hard, after all it took
> Evolution over 3 billion years to find it and we've only been looking for
> about 50. But Evolution is very very slow and very very stupid so I would be
> a bit surprised if we find it in the next 10 years but astounded if we don't
> find it in the next 100.

Maybe. Or maybe the algorithm is too complex for human intelligence to grasp.

>>
>> > you're thinking of smartness as some unidimensional quantity.
>
>
> No I'm not, I think it's crazy to think intelligence can be measured by a
> scalar (like IQ) when even something a simple as the wind is composed of a
> vector with 2 variables, speed and direction. To measure the most
> complicated thing in the universe, intelligence, I expect you'd need a
> tensor, and a very big one. But I don't think it will be long before
> computers have more intelligence than any human who ever lived using any
> measure of intelligence you care to name.

Even if this level of intelligence is attained by non-evolutionary
means? You might be right -- I wonder if advanced intelligence
necessarily bootstraps some form of evolution.

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
> --
> 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: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[Chris de Morsella]

Jabotinsky, who is one of the most important historical figures of the
development of Zionism in Israel was a great and open admirer of Mussolini
and of the fascist ideology. Fascism - during that period of history was
seen as a futurist/modern ideology and was admired by many including many
Americans of the time. 

Does this mean Zionism and all modern Zionists love fascism - a fair number
of them seem to Lieberman for example - but I hope you see how it is not
fair to use Jabotinski's great admiration for fascism and for Mussolini to
characterize modern Zionism. His affinity for fascism certainly probably
influenced his development of the Iron Wall ideology of Zionism (read about
it) so it has certainly shown up, especially amongst his ideological heirs
in the Likud Party, but one cannot therefore characterize all Israeli's and
even more all Jews as being therefore suspect of being fascists. That kind
of idiocy would be shot down straight away; why is the same kind of false
parallelism not shot down when the subject comes around to Muslims? Why the
double standard?

Hope this illustration helps you understand how problematic it is to put,
the peculiar affinities (for our way of looking at things) of historical
figures into a modern context and use their ancient statements and beliefs
to characterize whatever the movement or ideology, they had a part in
founding, has evolved over the course of history since their times.

-Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

The Al Bana brothers who essentially started up the MB, as opposed to
similar movements, like Abu Salafia. They started the MB formally in 1928,
and liked Mussolini's fascists (everybody did back then!) and followed
forward in their love of Adolf when he achieved state power. Alberto is
correct about the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, and many Muslim writers
compare (favorably) Mein Kampf (struggle) with the commands to perform Jihad
(struggle) against the Qfar (infidels). These writers and jurists see it as
the same, sad to say. Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) and his friends got
in a fight with members of the Syrian Nazi Party (part of Assad's
coalition), and now Dawkins is actually comparing the Jihadist actions to
the Reich (bully for Dawkins waking up). Cheers for Alberto's post as well.

 

Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political
debates. 

 

Google: hitler arab countries television

 

 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main
goal. you know. 

 

Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral
thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust. 

 

The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi
party. 

 

There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or
hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world.

 

If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim
fundamentalists. even on the top of mesquites

 

 

2013/8/21 meekerdb 

On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word is a
fact. 

 

What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?

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.





 

-- 
Alberto. 

-- 
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 becau

RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[Chris de Morsella]

Ah yes, I can see you subscribe to the notion of some scary monolithic
Muslim menace. the Umah Godzilla -- well good luck with your nightmares LOL.
Though you do in passing mention the sectarianism, which is just as
prevalent in the Muslim world as it is in the Christian world - if we want
to see the world through that narrow reductive optic, you continue to treat
more than a billion human beings as a single monolithic block marching to
the same ideological beat and framing these billion separate individual
human beings as some kind of existential menace to our way of life. Is this
an accurate assessment of your political beliefs?

You are so wrong, the various histories and inner beliefs; the customs,
practices and modalities of the many different peoples who have in common a
religious faith - if one can describe a religion so fractured along
sectarian lines as having much in common at all  -- are in fact quite varied
and you cannot understand a Malay, or a Taureg etc. solely through your read
of Islam without also understanding their particular histories.

You are being grossly reductionist and in reality there is a huge diversity
in customs, beliefs, and practices amongst the world's Muslims and in much
of the "Muslim" world there are also many who do not believe in these
ancient fairy tales, any more than for example I believe in the Christian
fairy tales.

There is not a Muslim world and a Christian world; we all live on the same
planet. there is only one world. We are all the same animal species and
share the same mental physiology and are all driven by the same desires
essentially - to have food, shelter, comfort, safety, happiness, family..
and for some to discover the truth behind the veil.

There are plenty of Muslim fundy assholes, but then there are Jewish,
Christian, Buddhist, Hindu (etc.)  fundy assholes in abundance as well. We
have our own American Taliban - our own wild eyed fundamentalist medieval
minded crazies. What real difference is there between a Jewish/Zionist or
Christian fundamentalist and an Arab/Muslim fundamentalist? Not a whole lot
- IMO.

I agree with those who are concerned about the rise of fundamentalism in our
world, about this return to an iconoclastic, medieval and Manichean world
view, but when it is suggested that this is somehow a Muslim phenomenon and
not a human folly that is festering in all societies and can turn any
society into one that finds itself living through a Torquemada experience,
that is where I get off of the boat and begin to criticize those who
selectively criticize other cultures while ignoring the very same phenomena
when they crop up in their own societies.

-Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

Its a solid majoritarian opinion by the Umah (Islamic nation) tho' their are
huge schisms within Islam..Sunni v Shia, Amadi's (the good guys).  A PEW
opinion survey of Islamic states bears Alberto's views out-sorry to say.
It's not bigotry, if is true, nor is it propaganda, if one is not, using a
little truth to tell a big lie. It's telling a big truth, about how the
Faithful view the world, and to educate, and accept the facts as they are.
What to do about this if we are correct is complicated.  Frankly, I am
guessing that we might mitigate this dilemma by focusing on the prime
motivation within Islam--Life after Death. It is, as we yanks say, "what
gets them out of bed in the morning" It's even more central to Islam then it
is to Christianity we can put our collective efforts there instead of
focusing on personal attacks, or ideological correctness.

 

Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:52 pm
Subject: RE: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

More hateful stereotyping of a diverse group numbering over a billion human
beings by our very own fascist troll

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political
debates.

 

Google: hitler arab countries television

 

 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main
goal. you know. 

 

Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral
thesis at the university about denial of the Holocaust. 

 

The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi
party. 

 

There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or
hitler-inspired ideas in the musling world.

 

If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by musl

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Chris de Morsella]

>> Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that is 
they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same thing.

2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined, that 
is  they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator can do 
the same  thing.
 
Modern large scale enterprise software systems, spanning multiple machines and 
separate processes and linking and coordinating many separate threads of 
execution all working in parallel into much vaster meta-processes, must deal 
with indeterminacy even in todays systems.  In fact this challenge is leading 
to more and more adoption of consensus based algorithms, because in all cases 
the same answer is not always arrived at.
 
I disagree with your supposition that any stochastic process can be mimicked by 
simply introducing a variable into the equation that has its value controlled 
in some random manner; perhaps in many cases this is possible, but that $20 
piece of hardware you mention will not reproduce the same outcomes as the real 
stochastic system does. 
A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of random 
variation, but in reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the 
"randomness" is not random but reflects the fact that many equally valid 
outcomes can evolve form the initial set of conditions.
 
>> And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular 
>> processes and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a 
>> sign of inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for 
>> spaghetti code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write 
>> AA 10,000 times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim 
>> with that sort of thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like 
>> digestion (which has nothing to do with intelligence) has even more 
>> convoluted kludges. 
 
Hehe... don't underestimate the amazing stupidity of programmers... I have seen 
some real exemplars of boneheaded stupidity in my time. Again I disagree. 
Software is horribly inefficient much of the time; optimization is highly 
selective (as it should in fact be) and most code is sub-optimal (which is 
actually fine). Processes grab way too many resources for example on the 
assumption that maybe they might need them  (good for them, bad for the system 
as a whole); bad algorithms abound in code and spaghetti code is still 
everywhere -- even in so called object oriented code.
As an aside our physical brain anatomy as well is a convoluted mess and would 
have never been designed the way it actually is by any intelligent designer; it 
is full of weird 90 degree bends and turns as the original tubular nematode 
proto-brain morphed -- and was shoe-horned -- into the tightly folded (and also 
highly differentiated -- having many sub parts) structure we have inside our 
heads. So I agree with you that naturally evolved systems can in fact be 
convoluted and sometimes absurdly contorted.
 
>> Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex 
>> transient dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster 
>> Gary Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old 
>> chess program?
 
Neither here nor there - IMO -- not sure how this has bearing? The super 
computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching ability and was 
completely specialized in the task of beating him; whilst Gary Kasparov's 
fantastic brain is a general purpose system that is not exclusively concerned 
with winning  a game of chess. 
 
-Chris
  


 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
  


On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


> Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and 
itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by 
any possible program no matter how detailed?
> 
Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined, that is 
they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the same thing.

2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined, that 
is 
they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator can do the 
same 
thing.

And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular processes 
and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a sign of 
inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion for spaghetti 
code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write AA 10,000 
times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim with that sort of 
thing, and very complex chemical metabolic proc

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>> There are only 3 possibilities:
>>   1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
>> thing
>> can be done on a computer.
>>   2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they
>> are random and the same thing can be done on a $20 hardware random number
>> generator.
>> 3) Sometimes our brains work by cause and effect processes and sometimes
>>  they don't; if so then  they can be done on a computer and a a $20
>> hardware random number generator.
>
>

> There are many other conceivable options.


Many?


> > I'll try one. Not saying I believe in it, of course. My aim is to
> demonstrate that you are not exhausting the possible scenarios: We live
> inside a simulation created by ultra-intelligent beings in some external
> universe.


 Then there are only 2 possibilities:

1) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
the other for a reason; if so then our simulated computers which change
from one state to the other for a simulated reason can create a simulated
simulated world that also looks real to its simulated simulated
inhabitants.

2) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
the other for NO reason; if so then its random and there's nothing very
ultra about the machine.

>  In this scenario, comp is false as far as we're concerned.
>

Cannot comment, I don't know what "comp" is.

  > I agree with Quentin, btw: causality has nothing to do with computation.
>

Nothing? Then I don't know what you mean by computation. What causal thing
can we do but a computer can't?  It's true that Turing proved there are
some real numbers, most of them in fact, that a computer could never find
even if it had an infinite clock speed,  but we can't find those numbers
either.

  John K Clark

-- 
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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Chris de Morsella  wrote:


> > A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of
> random variation
>

Yes.


> >but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the
> "randomness" is not random
>

If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen in a
computer for a reason too.

*>>Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically
complex transient
>> dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary
>> Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess
>> program?*
>>
> **
>

>
> not sure how this has bearing
>

Is that true, are you really not sure how that has any bearing? I am sure.

 > The super computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching
> ability
>

At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years ago and
the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is almost
certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human chess
player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better too. So
all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you were
rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running a
ancient chess program.

  John K Clark



-

-- 
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.

AI

[John Mikes]

Here is my tuppence: I participate on a (serious) list where they started
to substitute for AI - "AS" (=artificial stupidity) meaning that our mental
capabilities are restricted and anything we can produce on a computer
(pardon me, Bruno: it is not the UNIVERSAL one) in our 'brilliant' digital
programming efforts is restsricted to whatever we may know (at least
follow). That's what those friends call  our 'stupidity' applied.

Not only is 'inteligence' poorly (if at all) identified, it is within the
bounds of the present human knowledge. No machine can expand that (again:
pls. Bruno gimme a break). Does anybody have knowledge of AI-produced
domains completely unheard of in our human inventory of the KNOWN world?
Even the 'unreal' and 'imaginary' connotations produced by extreme AI are
deducible to elements of our sensitive mindset.
Besides: OUR machines are inventoried contraptions - our mentality has no
such borderlines. Did anybody compare the free flowing human fantasy with
an unrestricted comparative power of programmed items?
Our 'free flowing' fantasy is still based on the 'model' of today's
knowledge about the world as we know it.

Agnostically yours
John Mikes

-- 
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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Chris de Morsella]

 >> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen in a 
computer for a reason too.
 
Sure, but the "reason" may not be amenable to being completely contained within 
the confines of a deterministic algorithm if it depends on a series of outside 
processes that are not under the algorithms operational control and that are 
highly variable and transient. The reason may depend on a very large set of 
orthogonal factors each of which Is evolving and mutating along a separate 
dimension.
Try modeling complexity like this and  it can lead to spontaneous brain 
explosion :)
 
> At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years agoand the 
> computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is almost certainly 
> more powerful than the computer that beat the best human chess player in the 
> world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better too. So all that spaghetti 
> and complexity at the cellular level that you were rhapsodizing about didn't 
> work as well as an antique computer running a ancient chess program.
You are incorrect even today Deep Blue is still quite powerful compared to a PC
 
The Deep Blue machine specs: 
 It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes, 
with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor for a total of 30, 
enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program 
was written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of 
evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. 
In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer according to 
the TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS on the High-Performance LINPACK 
benchmark.[12]
 
I doubt the machine you are writing your email on even comes close to that 
level of performance; I know mine does not achieve that level of performance.
  


 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
  


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Chris de Morsella  wrote:



> A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of random 
> variation
>

Yes.


>but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the 
>"randomness" is not random 

If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen in a 
computer for a reason too. 


>>Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex 
>>transient dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster 
>>Gary Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess 
>>program?   

>
> not sure how this has bearing
>

Is that true, are you really not sure how that has any bearing? I am sure.



 > The super computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching 
ability 
> 

At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years ago and the 
computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is almost certainly 
more powerful than the computer that beat the best human chess player in the 
world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better too. So all that spaghetti 
and complexity at the cellular level that you were rhapsodizing about didn't 
work as well as an antique computer running a ancient chess program.



  John K Clark



-

-- 
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: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade

[John Mikes]

Brent wrote:

*Just *any* response?  Doesn't the response have to be something we can
identify as intelligent or purposeful?*
Depends on your definition of 'intelligent or purposeful' - Oh, and of
RESPONSE of course. My def. of response includes your characterisation.
*
Brent wrote:
* So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that
exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is
aware/conscious?*
Aware like a thermostat? conscious like the response of it? YES.
We use loose meanings and draw even looser conclusions.  We are loosers.

Bren t wrote:

*To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than "follow
instructions", it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through
simulation and prediction.  If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd
grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means.  If it learns and acts based
on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell.  To say it's
"conscious" is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can
relate to (what Dennett calls "the intentional stance").*
*
*
That's exactly what I called your 'right' to call *consciousness* whatever
fits your purpose. I have no firm rules between "conscious" and its noun
(-ness). Both may be related to the 'inventory' we know of.

JM





*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 9:59 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
> scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every
> author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance.
> Me, too.
> Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not
> human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just
> RESPONSE.
>
>
> Just *any* response?  Doesn't the response have to be something we can
> identify as intelligent or purposeful?
>
>
>  By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the
> Physical World into the inventory.
>
>
> So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that
> exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is
> aware/conscious?
>
> 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Quentin Anciaux]

I didn't write the following, you're quoting someone else.


2013/8/22 John Clark 

> On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and
>> itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by any
>> possible program no matter how detailed?
>>
>
> Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are determined,
> that is they work by cause and effect; if so then a computer can do the
> same thing.
>
> 2) The transient dynamic branches of a neural network are NOT determined,
> that is they are random; if so then a $20 hardware random number generator
> can do the same thing.
>
> And I note that many people look at the vast complexity of cellular
> processes and see superiority, but much of that complexity is actually a
> sign of inferiority.  Evolution is a dreadful programmer with a passion
> for spaghetti code. No human programmer would be stupid enough to write
> AA 10,000 times in a row but the human genome is full to the brim
> with that sort of thing, and very complex chemical metabolic processes like
> digestion (which has nothing to do with intelligence) has even more
> convoluted kludges.
>
> Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex 
> transient
> dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary
> Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess
> program?
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Telmo Menezes]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>>> >> There are only 3 possibilities:
>>>   1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
>>> thing
>>> can be done on a computer.
>>>   2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then
>>> they
>>> are random and the same thing can be done on a $20 hardware random number
>>> generator.
>>> 3) Sometimes our brains work by cause and effect processes and sometimes
>>>  they don't; if so then  they can be done on a computer and a a $20
>>> hardware random number generator.
>>
>>
>>
>> > There are many other conceivable options.
>
>
> Many?
>>
>> > I'll try one. Not saying I believe in it, of course. My aim is to
>> > demonstrate that you are not exhausting the possible scenarios: We live
>> > inside a simulation created by ultra-intelligent beings in some external
>> > universe.
>
>
>  Then there are only 2 possibilities:
>
> 1) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to the
> other for a reason; if so then our simulated computers which change from one
> state to the other for a simulated reason can create a simulated simulated
> world that also looks real to its simulated simulated inhabitants.
>
> 2) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to the
> other for NO reason; if so then its random and there's nothing very ultra
> about the machine.

But the ultra computer I postulated is not a pure Turing machine. It's
behaviour can be influenced by entities external to our simulated
universe. In a sense this is a religious hypothesis, which I don't
like but cannot be disproved. Granted, it doesn't count as a
scientific theory in the Popperian sense. It's what Carl Sagan called
an "invisible dragon in the garage" hypothesis. But there's an
infinity of these and they are conceivable and can be true.

>> >  In this scenario, comp is false as far as we're concerned.
>
>
> Cannot comment, I don't know what "comp" is.

Come on John, we've been through this the other day. You do know.

>>   > I agree with Quentin, btw: causality has nothing to do with
>> computation.
>
>
> Nothing? Then I don't know what you mean by computation. What causal thing
> can we do but a computer can't?  It's true that Turing proved there are some
> real numbers, most of them in fact, that a computer could never find even if
> it had an infinite clock speed,  but we can't find those numbers either.

Alright, maybe "nothing to do" is too strong. Computation can be used
to model causality, but causality itself is a very problematic and
fuzzy concept. Computation does not require causality. It can be
defined simply in the form of symbolic relationships. It is not
related to causality in the same sense that arithmetics is not related
to causality. Unless you say something very contrived like "2 because
1 + 1".

Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:43 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013  Chris de Morsella  wrote:
>
>
>> > A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of
>> random variation
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> >but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the
>> "randomness" is not random
>>
>
> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen in a
> computer for a reason too.
>
> *>>Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically
>>> complex transient dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of
>>> Grandmaster Gary Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16
>>> year old chess program?*
>>>
>> **
>>
>
>>
> > not sure how this has bearing
>>
>
> Is that true, are you really not sure how that has any bearing? I am sure.
>
>  > The super computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching
>> ability
>>
>
> At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years ago and
> the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is almost
> certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human chess
> player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better too. So
> all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you were
> rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running a
> ancient chess program.
>
>   John K Clark
>

Both soft- and hardware still play a role. Kasparov's loss still smells
funky, even though now, I doubt Anand, Carlsen or GMs could consistently
stand a chance against say Houdini 3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houdini_%28chess%29

I'd say given current state of the art that they might draw a few games per
hundred. Perhaps win one every few hundred.

But even these fantastic engines have bugs like, which I've seen a few
times, so I still wouldn't bet the farm:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/humans-v-houdini-chess-engine-elo-3300?page=22

PGC




>
>
>
> -
>
> --
> 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[meekerdb]

On 8/22/2013 3:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

But it might be relegated to the same status as social sciences, where
it provides workable approximations but has no hope of achieving a
TOE.


Yes, that's close to what Hawking and Mlodinow say in their book.  They call it "model 
dependent realism" without asserting that all of physics or reality can be covered by the 
same model.


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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[meekerdb]

On 8/21/2013 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/8/22 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




2013/8/22 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found 
viable
algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it
must exist, because our brains contain it.


We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, if we had, then 
we
would had proven computationalism to be true... it's not the case. 
Maybe our
brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI 
is not
possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that 
computations
alone lack. I'm not saying AI is not possible, I'm just saying we 
haven't
proved that "our brains contain it".


There's another possibility: That our brains are computational in 
nature, but
that they also depend on interactions with the environment (not 
necessarily
quantum entanglement, but possibly).


Then it's not computational *in nature* because it needs that little 
ingredient,
that's what I'm talking about when saying "Maybe our brain has some non
computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not possible, maybe 
our
brain has this "realness" ingredient that computations alone lack."


It's not non-computational if the external influence is also computational.


If it is, you've not chosen the right level... the whole event + brain is computational 
and you're back at the start.


But the reaction of a silicon neuron to a beta particle may be quite 
different from
the reaction of a biological neuron.  So AI is still possible, but it may 
confound
questions like,"Is the artificial consciousness the same as the biological."


If it's computational, it is computational and AI at the right level would be the same 
as ours.


But "at the right level" may mean "including all the environment outside the 
brain".






When Bruno has proposed replacing neurons with equivalent input-output 
circuits
I have objected that while it might still in most cases compute the same
function there are likely to be exceptional cases involving external 
(to the
brain) events that would cause it to be different.  This wouldn't 
prevent AI,


It would prevent it *if* we cannot attach that external event to the 
computation...


No, it doesn't prevent intelligence, but it may make it different.


It does (for digital AI) if the ingredient is non-computational and that there is no way 
to attach it to the digital part without (for example) a biological brain.


I don't see why that follows.  Suppose the non-computational, external influence comes 
from the output of a hypercomputer?  It cans till provide input to a Turing computer.  Or 
even true randomness could, as is hypothesized in QM.





if that external event was finitely describable, then it means you have not 
chosen
the correct substitution level and computationalism alone holds.


Yes, that's Bruno's answer, just regard the external world as part of the
computation too, simulate the whole thing.


Well if your ingredient, is the whole of physics, then it's self defeating,


Exactly.  That's what I said below

Brent

and computationalism is false... if it's some part of it, then at that level the 
"realness" of our consciousness is digital and computationalism holds.


Quentin

But I think that undermined his idea that computation replaces physics. 
Physics
isn't really replaced if it has to all be simulated.

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: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[meekerdb]

On 8/22/2013 4:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Hitler invented nothing


Yes, he didn't invent anti-semitism.  That was invented by the Catholic Church in the 
Spanish Iquisition and by Martin Luther.  But Hitler made great use of it.


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: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[meekerdb]

There's a lot of difference between admiring Fascism and admiring Nazism.  Fascism was the 
idea that a nation was a kind of super-organism consisting of people in different stations 
of life working together to achieve collective goals.  It's not a philosophy of government 
I like, but it's not crazy either.  It's roughly the way army's work.  Nazism added 
superstitious beliefs in "blut und volk" and a virulent hatred of Jews and Roma as 
responsible for degeneration of a mythical Aryan culture.  It adopted genocide as the 
policy for solving "the Jewish question."


Brent

On 8/22/2013 9:36 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


Jabotinsky, who is one of the most important historical figures of the development of 
Zionism in Israel was a great and open admirer of Mussolini and of the fascist ideology. 
Fascism -- during that period of history was seen as a futurist/modern ideology and was 
admired by many including many Americans of the time.


Does this mean Zionism and all modern Zionists love fascism -- a fair number of them 
seem to Lieberman for example -- but I hope you see how it is not fair to use 
Jabotinski's great admiration for fascism and for Mussolini to characterize modern 
Zionism. His affinity for fascism certainly probably influenced his development of the 
Iron Wall ideology of Zionism (read about it) so it has certainly shown up, especially 
amongst his ideological heirs in the Likud Party, but one cannot therefore characterize 
all Israeli's and even more all Jews as being therefore suspect of being fascists. That 
kind of idiocy would be shot down straight away; why is the same kind of false 
parallelism not shot down when the subject comes around to Muslims? Why the double standard?


Hope this illustration helps you understand how problematic it is to put, the peculiar 
affinities (for our way of looking at things) of historical figures into a modern 
context and use their ancient statements and beliefs to characterize whatever the 
movement or ideology, they had a part in founding, has evolved over the course of 
history since their times.


-Chris

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *spudboy...@aol.com

*Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:49 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Al Bana brothers who essentially started up the MB, as opposed to similar movements, 
like Abu Salafia. They started the MB formally in 1928, and liked Mussolini's fascists 
(everybody did back then!) and followed forward in their love of Adolf when he achieved 
state power. Alberto is correct about the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, and many Muslim 
writers compare (favorably) Mein Kampf (struggle) with the commands to perform Jihad 
(struggle) against the Qfar (infidels). These writers and jurists see it as the same, 
sad to say. Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) and his friends got in a fight with 
members of the Syrian Nazi Party (part of Assad's coalition), and now Dawkins is 
actually comparing the Jihadist actions to the Reich (bully for Dawkins waking up). 
Cheers for Alberto's post as well.


Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>>
To: everything-list >

Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 7:02 pm
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

Just follow the tv of muslim countries, and specially, the political debates.

Google: hitler arab countries television

 It can not be otherwhise since te nazis and the muslims share the same main goal. you 
know.


Abu Mazen, the leader of the PLO after Yasif Arafat wrote its doctoral thesis at the 
university about denial of the Holocaust.


The Baaz party that ruled Iraq and Siria are inspired directly by the Nazi 
party.

There are hundred of examples of continuous praise of hitler or hitler-inspired ideas in 
the musling world.


If you search,  you can find a lot of nazi flags waved by muslim fundamentalists. even 
on the top of mesquites


2013/8/21 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

On 8/21/2013 11:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

That Hitler is the most respected western figure in the muslim word is a 
fact.

What is the evidence for this?  Are there polls?

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: Born Rule in MWI

[meekerdb]

On 2/22/2013 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A problem: physicists don't try to define what is a (primary or not) physical universe. 


That's not a bug.  It's a feature.

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: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[Chris de Morsella]

Nazism took it somewhere much darker, but Fascism already was exulting the
fever pitch of ethno-nationalism. 

Fascism may have become a generic word we use now a days for that kind of
totalitarianism, but in its time and in history, time after time, fascist
regimes and parties have always exulted in ethno-fetishism and have promoted
an us versus them Manichean world view. 

In each country where Fascism has arisen it has been characterized by
pronounced nationalism most often framed and presented in ethnic terms.
Nazism clearly took this notion and ran with Aryan Supremacism, but all the
other Fascists then: Mussolini, Franco, and yes Jabotinsky as well (because
he was a Fascist) they all saw themselves as leaders of ethnically rooted
nationalist movements. In fact show me a famous fascist who was not also a
virulent ethno-nationalist.

Fascism unlike Communism (at the level of lip service at least) never
preached a Universal Fascist state – an 1000 year Reich of one tribe over
other inferior races maybe, but that idea lacks universal appeal. 

Communists sang Internationale  as expressed in a line from the lyrics in
English: “There simply IS a ruling class, and there is a working class. One
day the majority must triumph over the oppression and terror of the
minority.” They clearly framed their struggle as an international class
struggle. Their slogan was workers unite… or as expressed in the Chilean
protest song against Allende “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido”

Fascism instead has always been nationalist (as opposed to internationalist)
and framed in terms of ethnic and cultural chauvinism… so if there is a
difference between Hitler and Nazism and the other fascist Parties and
personalities it is a matter of degree and not of substance. 

-Chris

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

There's a lot of difference between admiring Fascism and admiring Nazism.
Fascism was the idea that a nation was a kind of super-organism consisting
of people in different stations of life working together to achieve
collective goals.  It's not a philosophy of government I like, but it's not
crazy either.  It's roughly the way army's work.  Nazism added superstitious
beliefs in "blut und volk" and a virulent hatred of Jews and Roma as
responsible for degeneration of a mythical Aryan culture.  It adopted
genocide as the policy for solving "the Jewish question."

Brent

On 8/22/2013 9:36 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Jabotinsky, who is one of the most important historical figures of the
development of Zionism in Israel was a great and open admirer of Mussolini
and of the fascist ideology. Fascism – during that period of history was
seen as a futurist/modern ideology and was admired by many including many
Americans of the time. 

Does this mean Zionism and all modern Zionists love fascism – a fair number
of them seem to Lieberman for example – but I hope you see how it is not
fair to use Jabotinski’s great admiration for fascism and for Mussolini to
characterize modern Zionism. His affinity for fascism certainly probably
influenced his development of the Iron Wall ideology of Zionism (read about
it) so it has certainly shown up, especially amongst his ideological heirs
in the Likud Party, but one cannot therefore characterize all Israeli’s and
even more all Jews as being therefore suspect of being fascists. That kind
of idiocy would be shot down straight away; why is the same kind of false
parallelism not shot down when the subject comes around to Muslims? Why the
double standard?

Hope this illustration helps you understand how problematic it is to put,
the peculiar affinities (for our way of looking at things) of historical
figures into a modern context and use their ancient statements and beliefs
to characterize whatever the movement or ideology, they had a part in
founding, has evolved over the course of history since their times.

-Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:49 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

The Al Bana brothers who essentially started up the MB, as opposed to
similar movements, like Abu Salafia. They started the MB formally in 1928,
and liked Mussolini's fascists (everybody did back then!) and followed
forward in their love of Adolf when he achieved state power. Alberto is
correct about the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, and many Muslim writers
compare (favorably) Mein Kampf (struggle) with the commands to perform Jihad
(struggle) against the Qfar (infidels). These writers and jurists see it as
the same, sad to say. Christopher Hitchens (the atheist) and his friends got
in a fight with members of the Syrian Nazi Party (p

Re: The Nazi History of the Muslim Brotherhood

[meekerdb]

On 8/22/2013 6:39 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


Nazism took it somewhere much darker, but Fascism already was exulting the fever pitch 
of ethno-nationalism.


Fascism may have become a generic word we use now a days for that kind of 
totalitarianism, but in its time and in history, time after time, fascist regimes and 
parties have always exulted in ethno-fetishism and have promoted an us versus them 
Manichean world view.




Sure, that's part of the idea of the nation as a super-organism: If you're not part of it, 
you're an enemy of it.  There's no room for individualism or dissent.


In each country where Fascism has arisen it has been characterized by pronounced 
nationalism most often framed and presented in ethnic terms.




But also in cultural terms.  As a super-organism, a nation should strive for glorious 
achievements as an individual should.  This generally meant conquering some 'inferior' 
people and bringing them into the glory of your superior culture.


Nazism clearly took this notion and ran with Aryan Supremacism, but all the other 
Fascists then: Mussolini, Franco, and yes Jabotinsky as well (because he was a Fascist) 
they all saw themselves as leaders of ethnically rooted nationalist movements. In fact 
show me a famous fascist who was not also a virulent ethno-nationalist.


Fascism unlike Communism (at the level of lip service at least) never preached a 
Universal Fascist state -- an 1000 year Reich of one tribe over other inferior races 
maybe, but that idea lacks universal appeal.


Communists sang Internationale  as expressed in a line from the lyrics in English: 
"There simply IS a ruling class, and there is a working class. One day the majority must 
triumph over the oppression and terror of the minority."They clearly framed their 
struggle as an international class struggle. Their slogan was workers unite... or as 
expressed in the Chilean protest song against Allende "El pueblo unido jamás será vencido"


Fascism instead has always been nationalist (as opposed to internationalist) and framed 
in terms of ethnic and cultural chauvinism... so if there is a difference between Hitler 
and Nazism and the other fascist Parties and personalities it is a matter of degree and 
not of substance.




Enough degrees  and they become a substantial difference.  Fascism was admired (as was 
communism) for "making the trains run on time". I don't think Nazism would have had 
admirers if the death camps had been known about at the time.


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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:10:05PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> Bruno did not invent the term "dovetailing" nor is he the only person
> to use it in computer science. A simple google search will show you
> this. I know you're a smart guy and understand the metaphor, so you're
> just complaining for the sake of complaining. Do you also disapprove
> of the use of a sewing term to describe a type of computation
> (threading)?
> 

I was a little puzzled by the etymology of "dovetailing" when I first
heard it, as I knew about the carpentry term. However, it apparently
comes from tilers, who describe a pattern of laying tiles as
dovetailing. And that analogy makes more sense.

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 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: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

[Quentin Anciaux]

2013/8/23 meekerdb 

>  On 8/21/2013 11:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/22 meekerdb 
>
>>  On 8/21/2013 11:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/22 meekerdb 
>>
>>>  On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, and I'm fascinated by the question of why we haven't found viable
 algorithms in that class yet -- although we know has a fact that it
 must exist, because our brains contain it.

>>>
>>>  We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, if we had,
>>> then we would had proven computationalism to be true... it's not the case.
>>> Maybe our brain has some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's
>>> why AI is not possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that
>>> computations alone lack. I'm not saying AI is not possible, I'm just saying
>>> we haven't proved that "our brains contain it".
>>>
>>>
>>>  There's another possibility: That our brains are computational in
>>> nature, but that they also depend on interactions with the environment (not
>>> necessarily quantum entanglement, but possibly).
>>>
>>
>>  Then it's not computational *in nature* because it needs that little
>> ingredient, that's what I'm talking about when saying "Maybe our brain has
>> some non computational shortcut for that, maybe that's why AI is not
>> possible, maybe our brain has this "realness" ingredient that computations
>> alone lack."
>>
>>
>>  It's not non-computational if the external influence is also
>> computational.
>>
>
>  If it is, you've not chosen the right level... the whole event + brain
> is computational and you're back at the start.
>
>
>> But the reaction of a silicon neuron to a beta particle may be quite
>> different from the reaction of a biological neuron.  So AI is still
>> possible, but it may confound questions like,"Is the artificial
>> consciousness the same as the biological."
>>
>
>  If it's computational, it is computational and AI at the right level
> would be the same as ours.
>
>
> But "at the right level" may mean "including all the environment outside
> the brain".
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  When Bruno has proposed replacing neurons with equivalent input-output
>>> circuits I have objected that while it might still in most cases compute
>>> the same function there are likely to be exceptional cases involving
>>> external (to the brain) events that would cause it to be different.  This
>>> wouldn't prevent AI,
>>>
>>
>>  It would prevent it *if* we cannot attach that external event to the
>> computation...
>>
>>
>>  No, it doesn't prevent intelligence, but it may make it different.
>>
>
>  It does (for digital AI) if the ingredient is non-computational and that
> there is no way to attach it to the digital part without (for example) a
> biological brain.
>
>
> I don't see why that follows.  Suppose the non-computational, external
> influence comes from the output of a hypercomputer?  It cans till provide
> input to a Turing computer.
>

So you could attach it to the digital part *but* that output of the
hypercomputer is the non-computable part... you'll need it and you can't
bypass it *and* it is not computable.


> Or even true randomness could, as is hypothesized in QM.
>

Same thing.


>
>
>
>
>>
>>if that external event was finitely describable, then it means you
>> have not chosen the correct substitution level and computationalism alone
>> holds.
>>
>>
>>  Yes, that's Bruno's answer, just regard the external world as part of
>> the computation too, simulate the whole thing.
>>
>
>  Well if your ingredient, is the whole of physics, then it's self
> defeating,
>
>
> Exactly.  That's what I said below
>
> Brent
>
>
>   and computationalism is false... if it's some part of it, then at that
> level the "realness" of our consciousness is digital and computationalism
> holds.
>
>  Quentin
>
>
>> But I think that undermined his idea that computation replaces physics.
>> Physics isn't really replaced if it has to all be simulated.
>>
>> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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.