Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on average, over historical time, that is to say the proportion of people dying violently and being injured by violence has tended to decrease over time. I believe the number of wars has decreased over historical time, and continues to do so, which I attribute to improved communications. In my opinion it becomes more difficult to demonise an enemy as one is better able to contact and communicate with them, so the advent of photography, television, the internet and so on have all incrementally improved the situation. I must admit the evidence I have for this is mainly anecdotal so if Stephen Pinker has written on the subject he may have pulled together the various pieces of evidence which I personally have only come across occasionally. True, but to be honest I tend to believe in a phase transition. Both biological evolution, social evolution and maybe even brain activity seems to happen in bursts of break-throughs. Per Bak argues that this is because these systems exist in a state of self-organised criticality -- life at the edge of chaos. Another reason for this belief of mine is that I think that humans are, in a sense, transcendental creatures. One often ignored consequence of the theory of evolution is that we became aware of the mechanism as a species. This has transcendental potential, because by becoming aware of our biological program we can strive to free ourselves from some of its dictates. For example, we can see violence for what it is, and understand that it's not in our best interest. It's in the interest of meta-structures that we serve - species, tribes, families, nations and so on. A speculation of mine: religious fundamentalism superficially rejects evolution because it threatens creation myths, but intuitively rejects it because its deep consequences are subversive to the fundamentalism program. Telmo. On 28 October 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of intellectual development. I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in. Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing. 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. -- 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: A Post About # and *
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/pound.jpg http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asterisk.jpg?w=595 Part of my approach to making new sense of the universe involves indulging in meditations on unintentional symbolism. Any pattern that catches my attention is a potential subject for intuition voodoo. Usually it pays off eventually, even when it seems absurd at first. In this case, I was thinking about the # and * symbols that were inserted into our visual culture obliquely, as extra buttons on the telephone which flanked the 0. Taking this as my cue to relate this to the multisense continuum, I compared the symbols graphically, etymologically, and semantically. The pound sign (hash, hashtag, number sign) seems to me a dead ringer for the Western-mechanistic pole of the continuum, while the asterisk (star) fits quite nicely as the Oriental-animistic pole. Here’s how it breaks down: # – number sign, so quantitative and generic. The symbol is one of four lines crossing each other at right angles to yield nine implicit regions of space. The slant provides a suggestion of orientation – a forward lean that disambiguates spatial bias and implies, subliminally, an arrow of time. In the age of Twitter and Instagram, the hashtag has become an important cultural influence. It is interesting with respect to mechanism in that it refers to accessing a machine’s sorting algorithms. It is a note to the network of how this term should be handled. We have appropriated this satirically so that we recapture it for our own entertainment, but also as a kind of show of affection for and familiarity with the technology. In direct contrast, the * is am icon which is used to interrupt one level of attention to direct the reader to another level – a footnote. Instead of relating to numbers, the * is a wildcard that can be related to any string. It stands for “all that is preceded by or follows”. Contrary to the cellular modularity of #, the * is a mandala. It implies kaliedoscopic sensibility and fractal elaboration. It is a symbol of radiance, growth, life, unity, etc. There’s some interesting threads that connect the * with mathematical terms such as Kleene closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene_star(more commonly known as the free monoid construction). Just the words ‘free monoid construction’ ring in my ears as an echo of what I call solitrophy – the constructive progress of teleological unity…the creation and solution of problems. Also the use of *asterisk* for heightened emphasis links it to the significance of euphoria or magnified feeling (and the euphoria that is associated with significance or magnified prestige/importance). Wikipedia mentions the use of # by editors to represent where space should be added on galley proofs. The use of * is, by contrast associated with repetition of a particular thing – a replication. This is a tenuous but deep connection to the origins of space and time in the difference between syntactic-public sense and semantic-private sense. The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly mysterioushttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461. It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency or the Avoirdupois weight. Both references, however, have very tempting subliminal associations to the Western pole of empirical domination. On the other side, the name asterisk means ‘little star’, from Greek and Latin. I can read into that a reference to ‘as above, so below’, as the twinkling point of light reproduces in miniature that which is the grand solar source of life on Earth. Nice text Craig, thanks. I may disagree with some of your ideas, but you never bore me. A nice synchronicity: I've just been working on a domain-specific programming language. This language has an exotic operator that connects vertices in a hyper-graph. The operator is very fundamental to the language, so I wanted to give it a one-character name. My first thought was #, but I rejected it because I found it aesthetically offensive. Then I considered * and I liked it, but it would be confusing because it's commonly used for multiplication. So I ended up using the lower-case x. Telmo. -- 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
Re: A Post About # and *
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 06:49:08PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly mysterioushttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461. It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency or the Avoirdupois weight. I always thought it was because on English keyboards (as opposed to US keyboards used world-wide with computers), the pound currency symbol occupies the spot above 3, just where # is located on the US keyboard. Although according to the intertubes, # was used to denote a pound of weight in North America. 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:40:43 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 28 October 2013 00:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/**2013-10-neural-brain-harder-** disrupt-aware.htmlhttp://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step closer to answering this question. Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our consciousness. Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motionhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/. The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer. So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no effect. This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between conscious and unconscious motion representation in the brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/. Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the question of how this neural stability is achieved. Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually * conscious???* If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we can change our neurochemistry voluntarily. Then we would see the neurochemistry changing contrary to the laws of physics, but we do not, despite your gross misinterpretation of the term spontaneous neural activity. That's like saying We can't change the channel on the TV, or we would see some new colors of pixels that are not RGB.. In order to understand why my interpretation of spontaneous neural activity is the more correct interpretation, you would have to consider the possibility of top-down control to begin with. If you insist upon a flat picture of physics, where the TV actors and the audience at home must all live inside the patterns of the TV screen then you will not be able to find any significant truths about consciousness. You have to get out of the box, and right now, you are so far into the cardboard, you can't even find the box you're in. The term spontaneous neural activity is not a mistake, nor is it exotic or subtle, even if some of the scientists who use it are not aware of the implications for its erosion of determinism. Just because neural activity on one level is also caused by sub-neural activity on another, does not mean that it is not also causing its own activity, or serving the causes of the total intention of the person whose brain and body it is. We can change each others neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, certainly ordinary animal consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so that conscious states would be *represented* publicly as different neurochemical patterns (and also different facial expressions, body language, vocal intonation, smells that dogs can detect, etc...lots of expressions beyond just microphysical containment). Changing
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes.* I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neuroscientists-mini-neural-brain.html Dendrites, the branch-like projections of neurons, were once thought to be passive wiring in the brain. But now researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have shown that these dendrites do more than relay information from one neuron to the next. They actively process information, multiplying the brain's computing power. Suddenly, it's as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought, said Spencer Smith, PhD, an assistant professor in the UNC School of Medicine. His team's findings, published October 27 in the journal Nature, could change the way scientists think about long-standing scientific models of how neural circuitry functions in the brain, while also helping researchers better understand neurological disorders. Imagine you're reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information, Smith said. That's what this finding is like. The implications are exciting to think about. Axons are where neurons conventionally generate electrical spikes, but many of the same molecules that support axonal spikes are also present in the dendrites. Previous research using dissected brain tissue had demonstrated that dendrites can use those molecules to generate electrical spikes themselves, but it was unclear whether normal brain activity involved those dendritic spikes. For example, could dendritic spikes be involved in how we see? The answer, Smith's team found, is yes. Dendrites effectively act as mini-neural computers, actively processing neuronal input signals themselves. Directly demonstrating this required a series of intricate experiments that took years and spanned two continents, beginning in senior author Michael Hausser's lab at University College London, and being completed after Smith and Ikuko Smith, PhD, DVM, set up their own lab at the University of North Carolina. They used patch-clamp electrophysiology to attach a microscopic glass pipette electrode, filled with a physiological solution, to a neuronal dendrite in the brain of a mouse. The idea was to directly listen in on the electrical signaling process. Attaching the pipette to a dendrite is tremendously technically challenging, Smith said. You can't approach the dendrite from any direction. And you can't see the dendrite. So you have to do this blind. It's like fishing if all you can see is the electrical trace of a fish. And you can't use bait. You just go for it and see if you can hit a dendrite, he said. Most of the time you can't. Once the pipette was attached to a dendrite, Smith's team took electrical recordings from individual dendrites within the brains of anesthetized and awake mice. As the mice viewed visual stimuli on a computer screen, the researchers saw an unusual pattern of electrical signals – bursts of spikes – in the dendrite. Smith's team then found that the dendritic spikes occurred selectively, depending on the visual stimulus, indicating that the dendrites processed information about what the animal was seeing. To provide visual evidence of their finding, Smith's team filled neurons with calcium dye, which provided an optical readout of spiking. This revealed that dendrites fired spikes while other parts of the neuron did not, meaning that the spikes were the result of local processing within the dendrites. Study co-author Tiago Branco, PhD, created a biophysical, mathematical model of neurons and found that known mechanisms could support the dendritic spiking recorded electrically, further validating the interpretation of the data. All the data pointed to the same conclusion, Smith said. The dendrites are not passive integrators of sensory-driven input; they seem to be a computational unit as well. His team plans to explore what this newly discovered dendritic role may play in brain circuitry and particularly in conditions like Timothy syndrome, in which the integration of dendritic signals may go awry. *This revealed that dendrites fired spikes while other parts of the neuron did not, meaning that the spikes were the result of local processing within the dendrites.* Yep, looks like neurons have a nervous system of their own now. Still think that consciousness is a product of the brain? -- 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.
Fwd: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’
-- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM Subject: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ To: swi...@yahoogroups.com swi...@yahoogroups.com, yann...@gmail.com yann...@gmail.com Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’October 28, 2013 *[+]* http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/CAPTCHA-accuracy.png Average recognition accuracy (per character) claimed for the Vicarious algorithms for different CAPTCHA styles (credit: Vicarious) Vicarious http://vicarious.com/, a startup developing artificial intelligence software, today announced that its algorithms can now reliably solve modern CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart). Stanford University researchers have suggested that a CAPTCHA scheme (which are used by websites to verify that a visitor is human by asking them to transcribe a string of distorted letters) should be considered “broken” if an algorithm is able to reach a precision* (fraction of CAPTCHAs answered correctly) of at least 1% [1]. *Breaking CAPTCHAs* Vicarious claims they can go way beyond that by leveraging core insights from machine learning and neuroscience, saying its AI algorithms achieve success rates up to 90% on modern CAPTCHAs. “This advancement renders text-based CAPTCHAs no longer effective as a Turing test,” according to a Vicarious statement. (The Stanford study calls it a “reverse Turing test” because CAPTCHAs are intended to allow a website to determine if a remote client is human or not.) “Recent AI systems like IBM’s Watson and deep neural networks rely on brute force: connecting massive computing power to massive datasets,” said Vicarious cofounder D. Scott Phoenix. “This is the first time this distinctively human act of perception has been achieved, and it uses relatively minuscule amounts of data and computing power. The Vicarious algorithms achieve a level of effectiveness and efficiency much closer to actual human brains.” *A brain-like vision system* “Understanding how the brain creates intelligence is the ultimate scientific challenge. Vicarious has a long term strategy for developing human level artificial intelligence, and it starts with building a brain-like vision system,” said Vicarious cofounder Dileep George, PhD, who was formerly Chief Technology Officer at Numenta, a company he cofounded with Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky (Palm Computing, Handspring) while completing his PhD at Stanford University. “Modern CAPTCHAs provide a snapshot of the challenges of visual perception, and solving those in a general way required us to understand how the brain does it.” Solving CAPTCHA is the first public demonstration of the capabilities of Vicarious’ Recursive Cortical Networkhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/vicarious-announces-15-million-funding-for-ai-software-based-on-the-brain (RCN) machine learning software, which is based on the computational principles of the human brain. (Vicarious says it does not plan to release RCN or its algorithms publicly). Vicarious’ RCN technology is a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans. “Although still many years away, the commercial applications of RCN will have broad implications for robotics, medical image analysis, image and video search, and many other fields,” according to a Vicarious statement. -- 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal via googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-
Yau compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic
variation of the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that
cannot be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through
the state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is
an infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy
domain is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-
computations (like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper.
You need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not
presuppose any special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep
in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the
provable (by universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but
arithmetical truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1,
2, 3, ... (this needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but
we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the
machines' dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by
the true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states),
which are provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent
(such accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's
basically, for all p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable
arithmetical formula) beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The
operator for that, let us write it [], provides a quantum logic, by
the application of []p. This gives a quantization of arithmetic
due to the fact, introspectively deducible by all universal machines,
that we cannot really know who we are and which computations and
universal numbers sustain us. Below our substitution level, things
*have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non computable,
indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel
said only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The
question was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and
Heisenberg uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent indeed, but assuming comp
and understanding the FPI, you can intuit why the fuzziness has to
emerge from inside the digital/arithmetic, below or at our
substitution level, and the math of self-reference gives a quick way
to get the propositional logic of that universal physics (deducible
by all correct computationalist UMs).
And there is the Solovay gifts, which are theorems which show that
incompleteness split those logics,. That is useful for distinguishing
the true part of that physics from the part that the machine can
(still introspectively) deduces. Some intensional nuances, like the
[] above, inherit the split, some like the Bp p does not, and
facts of that type can help to delineate the quanta from the qualia,
but also the terrestrial (temporal) from the divine (atemporal).
Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal
system chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Comp suggests to extend Everett on the universal quantum wave on
arithmetic and the universal machines dreams. The wavy aspect being
explained by the self-embedding in arithmetic. Comp entails a sort of
self-diffraction.
No problem trying to get the fundamental physics from observation, and
indeed that will help for the comparison. The approach here keep the
1/p 3/p distinctions all along, and in that sense proposes a new
formulation, and ways to consider, the mind-body problem (in which I
am interested and is the main motivation for interviewing the antic,
the contemporaries and the universal
Re: For John Clark
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you, basically your definition, or simply the content of the diary taken by the experiencer with him, and the 3-view, the content of the diary of an external (not entering in the teleportation box). Bruno Marchal said We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki . Remember those were Bruno Marchal's words not John Clark's. Then Bruno Marchal asked point blank Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience? and John Clark gave a unequivocal answer, no. But then apparently Bruno Marchal changed his mind about what the meaning of the pronoun you is; so please make clear what this new meaning is and ask again Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience?. Perhaps with this new meaning John Clark's answer will be different and maybe then John Clark will understand what Bruno Marchal is talking about. 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: For John Clark
2013/10/28 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you, basically your definition, or simply the content of the diary taken by the experiencer with him, and the 3-view, the content of the diary of an external (not entering in the teleportation box). Bruno Marchal said We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki . Remember those were Bruno Marchal's words not John Clark's. Then Bruno Marchal asked point blank Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience? and John Clark gave a unequivocal answer, no. But then apparently Bruno Marchal changed his mind about what the meaning of the pronoun you is; Another lie... so please make clear what this new meaning is and ask again Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience?. Perhaps with this new meaning John Clark's answer will be different and maybe then John Clark will understand what Bruno Marchal is talking about. 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such deterministic law. I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of self-transformation, of those machines. You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress. Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it and move on. That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see how wrong they were. François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes. I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@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: For John Clark
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language, but clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you, basically your definition, or simply the content of the diary taken by the experiencer with him, and the 3-view, the content of the diary of an external (not entering in the teleportation box). Bruno Marchal said We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki . Remember those were Bruno Marchal's words not John Clark's. Then Bruno Marchal asked point blank Do you think that you die in a self-duplication experience? and John Clark gave a unequivocal answer, no. But then apparently Bruno Marchal changed his mind about what the meaning of the pronoun you is; Another lie... If John Clark was lying and Bruno has not changed his mind and you is still the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki then it is beyond dispute that YOU will see BOTH Moscow AND Helsinki. And if John Clark was not lying then what is the new meaning of the personal pronoun you? 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: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain
On 28 Oct 2013, at 16:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neuroscientists-mini-neural-brain.html Dendrites, the branch-like projections of neurons, were once thought to be passive wiring in the brain. But now researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have shown that these dendrites do more than relay information from one neuron to the next. They actively process information, multiplying the brain's computing power. Suddenly, it's as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought, said Spencer Smith, PhD, an assistant professor in the UNC School of Medicine. His team's findings, published October 27 in the journal Nature, could change the way scientists think about long-standing scientific models of how neural circuitry functions in the brain, while also helping researchers better understand neurological disorders. Imagine you're reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information, Smith said. That's what this finding is like. The implications are exciting to think about. Axons are where neurons conventionally generate electrical spikes, but many of the same molecules that support axonal spikes are also present in the dendrites. Previous research using dissected brain tissue had demonstrated that dendrites can use those molecules to generate electrical spikes themselves, but it was unclear whether normal brain activity involved those dendritic spikes. For example, could dendritic spikes be involved in how we see? The answer, Smith's team found, is yes. Dendrites effectively act as mini-neural computers, actively processing neuronal input signals themselves. Directly demonstrating this required a series of intricate experiments that took years and spanned two continents, beginning in senior author Michael Hausser's lab at University College London, and being completed after Smith and Ikuko Smith, PhD, DVM, set up their own lab at the University of North Carolina. They used patch- clamp electrophysiology to attach a microscopic glass pipette electrode, filled with a physiological solution, to a neuronal dendrite in the brain of a mouse. The idea was to directly listen in on the electrical signaling process. Attaching the pipette to a dendrite is tremendously technically challenging, Smith said. You can't approach the dendrite from any direction. And you can't see the dendrite. So you have to do this blind. It's like fishing if all you can see is the electrical trace of a fish. And you can't use bait. You just go for it and see if you can hit a dendrite, he said. Most of the time you can't. Once the pipette was attached to a dendrite, Smith's team took electrical recordings from individual dendrites within the brains of anesthetized and awake mice. As the mice viewed visual stimuli on a computer screen, the researchers saw an unusual pattern of electrical signals – bursts of spikes – in the dendrite. Smith's team then found that the dendritic spikes occurred selectively, depending on the visual stimulus, indicating that the dendrites processed information about what the animal was seeing. To provide visual evidence of their finding, Smith's team filled neurons with calcium dye, which provided an optical readout of spiking. This revealed that dendrites fired spikes while other parts of the neuron did not, meaning that the spikes were the result of local processing within the dendrites. Study co-author Tiago Branco, PhD, created a biophysical, mathematical model of neurons and found that known mechanisms could support the dendritic spiking recorded electrically, further validating the interpretation of the data. All the data pointed to the same conclusion, Smith said. The dendrites are not passive integrators of sensory-driven input; they seem to be a computational unit as well. His team plans to explore what this newly discovered dendritic role may play in brain circuitry and particularly in conditions like Timothy syndrome, in which the integration of dendritic signals may go awry. This revealed that dendrites fired spikes while other parts of the neuron did not, meaning that the spikes were the result of local processing within the dendrites. Yep, looks like neurons have a nervous system of their own now. Still think that consciousness is a product of the brain? I refer you to my rare posts where I suggest that the level is the molecular level, and should include the glial cells, which in my opinion (from diverse reading) handle to information. I also defend the idea that an amoeba, by being unicellular, can be seen as a cell being simultaneously a digestive cell, a muscular cells, a liver cell, a kidney cell, a bone cell, and a brain cell. Amoebas are not completely stupid and
Re: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’
Richard, its a step up, but its not a Turing Test. When it fools you into not knowing who you had a conversation with, especially, if you didn't know if a Turing challenge was being performed, then I'd say, yes. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 12:22 pm Subject: Fwd: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ -- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM Subject: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ To: swi...@yahoogroups.com swi...@yahoogroups.com, yann...@gmail.com yann...@gmail.com Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ October 28, 2013 [+] Average recognition accuracy (per character) claimed for the Vicarious algorithms for different CAPTCHA styles (credit: Vicarious) Vicarious, a startup developing artificial intelligence software, today announced that its algorithms can now reliably solve modern CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart). Stanford University researchers have suggested that a CAPTCHA scheme (which are used by websites to verify that a visitor is human by asking them to transcribe a string of distorted letters) should be considered “broken” if an algorithm is able to reach a precision* (fraction of CAPTCHAs answered correctly) of at least 1% [1]. Breaking CAPTCHAs Vicarious claims they can go way beyond that by leveraging core insights from machine learning and neuroscience, saying its AI algorithms achieve success rates up to 90% on modern CAPTCHAs. “This advancement renders text-based CAPTCHAs no longer effective as a Turing test,” according to a Vicarious statement. (The Stanford study calls it a “reverse Turing test” because CAPTCHAs are intended to allow a website to determine if a remote client is human or not.) “Recent AI systems like IBM’s Watson and deep neural networks rely on brute force: connecting massive computing power to massive datasets,” said Vicarious cofounder D. Scott Phoenix. “This is the first time this distinctively human act of perception has been achieved, and it uses relatively minuscule amounts of data and computing power. The Vicarious algorithms achieve a level of effectiveness and efficiency much closer to actual human brains.” A brain-like vision system “Understanding how the brain creates intelligence is the ultimate scientific challenge. Vicarious has a long term strategy for developing human level artificial intelligence, and it starts with building a brain-like vision system,” said Vicarious cofounder Dileep George, PhD, who was formerly Chief Technology Officer at Numenta, a company he cofounded with Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky (Palm Computing, Handspring) while completing his PhD at Stanford University. “Modern CAPTCHAs provide a snapshot of the challenges of visual perception, and solving those in a general way required us to understand how the brain does it.” Solving CAPTCHA is the first public demonstration of the capabilities of Vicarious’ Recursive Cortical Network (RCN) machine learning software, which is based on the computational principles of the human brain. (Vicarious says it does not plan to release RCN or its algorithms publicly). Vicarious’ RCN technology is a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans. “Although still many years away, the commercial applications of RCN will have broad implications for robotics, medical image analysis, image and video search, and many other fields,” according to a Vicarious statement. -- 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: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain
I read, somewhere, Professor Marchal, that it was the spindle cells in the brain that pushed the smarter creatures on this planet into high gear, so to speak, not so much glial, unless we are describing the same thing, primates, whales, dolphins, have spindle cells, and why this makes a difference I don't know. For no rational reason, my limbic system is urging me (?) to include in this email, the first stanza from Hyperactive, by Thomas Dolby. It adds nothing to this discussion, yet here it is, because it seems somehow, fitting. At the tender age of three I was hooked to a machine Just to keep my mouth from spouting junk Must have took me for a fool When they chucked me out of school 'Cause the teacher knew I had the funk -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 1:53 pm Subject: Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain On 28 Oct 2013, at 16:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neuroscientists-mini-neural-brain.html Dendrites, the branch-like projections of neurons, were once thought to be passive wiring in the brain. But now researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have shown that these dendrites do more than relay information from one neuron to the next. They actively process information, multiplying the brain's computing power. Suddenly, it's as if the processing power of the brain is much greater than we had originally thought, said Spencer Smith, PhD, an assistant professor in the UNC School of Medicine. His team's findings, published October 27 in the journal Nature, could change the way scientists think about long-standing scientific models of how neural circuitry functions in the brain, while also helping researchers better understand neurological disorders. Imagine you're reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information, Smith said. That's what this finding is like. The implications are exciting to think about. Axons are where neurons conventionally generate electrical spikes, but many of the same molecules that support axonal spikes are also present in the dendrites. Previous research using dissected brain tissue had demonstrated that dendrites can use those molecules to generate electrical spikes themselves, but it was unclear whether normal brain activity involved those dendritic spikes. For example, could dendritic spikes be involved in how we see? The answer, Smith's team found, is yes. Dendrites effectively act as mini-neural computers, actively processing neuronal input signals themselves. Directly demonstrating this required a series of intricate experiments that took years and spanned two continents, beginning in senior author Michael Hausser's lab at University College London, and being completed after Smith and Ikuko Smith, PhD, DVM, set up their own lab at the University of North Carolina. They used patch-clamp electrophysiology to attach a microscopic glass pipette electrode, filled with a physiological solution, to a neuronal dendrite in the brain of a mouse. The idea was to directly listen in on the electrical signaling process. Attaching the pipette to a dendrite is tremendously technically challenging, Smith said. You can't approach the dendrite from any direction. And you can't see the dendrite. So you have to do this blind. It's like fishing if all you can see is the electrical trace of a fish. And you can't use bait. You just go for it and see if you can hit a dendrite, he said. Most of the time you can't. Once the pipette was attached to a dendrite, Smith's team took electrical recordings from individual dendrites within the brains of anesthetized and awake mice. As the mice viewed visual stimuli on a computer screen, the researchers saw an unusual pattern of electrical signals – bursts of spikes – in the dendrite. Smith's team then found that the dendritic spikes occurred selectively, depending on the visual stimulus, indicating that the dendrites processed information about what the animal was seeing. To provide visual evidence of their finding, Smith's team filled neurons with calcium dye, which provided an optical readout of spiking. This revealed that dendrites fired spikes while other parts of the neuron did not, meaning that the spikes were the result of local processing within the dendrites. Study co-author Tiago Branco, PhD, created a biophysical, mathematical model of neurons and found that known mechanisms could support the dendritic spiking recorded electrically, further validating the interpretation of the data. All the data pointed to the same conclusion, Smith said. The dendrites are not passive integrators of sensory-driven input; they seem to be a computational unit as well. His team plans to explore what this
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2013, at 15:12, John Mikes wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I think Stathis was referring to any third person describable lawful laws, not relying to actual infinities or magic. Craig want to add some primary sense, and make that sense contradict such deterministic law. That would be silly. Nothing that I have ever proposed contradicts a single scientific observation, by definition. I am not adding anything, I am absorbing all disembodied pseudo-substances into sense: Laws, Forces, Fields, Wavefunctions, Probability...all of that invisible voodoo is gone. It's all primordial pansensitivity experiencing its own alienation and re-constellation. I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) OK. But we can agree on theories locally and evolve. The discovery of the universal machine, which includes us (in some precisable sense) makes possible to study the limited, but also unlimited and capable of self-transformation, of those machines. Just because they are unlimited doesn't make them capable of self-transformation. Arithmetic truths may be mind-bogglingly complex, but they are quite generic and aesthetically predictable. True beauty, whether in the form of a supermodel or an art masterpiece, introduces an experience which is literally unimaginable before it appears. It is not self-transformation, but revelation of simple, iconic presentations which relate to nothing but their own brand of pleasure, and to the history of all beauty and pleasure. It has not exterior truth which it mediates for, as we have proved with commercials. Any celebrity can be signify a product that has nothing to do with their lives. Beauty can be a code or tag for whatever we attach to it - it has no fixed mathematical affiliation. Craig You cannot invoke our ignorance to criticize a theory as that would impose an ignorance-of-the-gap, and prevent progress. Science does not exist. What exist is a scientific attitude, and this is mainly the application of the right to be wrong, and the art to accept it and move on. That's why scientists try to be precise, so that we have a chance to see how wrong they were. François Englert is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: *If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes.* I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit
Re: Neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain
On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:53:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: I refer you to my rare posts where I suggest that the level is the molecular level, and should include the glial cells, which in my opinion (from diverse reading) handle to information. I also defend the idea that an amoeba, by being unicellular, can be seen as a cell being simultaneously a digestive cell, a muscular cells, a liver cell, a kidney cell, a bone cell, and a brain cell. Amoebas are not completely stupid and deserve respects, and so are any each of our own cells, despite those cells in multicellular organism have lost a bit of their freedom and universality to cooperate in what is ourself. Again, the bold quote illustrates comp, and the fact that the level is lower than some thought. Also with comp, consciousness is NOT a product of the mind. that's still too much an aristotelian way to express the identity thesis. Consciousness is not physical, it is the mental state of person associated to machines, when those person develop *some* true belief. So if dendrites and molecules are people, why not quarks and numbers? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp? That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive
it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot
be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever will
happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the state S
(or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an infinite and
non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain is not
computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations (like the
one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in
mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by
universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel said
only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The question
was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and Heisenberg
uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent indeed, but assuming comp and
understanding the FPI, you can intuit why the fuzziness has to emerge from
inside the digital/arithmetic, below or at our substitution level, and the
math of
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp?
No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in matter.
There is no primary matter (assuming comp).
That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can derive
it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that cannot
be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the
state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an
infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain
is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations
(like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep in
mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable (by
universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to percolate
into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel said
only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The question
was would there be a relationship between incompleteness and Heisenberg
uncertainties?
There is no direct derivation of Heisenberg uncertainty from
incompleteness, as that would be indecent
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
I would like to see a phase transition. But the buildup to reach the tipping point would still be incremental, which is what we are (apparently) seeing at present. Hopefully this is a sigmoidal curve... [image: Inline images 1] Once some bioterrorist creates a highly infectious retrovirus that rewrites human DNA to make us all behave nicely towards each other, that could be the tipping point! On 28 October 2013 22:39, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on average, over historical time, that is to say the proportion of people dying violently and being injured by violence has tended to decrease over time. I believe the number of wars has decreased over historical time, and continues to do so, which I attribute to improved communications. In my opinion it becomes more difficult to demonise an enemy as one is better able to contact and communicate with them, so the advent of photography, television, the internet and so on have all incrementally improved the situation. I must admit the evidence I have for this is mainly anecdotal so if Stephen Pinker has written on the subject he may have pulled together the various pieces of evidence which I personally have only come across occasionally. True, but to be honest I tend to believe in a phase transition. Both biological evolution, social evolution and maybe even brain activity seems to happen in bursts of break-throughs. Per Bak argues that this is because these systems exist in a state of self-organised criticality -- life at the edge of chaos. Another reason for this belief of mine is that I think that humans are, in a sense, transcendental creatures. One often ignored consequence of the theory of evolution is that we became aware of the mechanism as a species. This has transcendental potential, because by becoming aware of our biological program we can strive to free ourselves from some of its dictates. For example, we can see violence for what it is, and understand that it's not in our best interest. It's in the interest of meta-structures that we serve - species, tribes, families, nations and so on. A speculation of mine: religious fundamentalism superficially rejects evolution because it threatens creation myths, but intuitively rejects it because its deep consequences are subversive to the fundamentalism program. Telmo. On 28 October 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of intellectual development. I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in. Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing. 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. -- 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: Douglas Hofstadter Article
On 10/28/2013 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: I would like to see a phase transition. But the buildup to reach the tipping point would still be incremental, which is what we are (apparently) seeing at present. Hopefully this is a sigmoidal curve... Inline images 1 Once some bioterrorist creates a highly infectious retrovirus that rewrites human DNA to make us all behave nicely towards each other, that could be the tipping point! But don't you see that is why there are so many of us that we're destroying the environment, we're being to nice to each other. 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: Douglas Hofstadter Article
You mean too nice, I assume :) That's debatable. For example, research shows that countries with negative population growth are ones that have taken equal rights for women seriously. So being nice to the female half of the population leads to less babies being born. Also, a lot of religious fundamentalists insist that abortion, contraception etc are bad, that women shouldn't be allowed to do anything they might enjoy (like drive cars) and generally restrict them to staying home and raising lots of kids by restricting and oppressing them. On 29 October 2013 12:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/28/2013 3:44 PM, LizR wrote: I would like to see a phase transition. But the buildup to reach the tipping point would still be incremental, which is what we are (apparently) seeing at present. Hopefully this is a sigmoidal curve... [image: Inline images 1] Once some bioterrorist creates a highly infectious retrovirus that rewrites human DNA to make us all behave nicely towards each other, that could be the tipping point! But don't you see that is why there are so many of us that we're destroying the environment, we're being to nice to each other. 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: A Post About # and *
That article is written by an American, so I wouldn't expect him to know about the pound sign! (Also, I wouldn't think that American style keyboards are used worldwide with computers. They aren't used in the UK, or weren't last time I was there, and are most likely not used in countries where the English character set isn't used.) On 29 October 2013 00:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 06:49:08PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly mysterious http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461. It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency or the Avoirdupois weight. I always thought it was because on English keyboards (as opposed to US keyboards used world-wide with computers), the pound currency symbol occupies the spot above 3, just where # is located on the US keyboard. Although according to the intertubes, # was used to denote a pound of weight in North America. 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. -- 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: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’
Grrr. This means that a computer programme is better at passing the Turing test than I am. On 29 October 2013 07:10, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Richard, its a step up, but its not a Turing Test. When it fools you into not knowing who you had a conversation with, especially, if you didn't know if a Turing challenge was being performed, then I'd say, yes. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 12:22 pm Subject: Fwd: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ -- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com Date: Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM Subject: Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ To: swi...@yahoogroups.com swi...@yahoogroups.com, yann...@gmail.com yann...@gmail.com Vicarious AI breaks CAPTCHA ‘Turing test’ October 28, 2013 *[+]* http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/CAPTCHA-accuracy.png Average recognition accuracy (per character) claimed for the Vicarious algorithms for different CAPTCHA styles (credit: Vicarious) Vicarious http://vicarious.com/, a startup developing artificial intelligence software, today announced that its algorithms can now reliably solve modern CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart). Stanford University researchers have suggested that a CAPTCHA scheme (which are used by websites to verify that a visitor is human by asking them to transcribe a string of distorted letters) should be considered “broken” if an algorithm is able to reach a precision* (fraction of CAPTCHAs answered correctly) of at least 1% [1]. *Breaking CAPTCHAs* Vicarious claims they can go way beyond that by leveraging core insights from machine learning and neuroscience, saying its AI algorithms achieve success rates up to 90% on modern CAPTCHAs. “This advancement renders text-based CAPTCHAs no longer effective as a Turing test,” according to a Vicarious statement. (The Stanford study calls it a “reverse Turing test” because CAPTCHAs are intended to allow a website to determine if a remote client is human or not.) “Recent AI systems like IBM’s Watson and deep neural networks rely on brute force: connecting massive computing power to massive datasets,” said Vicarious cofounder D. Scott Phoenix. “This is the first time this distinctively human act of perception has been achieved, and it uses relatively minuscule amounts of data and computing power. The Vicarious algorithms achieve a level of effectiveness and efficiency much closer to actual human brains.” *A brain-like vision system* “Understanding how the brain creates intelligence is the ultimate scientific challenge. Vicarious has a long term strategy for developing human level artificial intelligence, and it starts with building a brain-like vision system,” said Vicarious cofounder Dileep George, PhD, who was formerly Chief Technology Officer at Numenta, a company he cofounded with Jeff Hawkins and Donna Dubinsky (Palm Computing, Handspring) while completing his PhD at Stanford University. “Modern CAPTCHAs provide a snapshot of the challenges of visual perception, and solving those in a general way required us to understand how the brain does it.” Solving CAPTCHA is the first public demonstration of the capabilities of Vicarious’ Recursive Cortical Networkhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/vicarious-announces-15-million-funding-for-ai-software-based-on-the-brain (RCN) machine learning software, which is based on the computational principles of the human brain. (Vicarious says it does not plan to release RCN or its algorithms publicly). Vicarious’ RCN technology is a visual perception system that interprets the contents of photographs and videos in a manner similar to humans. “Although still many years away, the commercial applications of RCN will have broad implications for robotics, medical image analysis, image and video search, and many other fields,” according to a Vicarious statement. -- 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
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes. On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes. I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: For John Clark
Hi Jason Right but when you refer to the experience or chris peck's experiences, that is speaking in the third person. It should make no difference to your argument at all. In fact Bruno's step 3 is written in the third person too. You're confusing how the set up is described with what is actually thought by the protagonists. In fact let me use a paragraph from Bruno's step 3 replacing the issues under debate, that way there can be no confusion about the fact that I not mistaking a 1-p view for a 3-p view any more than he is. Bruno's version (and take special note of the use of third person descriptions): Giving the built-in symmetry of this experiment, if asked before the experiment about his personal future location, the experiencer must confess he cannot predict with certainty the personal outcome of the experiment. He is confronted to an unavoidable uncertainty. This is remarkable because from a third person point of view the experiment is completely deterministic, and indeed the mechanist doctrine is defended most of the time by advocates of determinism. But we see here that mechanism, by being indeed completely 3-deterministic, entails a strong form of indeterminacy[10], bearing on the possible consistent extensions, when they are observed by the first person, as both diaries can witness. This is what I call the first person comp indeterminacy, or just 1-indeterminacy. Giving that Moscow and Washington are permutable without any noticeable changes for the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a probability of ½ to the event “I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).” Before proceeding the experiencer is in a state of maximal ignorance. Corrected version: [Given] the built-in symmetry of this experiment, if asked before the experiment about his personal future location, the experiencer must confess he [can] predict with certainty the personal outcome of the experiment. He is confronted to an unavoidable [certainty]. This is [unremarkable] because from a third person point of view the experiment is completely deterministic, and indeed the mechanist doctrine is defended most of the time by advocates of determinism. But we see here that mechanism, by being indeed completely 3-deterministic, entails a strong form of [determinacy], bearing on the [certain] consistent extensions, when they are observed by the first person, [regardless of what] both diaries can witness. This is what I [shouldn't] call the first person comp indeterminacy, or just 1-indeterminacy. [Regardless] that Moscow and Washington are permutable without any noticeable changes for the experiencer, it is reasonable to ascribe a probability of 100% to the event “I will be in Moscow (resp. Washington).” [because] Before proceeding the experiencer is in a state of maximal [knowledge]. According to your usage, how is the meaning of subjective certainty different from just certainty? They are identical. Bruno argues that if everyone is certain or uncertain of something then this certainty become 'objective' in some sense. Its an irrelevant point he makes but nevertheless it is wrong. Its a confusion between solipsism and subjectivism. certainty and uncertainty are predicates applicable only to subjects. 'I's. And no matter how many people hold a belief or are certain or uncertain of something those certainties / uncertainties are only ever subjective. After the duplication there are two experiencers. --[notice the third person description you're employing here!] Each is confronted with the impossibility of being able to reliably predict which experience they would next have following the duplication. The knowledge that all experiences will be had does not eliminate this uncertainty. I keep pointing out that the question is asked prior to duplication and you keep ignoring that. According to your usage, in which you have no uncertainty because you know future chris pecks, following duplication, will individually experience all possible outcomes, such certainty ignores the personal feelings of the original Chris peck stepping into the duplicator and experiencing himself becoming one of the experiencers. Therefore it is not subjective in the sense that I use subjective, in which I mean you should literally imagine what it would be like to go into the duplicating chamber and be duplicated. Imagining what it would be like to go into the duplicating chamber from a first person perspective is precisely what I am doing. And you can not ignore the fact that the experiencer will have a certain set of beliefs as he goes in. Infact, it is axiomatic to Bruno's reasoning that we assume the experiencer is a 'comp practitioner' who would 'say yes' to the doctor. ie. it is axiomatic that the experiencer has a very specific set of beliefs. If you don't take these beliefs into account then *you* are not imagining what it would be like to be the experiencer. So, when the
Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes. That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most logical fallacies. Morality is what good people do, because of their goodness On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Allegedly Stathis wrote: If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural processes. I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently known/knowable. Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on indeed. Explained by physics? I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive - at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to time-period and is likely to change further in the future. Agnostically yours John Mikes It would be supernatural not if it were inconsistent with known physics, but with any physics. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in which they were being tested on. What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception. From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning the raw film into the finished movie. I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes. Craig When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some kind of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository of everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience – do still exist in this universal medium. But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s edited experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds from which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, but rather the quotidian now of common experience) The point that interests me is that our brain/mind is a superb on the fly editing and reality reification engine; that our experience is the result of various complex and multi-variant processes that occur within us and that a measurable lag time has elapsed by the time we first experience the well-spring of our “now” – that is we experience reality post facto. Far from denigrating the mind – I am quite fascinated by it; by how it has evolved; by how it seems to work; by its algorithms. I also believe it is fruitful to try to work out how the mind/brain works down to the basic logic and memory operations and the essential algorithms. In fact one of the reasons to study the mind is to learn how the brain mind goes about doing things – and possibly even develop a radical alternative chip architecture that will be far more energy efficient (at the tradeoff of introducing random noise as less and less energy is used to flip gates). The brain uses around 20 watts – so clearly there is room for improvement in the silicon toasters we use to do logic operations and store data. I am especially interested in learning how the brain manages to so clearly discern signal from noise (and it’s a very noisy environment). How the brain arrives at executive decisions – and how it does this at different scales of complexity. Does it use quorum based consensus building algorithms? How does the brain decide when and how much to edit out; or conversely amplify a signal? Does the brain work primarily within local micro-regions doing discreet tasks and reporting up to higher order network nodes; or is a lot more of the brain’s activity than might at first seem intricately bound up with all manner of other threads of networked activity that is happening in the brains hundred
RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article
But we are also perfecting our tools of violence as well. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of intellectual development. I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in. Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing. 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: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
So matter is just maya-illusion.
That is really religion- right?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/10/28 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
Bruno: The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you
can derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
Richard: You got it backwards. The CY Compact manifolds are the machine
that computes because they are enumerable. It derives everything else. In
particular the Metaverse machine derives the universe big bang and the
universe CY machine. I cannot say what derives the Metaverse machine
Bruno: Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic,
but we can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in
matter. machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines'
dream which cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
Richard: Is this an admission that physical realities exist outside of
comp?
No, matter is an appearance hence the use of machine's belief in
matter. There is no primary matter (assuming comp).
That's what it sounds like. And I thought that comp derived physical
realities. If it does not do that, what good is it?
Bruno: Assuming comp, elementary machine's theology and physics becomes
elementary arithmetic, relativized by the universal machine's point of
view. It makes physics invariant for the choice of the universal system
chosen to describe the phi_i, the W_i, etc.
Richard: Here you seem to contradict you previous statement that comp
cannot derive matter. Please forgive my confusion.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Oct 2013, at 12:31, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno Marchal
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=1311182ctx=mail
googlegroups.com
4:53 AM (2 hours ago)
to everything-list
On 27 Oct 2013, at 23:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
It is derived from PA both the universes and the Metaverse.
How?
Richard: I say how in the abstract of the second paper. The Calabi-Yau
compact manifolds are numerable based on observed monotonic variation of
the fine structure constant across the visible universe.
The fact that something is enumerable does not entail that you can
derive it from PA, nor that it is a necessary part of physics.
It seems also that you believe in a computable universe, but that
cannot be the case if our
(generalized) brain is computable.
Richard: That does not make sense.
If my brain is Turing emulable, and if I am in some state S, whatever
will happen to me is determined by *all* computations going through the
state S (or equivalent). Our first person indeterminacy domain is an
infinite and non computable set of computations. The indeterminacy domain
is not computable because we cannot recognize our 1p in 3p-computations
(like the one done by the UD).
Please take a look at the detailed explanation in the sane04 paper. You
need only the first seven steps of the UDA, which does not presuppose any
special knowledge.
It gives to any fundamental physics some non computable features. Keep
in mind that the computable is somehow strictly included in the provable
(by universal machine) strictly included in truth.
Computable is Turing equivalent with sigma_1 provable, but arithmetical
truth is given by the union of all sigma_i, for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (this
needs a bit of theoretical computer science).
Note that we cannot derive the existence of matter in arithmetic, but we
can, and with comp we must (by UDA) derive the machine's belief in matter.
machines lives in arithmetic, but matter lives in the machines' dream which
cohere enough (to be short).
If it happens that the machines dream do *not* cohere enough to
percolate into physical realities, then comp is wrong.
By the UDA, and classical logic, you get the physical certainty, by the
true sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (the UD-accessible states), which are
provable (true in all consistent extensions) and consistent (such
accessible consistent extensions have to exist). That's basically, for all
p sigma_1 (= ExP(x) for some P decidable arithmetical formula)
beweisbar('p') ~beweisbar('~p') p. The operator for that, let us write
it [], provides a quantum logic, by the application of []p. This
gives a quantization of arithmetic due to the fact, introspectively
deducible by all universal machines, that we cannot really know who we are
and which computations and universal numbers sustain us. Below our
substitution level, things *have* to become a bit fuzzy, non clonable, non
computable, indeterminate.
In fact this answers a question asked by Wheeler, and on which Gödel
said only that the question makes no sense and is even indecent! The
question was would there be a relationship between
Re: A Post About # and *
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:52:38PM +1300, LizR wrote: That article is written by an American, so I wouldn't expect him to know about the pound sign! (Also, I wouldn't think that American style keyboards are used worldwide with computers. They aren't used in the UK, or weren't last time I was there, and are most likely not used in countries where the English character set isn't used.) My experience in Germany is that everybody traded in their German keyboard (aka Qwertz keyboard) for the US Qwerty keyboard. Their local name for the keyboard was Diese blutig ding!. But you're right - there are plenty of different keyboard layouts, but the US layout is predominant - particularly with laptops. 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: Douglas Hofstadter Article
I know, I know. But there does seem to be a historical decline in violence, on average and over a long time, which I've heard about from various sources, the latest being Stephen Pinker. This is probably happening for a number of reasons. One is perhaps improved communications, but probably more important is improving living standards, the more people have the less they have motives to fight over stuff. And improving education helps, as do global movements to improve human rights (votes for women and the 8 hour working day - as opposed to about 15 - both started in New Zealand, I'm told :) Of course we aren't quite at a global techno-utopia yet. On 29 October 2013 15:11, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: But we are also perfecting our tools of violence as well. ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article ** ** On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of intellectual development. I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in. Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing. 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. -- 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: A Post About # and *
Predominant I can believe. If there's one thing the Americans are good at, it's selling people stuff. On 29 October 2013 16:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:52:38PM +1300, LizR wrote: That article is written by an American, so I wouldn't expect him to know about the pound sign! (Also, I wouldn't think that American style keyboards are used worldwide with computers. They aren't used in the UK, or weren't last time I was there, and are most likely not used in countries where the English character set isn't used.) My experience in Germany is that everybody traded in their German keyboard (aka Qwertz keyboard) for the US Qwerty keyboard. Their local name for the keyboard was Diese blutig ding!. But you're right - there are plenty of different keyboard layouts, but the US layout is predominant - particularly with laptops. 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. -- 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On Monday, October 28, 2013 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in which they were being tested on. What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception. From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning the raw film into the finished movie. I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes. Craig When you use the term “the public medium” you seem to be invoking some kind of shared super-consciousness or at the very least a shared repository of everything that is (or the even more extended set “everything that is or that could have been”), in which case, yes the snippets of film that ended up on the cutting floor and are conspicuously absent from our experience – do still exist in this universal medium. But the point is that they do not exist, in so far as the personal experience of reality is concerned – they have been excised by the brain/mind and removed from the sense streams before the brain/mind’s edited experience is flowed into the metaphorical spring within our minds from which we perceive reality as a state of emanating being and a dynamic current world – the now (not the metaphysical spiritual now, especially, but rather the quotidian now of common experience) Right, but I am saying that everything else does that editing too. There is no unedited perspective that 'simply is', all there can ever be is what seems to be relative to some inertial frame of perception. Even then, we may be able to access some things that may seem to be edited out (under hypnosis for example). But yeah, sure, our human experience does not include (and would not include) the sum total of all non-human experiences. We don't perceive magnetically like a bird might, but that doesn't mean that our lack of awareness as humans means that the awareness that we do have is lacking in some way. It can't by definition. Each person has exactly one human experience of living a human life and there is no unit of comparison beyond what it actually is to define what it should be. That's just how relativity works, like c - it's absolutely anchored. The point that interests me is that our brain/mind is a superb on the fly editing and reality reification engine; I disagree there. I propose that should be flipped. There is no reification. It is not a simulation of any kind. It is the expectation of external reality that is misguided from the absolute perspective. There is no editing in time, because human time is not neurological time. Our perceptual window is larger gauge. Like c, within any inertial frame the velocity is infinite. Our range of perception attenuates near the border of the window, but it is more like a radio losing a station as the dial moves off of it than a computer moving building an image out of insufficient pixels.
Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article
Perfecting may mean making them more precise so that we kill two people accidentally for every one we kill on purpose, instead of killing 20. Brent On 10/28/2013 7:11 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: But we are also perfecting our tools of violence as well. *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Sunday, October 27, 2013 5:07 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of intellectual development. I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in. Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6772 - Release Date: 10/22/13 -- 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: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
On 29 October 2013 12:54, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com wrote: What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500 BC, in 1000 AD, last year and today. It is the explanation of figments we develop upon recognizing VIEWS of phenomena partially absorbed/understood as parts of a PHYSICAL World. It all is adjusted to and within our limited capabilities of mind (consciousness???) Physics is what happens in the natural world due to natural processes. That sentence should win some kind of prize for containing the most logical fallacies. I suppose you could say causes outside of the physical universe, such as God or top-down causation by consciousness, are part of nature and part of physics, but most people would not use these words this way. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
