Re: Climate models
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:32 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: > > On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore > the universe. > > > This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction > between artificial and natural is artificial. > > > I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will > be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed > to developed just by Darwinian evolution. > > > OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for > creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong > in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). > > "deliberately" involves "free-will". Some might argue if that is so > much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a > long history. Personally, I do agree that "deliberate" makes partial sense > from our person points of view. > > > Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. > Is it? I am looking around my living room, and all the objects I see seem to be extensions of my body. There's a box of paracetamol, a molecule that perfectly fits my biochemistry to stop making me feel headaches. There's headphones, that perfectly mach my human ears. There are human-sized chairs and tables, books, etc. The lamps emit light in the visible spectrum, to match the receptors in my retinas. >From gene to protein to cell to organ to organism to house to city... You can draw a line somewhere, but it feels a bit arbitrary. Telmo. > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping
On 13 April 2014 17:51, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:58 PM > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping > > > > On 13 April 2014 12:36, Kim Jones wrote: > > Excellent! I would have delivered the arrogant bastard a knee to the groin > as well. That, however, would have been an irrelevant side issue, though > and not germane to the question, in the manner of Lateral Thinking. > > > > I'm sure you could have convinced him that was the sound of a tree falling > when there's no one to hear it. > > > > One could also say… our bubble universe is a web of entangled > information…. Perhaps (with compelling theoretical reasons for being so as > well) there is an infinitely larger multiverse… but even that from the > bird’s eye view seems entangled. Perhaps, one could argue… all is entangled > information at some level – even if that level is inaccessible to us. > > One could indeed, although I venture to say it might not be as funny. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, LizR wrote: > On 13 April 2014 17:51, Chris de Morsella wrote: > >> >> >> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:58 PM >> >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping >> >> >> >> On 13 April 2014 12:36, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> Excellent! I would have delivered the arrogant bastard a knee to the >> groin as well. That, however, would have been an irrelevant side issue, >> though and not germane to the question, in the manner of Lateral Thinking. >> >> >> >> I'm sure you could have convinced him that was the sound of a tree >> falling when there's no one to hear it. >> >> >> >> One could also say... our bubble universe is a web of entangled >> information Perhaps (with compelling theoretical reasons for being so as >> well) there is an infinitely larger multiverse... but even that from the >> bird's eye view seems entangled. Perhaps, one could argue... all is entangled >> information at some level - even if that level is inaccessible to us. >> >> > One could indeed, although I venture to say it might not be as funny. > Not ha ha funny, but it still feels like some cosmic practical joke to me. > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping
Hey PGC, A story I head the other day about a Buddhist master (made up, obviously, but I like it): A great buddhist master lived alone in a small island. A disciple wanted to learn from him, so he prepared for 20 years. He meditated constantly, until he was finally able to float over the waters and reach the master. The master told him: "Why didn't you take the ferry? It's only one dollar!". Best, Telmo. On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thompson's take on a Buddhist he knew, which you'll take with a huge grain > of salt, as with everything he writes. Just a small theological anecdote, > if you will. :-) PGC: > > *"I knew a Buddhist once, and I've hated myself ever since. The whole > thing was a failure. He was a priest of some kind, and he was also > extremely rich. They called him a monk and he wore the saffron robes and I > hated him because of his arrogance. He thought he knew everything.* > > *One day I was trying to rent a large downtown property from him, and he > mocked me. 'You are dumb' he said. 'You are doomed if you stay in this > business. The stupid are gobbled up quickly.' 'I understand' I said. 'I am > stupid. I am doomed but I think I know something you don't.' He laughed. > 'Nonsense' he said. 'You are a fool. You know nothing.' I nodded > respectfully and leaned closer to him, as if to whisper a secret. 'I know > the answer to the greatest riddle of all,' I said. He chuckled. 'And what > is that?' he said. 'And you'd better be right, or I'll kill you.'* > > *'I know the sound of one hand clapping,' I said. 'I have finally > discovered the answer.' Several other Buddhists in the room laughed out > loud, at this point. I know they wanted to humiliate me, and now they had > me trapped - because there is no answer to that question. These saffron > bastards have been teasing us with it forever. They are amused at our > failure to grasp it.* > > *Ho ho, I went into a drastic crouch and hung my left hand low, behind my > knee. 'Lean closer,' I said to him. 'I want to answer your high and > unanswerable question.' As he leaned his bright bald head a little closer > into my orbit, I suddenly leaped up and bashed him flat on the ear with the > palm of my left hand. It was slightly cupped, so as to deliver maximum > energy on impact. An isolated package of air is suddenly driven through the > Eustachian tube and into the middle brain at quantum speed, causing pain, > fear and extreme insult to the tissue.* > > *The monk staggered sideways and screamed, grasping his head in agony. > Then he fell to the floor and cursed me. 'You swine!' he croaked. 'Why did > you hit me and burst my eardrum?' 'Because that,' I said, 'is the sound of > one hand clapping. That is the answer to your question. I have the answer > now, and you are deaf.' 'Indeed' he said. 'I am deaf, but I am smarter. I > am wise in a different way.' He grinned vacantly and reached out to shake > my hand. 'You are welcome,' I said. 'I am after all a doctor.' "* > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping
Yeah, it's for laughs with a funky "but..." The non-attachment of "Buddhist" becomes dogma/idolatry itself, and he keeps to the premiss "I know, I am stupid and doomed..." but on rare occasions, something about lateral thinking perhaps to untangle seemingly impossible knots, in one swift clear nuanced stroke, especially against some greedy bandit posing as guru of non-attachment. :-) And the moment you grab or try to frame this faculty -> whack on the head and you loose what you took, compensation. It asserts and mocks non-attachment + it's brutally funny, like forbidden delicious freedom of thought. Prose can still go, keep fingers crossed of course, where nobody in real worlds can, can be as harsh as the real, and nobody is harmed; all in good taste, if finely crafted. It qualifies perhaps as agnostic tale after all nonetheless, I speculate without over thinking it. This gets across the kind of thing I remember from the book Bruno mentioned recently mentioned, Watts' "Wisdom of Insecurity", with a laugh and some edge, which is a nice variation. As in Telmo's example, the question "why do we have to take the dark news of the world so heavily by default, and give it all that seriousness and worry?" is quietly implied, as I don't think it was Thompson's goal to encourage eardrum bursting. PGC On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > Excellent! I would have delivered the arrogant bastard a knee to the groin > as well. That, however, would have been an irrelevant side issue, though > and not germane to the question, in the manner of Lateral Thinking. > > > Kim > > > On 12 Apr 2014, at 9:31 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thompson's take on a Buddhist he knew, which you'll take with a huge grain > of salt, as with everything he writes. Just a small theological anecdote, > if you will. :-) PGC: > > *"I knew a Buddhist once, and I've hated myself ever since. The whole > thing was a failure. He was a priest of some kind, and he was also > extremely rich. They called him a monk and he wore the saffron robes and I > hated him because of his arrogance. He thought he knew everything.* > > *One day I was trying to rent a large downtown property from him, and he > mocked me. 'You are dumb' he said. 'You are doomed if you stay in this > business. The stupid are gobbled up quickly.' 'I understand' I said. 'I am > stupid. I am doomed but I think I know something you don't.' He laughed. > 'Nonsense' he said. 'You are a fool. You know nothing.' I nodded > respectfully and leaned closer to him, as if to whisper a secret. 'I know > the answer to the greatest riddle of all,' I said. He chuckled. 'And what > is that?' he said. 'And you'd better be right, or I'll kill you.'* > > *'I know the sound of one hand clapping,' I said. 'I have finally > discovered the answer.' Several other Buddhists in the room laughed out > loud, at this point. I know they wanted to humiliate me, and now they had > me trapped - because there is no answer to that question. These saffron > bastards have been teasing us with it forever. They are amused at our > failure to grasp it.* > > *Ho ho, I went into a drastic crouch and hung my left hand low, behind my > knee. 'Lean closer,' I said to him. 'I want to answer your high and > unanswerable question.' As he leaned his bright bald head a little closer > into my orbit, I suddenly leaped up and bashed him flat on the ear with the > palm of my left hand. It was slightly cupped, so as to deliver maximum > energy on impact. An isolated package of air is suddenly driven through the > Eustachian tube and into the middle brain at quantum speed, causing pain, > fear and extreme insult to the tissue.* > > *The monk staggered sideways and screamed, grasping his head in agony. > Then he fell to the floor and cursed me. 'You swine!' he croaked. 'Why did > you hit me and burst my eardrum?' 'Because that,' I said, 'is the sound of > one hand clapping. That is the answer to your question. I have the answer > now, and you are deaf.' 'Indeed' he said. 'I am deaf, but I am smarter. I > am wise in a different way.' He grinned vacantly and reached out to shake > my hand. 'You are welcome,' I said. 'I am after all a doctor.' "* > > -- > 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/d/optout. > > > > > Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL > > Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au > Mobile: 0450 963 719 > Landline: 02 9389 4239 > Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com > > "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain > > > > > -- > You received
Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)
On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174 Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway. Nice. Bruno Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain -- 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/d/optout. 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/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 12:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg : On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being "for" protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat "performs" the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. The experience by Jouvet shows correspondence of behavior instead. LABERGE S. P. & DEMENT, W. C., 1982, Lateralization of alpha activity for dreamed singing and counting during REM sleep, SPR abstract 1981, Psychophysiology, 19 (1982), pp. 331-332. LABERGE S., GREENLEAF, W. & KEDZIERSKI, B., 1983, Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during REM sleep, SPR abstracts, 1983, Psychophysiology, 20 (1983), pp. 454-455. LABERGE S., LEVITAN L., GORDON, M. & DEMENT W. C., 1983, The psychophysiology of lucid dream initiation, SPR abstracts, 1983, Psychophysiology, 20, pp. 455. Many information can be found in the selected papers book: LABERGE S. RHEINGOLD H., 1990, Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, Ballantine Books, New York. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. Not specific thought, but enough to distinguish singing from counting or computing, or to see that muscles would perform if they were not inhibited. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. The lucid dreamers can communicate with the person in the labo
Re: Video of VCR
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> >> We know that we cannot make our legs stand by arguing with them or >> proving that standing can occur, we must exercise direct sensory-motive >> participation and move our legs by ourselves. >> >> >>> and >>> just assume this if you want, but your phenomenology does not need >>> this. Comp mighty be false, but you need far better argument, >> >> >> You demand that the subtlest, most delicate truth in the universe kneel >> down to the vending machine of comp and bash it open with a brick. That's >> not the way that it works. The machine gets nothing from me. Not a single >> coin. I know that it has nothing without our patronage, and gives nothing >> back but its own mindless rules, empty images, plastic music, and rude >> interventions. >> >> >>> and for >>> this much more humility and study the worlds of many others and the >>> training in "scientific" argumentation. >>> >> >> There is little humility in comp. I see it as an ideology which feigns >> politeness but actually buries consciousness alive. >> >> >> Rhetoric. >> >> You can answer this, but in my reply, I will just say if I see or not an >> argument. >> > > Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? > How about: can't you see this isn't going anywhere? Bruno is repeating himself, while you enjoy, as the only one here, your own rhetoric variations, repeating the same content and biases over and over in linguistic strings, with only minor differences in use of metaphor and empty, albeit sometimes amusing expressions and figures of speech, that don't constitute a serious argument or proposal of ontology framing your ideas on "sense". Your zeal in seeking validation from Bruno by presenting yourself "as his equal confronting him", mirrors perhaps the doubt you have concerning your own thoughts, which is good indication of your intention to seek and test, because why else would you seek this validation? Then again, we are all each other's equals, so why force this with monster discussions of details of details, when we know the outcome: you will not consider comp as possibility or example and improvise linguistic tricks for the problems that come up in the edifice of your work on logical and mathematical levels, by putting aesthetics on a pedestal, which is also unconvincing as of today. Instead of taking the problems, criticisms arising here as some personal thing, take what you can learn or leave it; your work needs to overcome its limits and problems, and you won't get it done by forcing anybody here, including Bruno, to spoon feed you. > > Craig > > >> >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg : On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being "for" protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat "performs" the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for a number of days, will began to pass out more and more. They don't return to normal given a good nights sleep. They actually have
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:43, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: "But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will fell much fatigued." > But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will feel muchLESS fatigued. My brain corrected this automatically, and unconsciously :) 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:32:19 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > We know that we cannot make our legs stand by arguing with them or proving > that standing can occur, we must exercise direct sensory-motive > participation and move our legs by ourselves. > > > and > just assume this if you want, but your phenomenology does not need > this. Comp mighty be false, but you need far better argument, > > > You demand that the subtlest, most delicate truth in the universe kneel > down to the vending machine of comp and bash it open with a brick. That's > not the way that it works. The machine gets nothing from me. Not a single > coin. I know that it has nothing without our patronage, and gives nothing > back but its own mindless rules, empty images, plastic music, and rude > interventions. > > > and for > this much more humility and study the worlds of many others and the > training in "scientific" argumentation. > > > There is little humility in comp. I see it as an ideology which feigns > politeness but actually buries consciousness alive. > > > Rhetoric. > > You can answer this, but in my reply, I will just say if I see or not an > argument. > > > Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? > > > How about: can't you see this isn't going anywhere? Bruno is repeating > himself, while you enjoy, as the only one here, your own rhetoric > variations, repeating the same content and biases over and over in > linguistic strings, with only minor differences in use of metaphor and > empty, albeit sometimes amusing expressions and figures of speech, that > don't constitute a serious argument or proposal of ontology framing your > ideas on "sense". > Being the only one here doesn't bother me (even if it did, there are others not on this list who understand my ideas), and I don't care that what I'm saying doesn't fulfill your expectations of 'going anywhere'. As long as others can see the conversations, they can judge who is putting together a new idea of consciousness, physics, and information, and who is resisting it based on bias. The conversation is a commercial for the ideas being discussed even if one side does not recapitulate to the other. > Your zeal in seeking validation from Bruno by presenting yourself "as his > equal confronting him", mirrors perhaps the doubt you have concerning your > own thoughts, which is good indication of your intention to seek and test, > because why else would you seek this validation? > I'm not seeking validation, I'm seeking an awakening to a new idea - either for Bruno or someone else. > > Then again, we are all each other's equals, so why force this with monster > discussions of details of details, when we know the outcome: > Discussing the details yields new examples, new connections, etc. > you will not consider comp as possibility or example and improvise > linguistic tricks for the problems that come up in the edifice of your work > on logical and mathematical levels, by putting aesthetics on a pedestal, > which is also unconvincing as of today. > If you put logical and mathematical levels on a pedestal, then the aesthetic is undervalued proportionately. Your bias is exactly what my view predicts. > > Instead of taking the problems, criticisms arising here as some personal > thing, take what you can learn or leave it; your work needs to overcome its > limits and problems, and you won't get it done by forcing anybody here, > including Bruno, to spoon feed you. > How am I forcing Bruno to do anything, much less spoon feed me? I'm not looking for input from Bruno, I'm looking to explain why comp ultimately fails and how it can be inverted to find a new solution that makes more sense. > > Craig > > > ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:32:19 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> We know that we cannot make our legs stand by arguing with them or >> proving that standing can occur, we must exercise direct sensory-motive >> participation and move our legs by ourselves. >> >> >> and >> just assume this if you want, but your phenomenology does not need >> this. Comp mighty be false, but you need far better argument, >> >> >> You demand that the subtlest, most delicate truth in the universe kneel >> down to the vending machine of comp and bash it open with a brick. That's >> not the way that it works. The machine gets nothing from me. Not a single >> coin. I know that it has nothing without our patronage, and gives nothing >> back but its own mindless rules, empty images, plastic music, and rude >> interventions. >> >> >> and for >> this much more humility and study the worlds of many others and the >> training in "scientific" argumentation. >> >> >> There is little humility in comp. I see it as an ideology which feigns >> politeness but actually buries consciousness alive. >> >> >> Rhetoric. >> >> You can answer this, but in my reply, I will just say if I see or not an >> argument. >> >> >> Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? >> >> >> How about: can't you see this isn't going anywhere? Bruno is repeating >> himself, while you enjoy, as the only one here, your own rhetoric >> variations, repeating the same content and biases over and over in >> linguistic strings, with only minor differences in use of metaphor and >> empty, albeit sometimes amusing expressions and figures of speech, that >> don't constitute a serious argument or proposal of ontology framing your >> ideas on "sense". >> > > Being the only one here doesn't bother me (even if it did, there are > others not on this list who understand my ideas), and I don't care that > what I'm saying doesn't fulfill your expectations of 'going anywhere'. As > long as others can see the conversations, they can judge who is putting > together a new idea of consciousness, physics, and information, and who is > resisting it based on bias. The conversation is a commercial for the ideas > being discussed even if one side does not recapitulate to the other. > > >> Your zeal in seeking validation from Bruno by presenting yourself "as his >> equal confronting him", mirrors perhaps the doubt you have concerning your >> own thoughts, which is good indication of your intention to seek and test, >> because why else would you seek this validation? >> > > I'm not seeking validation, I'm seeking an awakening to a new idea - > either for Bruno or someone else. > > >> >> Then again, we are all each other's equals, so why force this with >> monster discussions of details of details, when we know the outcome: >> > > Discussing the details yields new examples, new connections, etc. > > >> you will not consider comp as possibility or example and improvise >> linguistic tricks for the problems that come up in the edifice of your work >> on logical and mathematical levels, by putting aesthetics on a pedestal, >> which is also unconvincing as of today. >> > > If you put logical and mathematical levels on a pedestal, then the > aesthetic is undervalued proportionately. Your bias is exactly what my view > predicts. > > >> >> Instead of taking the problems, criticisms arising here as some personal >> thing, take what you can learn or leave it; your work needs to overcome its >> limits and problems, and you won't get it done by forcing anybody here, >> including Bruno, to spoon feed you. >> > > How am I forcing Bruno to do anything, much less spoon feed me? > Simple: by abusing cordiality, professionalism, distance, and politeness that you would never reciprocate because people here other than yours truly, especially Bruno, take your ideas at face value; even when you trample views that are not your own as "nonsense", instead of taking more distanced, professional perspective. Take it easy, man... because nobody has or should have infinite credit and you will increasingly look like spam/nuisance if you keep it up; and people will increasingly switch off or ignore you; quite contrary to your intentions of awakening new ideas. Especially if you continue this obvious falsity of dismissing possible worldviews outright with linguistic play of unconvincing arguments and evidence. The fact that you need to state "my ideas are appreciated elsewhere" reflects a defensiveness, rather than an awakening. > I'm not looking for input from Bruno, > Then stop addressing him in this fashion, perhaps? > I'm looking to explain why comp ultimately fails and how it can be > inverted to find a new solution that makes more sense. > This, even if you suc
Re: Video of VCR
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2014, at 20:30, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Craig, > > I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get > closer to a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument > against comp is not valid, you vindicate being illogical, > > I don't vindicate being illogical, I vindicate being more logical > about factoring in the limitations of logic in modeling the deeper > aspects of nature and consciousness. Logically we must not presume > to rely on logic alone to argue the nature of awareness, from which > logic seems to arise. > > so I am not sure that repeating my argument can help. > > > I will just sum up: > > 1) You keep talking like if the situation was symmetrical. You > defending ~comp, and me defending comp. But that is not the case. I > am nowhere defending the idea that comp is true. I am agnostic on > this. > > I think that you are pseudo-agnostic on it, and have admitted as > much on occasion, but that's ok with me either way. > > I am not convince by your argument against comp, that's all. That is > the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. > > Part of my argument though is that being convinced is not a > realistic expectation of any argument about consciousness. My > argument is that it can only ever be about how much sense it makes > relatively speaking, and that the comp argument unfairly rules out > immeasurable aesthetic qualities from the start. It does not. *you* rule it out. You make less sense. If it doesn't rule it out, then comp is circular. Proof? Reasoning. Comp has to begin without consciousness to explain anything. If comp begins with consciousness then you are saying that consciousness creates itself...which is fine, but it doesn't need computation then. You will not convince me that my sun in law *has to be* a zombie or a doll with argument like that, which mocks completely what I have done. For the statement that comp makes "consciousness is generated by computation" Comp does not say "consciousness is generated by computation". I have insisted on this many times. "In philosophy, a computational theory of mind names a view that the human mind or the human brain (or both) is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of computing. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind The Wikipedia definition agrees with me. If you are not saying that consciousness is a form of computation or product of computation, then it seems to me you have made comp too weak of an assertion. What do you say that comp asserts? That my sun in law might not be a zombie/doll. Comp assumes that the brain is Turing emulable at some level of description. In my work, comp is an assumption, but usually comp is seen as a consequence of other theories, and is usually an implicit theory of all materialist (and that is a problem for them, as UDA shows that comp does not marry well with materialism). By materialism, as usual I mean the weak sense: the doctrine which asserts the primitive existence of matter (or time, space, energy, ...). UDA assumes consciousness as subject matter of the inquiry, and assumes that it is invariant for digital functional substitution done at some level, and it explains from that assumption that both consciousness and matter emerges from arithmetic. Then AUDA (the arithmetical UDA) shows, by applying an idea of Theaetetus on Gödel's predicate of probability, how to make the derivation, and derives the propositional physics, (the logic of the observable) making comp + Theaetetus is testable. we have to assume first that comp is not already consciousness itself, Comp is a theory. There are no reason to say comp is consciousness, no more than to say that F=GmM/r^2 has some mass. category error. Comp is a theory, but it is a theory that computation is what produces consciousness. Not at all. I always says that a machine can instantiate consciousness, or make a first person able to manifest its consciousness, but avoid an expression like computation of brain produces consciousness. Those expression confuses implicitlky the machine []p and the non-machine (except in God's eye) []p & p. Like in the hunting of the snark, you want the sentence first, and the trial after. Well, that is still better than the NDAA, which evacuates the trial completely ... The trial can only be started if we have sufficient technology to trade brains and trade back. As far as I can tell, all other testing would rely only on measuring whether the imposter can fool a judge - which is irrelevant as far as actually authenticating s
Re: Video of VCR
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? That is a very good idea. That is quite close to what happens with the definition by Theatetus of (rational) knowledge by saying that is a (rational) belief (finitely 3p describable) which is also true (something not definable in general, but well known in many situations). That truth might not be computable (like in self-multiplication), nor definable (like in Peano Arithmetic or by Löbian machines), and that is why we use the truth (p) to represent itself, in the definition of know(p) by []p & p. That describes a knower (it obeys S4), and explains the existence of the fixed point, the locus where the beliefs are incorrigible, and correctly so, from that necessarily existing point of view. It explains the existence of proposition which will be trivially true from the first person perspective, yet impossible to communicate rationally to another machine. 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/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 13 Apr 2014, at 01:32, meekerdb wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). "deliberately" involves "free-will". Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that "deliberate" makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. ? All right, let us say that after the invention of the ribosomes and DNA-proteines relation, it is no more Darwinian evolution. The rest is deliberate attempt to eat, and mate, through variation of the molecular means to address such goals. What is different between the success of a new protein, and a new human tool. The man tried to get the apple in the tree and eventually use a stick and get it, and then (perhaps much later) he realize he can strike also the beast going for the apple, etc. Very similar things appear at the molecular level, and at many possible biological meta-levels. I am not sure you can put a precise frontier between Darwinism and "free-will". The Darwinian evolution has selected quickly machines/ programs having goals: eating enough, mating enough, and avoiding being eaten (to much). Then free-will and deliberate action becomes a matter of will and chance. Bruno 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/d/optout. 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all really particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my apologies. I just took Bruno by his word of "I'll just say if I see an argument or not." and felt that was better than to have this thread keep ballooning with nobody else in the discussion or seeming to follow anymore. But if that was not a genuine point, fine. I stand corrected. PGC On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? > > > > That is a very good idea. > > That is quite close to what happens with the definition by Theatetus of > (rational) knowledge by saying that is a (rational) belief (finitely 3p > describable) which is also true (something not definable in general, but > well known in many situations). That truth might not be computable (like in > self-multiplication), nor definable (like in Peano Arithmetic or by Löbian > machines), and that is why we use the truth (p) to represent itself, in the > definition of know(p) by []p & p. > > That describes a knower (it obeys S4), and explains the existence of the > fixed point, the locus where the beliefs are incorrigible, and correctly > so, from that necessarily existing point of view. It explains the > existence of proposition which will be trivially true from the first person > perspective, yet impossible to communicate rationally to another machine. > > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Video of VCR
On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all really particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my apologies. I just took Bruno by his word of "I'll just say if I see an argument or not." and felt that was better than to have this thread keep ballooning with nobody else in the discussion or seeming to follow anymore. But if that was not a genuine point, fine. I stand corrected. PGC On the contrary, and I wish I could have read your comment before answering Craig. I might have avoiding answering it but I have that sort of weakness in believing he might see some point. It is also hard to not answer false attribution. Craig is quite correct compared to the first person associated to the machine by the []p & p definition, and it reminds me that comp is, and has to be, counter-intuitive. It is a mini Brouwer-Hilbert debate, with Brouwer played by Craig, and the 1p of the machine (S4Grz, []p & p), and Hilbert (me, or the []p of the machines. The logical appearance of the person is Truth -> person -> machine/theories/ideas or put it differently: p -> []p & p -> []p (& p?) Craig illustrates well that consciousness is in the true part, not in the representation, but you need both to have a local particular person, relatively to some universal number or system. Now this made him into a trivial step zero stopper, and I can be tired of the accumulation of word play, and the begging questions. I appreciate the intervention. Bruno On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument? That is a very good idea. That is quite close to what happens with the definition by Theatetus of (rational) knowledge by saying that is a (rational) belief (finitely 3p describable) which is also true (something not definable in general, but well known in many situations). That truth might not be computable (like in self-multiplication), nor definable (like in Peano Arithmetic or by Löbian machines), and that is why we use the truth (p) to represent itself, in the definition of know(p) by []p & p. That describes a knower (it obeys S4), and explains the existence of the fixed point, the locus where the beliefs are incorrigible, and correctly so, from that necessarily existing point of view. It explains the existence of proposition which will be trivially true from the first person perspective, yet impossible to communicate rationally to another machine. 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/d/optout. -- 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/d/optout. 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/d/optout.
Re: Climate models
On 4/13/2014 10:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Apr 2014, at 01:32, meekerdb wrote: On 4/12/2014 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 01:43, meekerdb wrote: On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. OK. I thought so. That is artificial too, actually, and thus natural for creature with some enough big ego, and which might not be completely wrong in thinking that they have some partial control, indeed (thanks god!). "deliberately" involves "free-will". Some might argue if that is so much deliberate, especially from some 3p big picture. Machines too have a long history. Personally, I do agree that "deliberate" makes partial sense from our person points of view. Whatever you call it, it is different from Darwinian evolution. ? This seems like semantic nit-picking. Because you can't put a "precise frontier" do you really want to say they are not different? All right, let us say that after the invention of the ribosomes and DNA-proteines relation, it is no more Darwinian evolution. The point is that they were not "inventions". Do you want to obscure the distinction between invention and random variation? The rest is deliberate attempt to eat, and mate, through variation of the molecular means to address such goals. And deliberate attempts to invent. Specifically, in the case under consideration, attempts to invent beings that would realize our ideals, but would be suited to travel to other planets and prosper there. What is different between the success of a new protein, and a new human tool. The man tried to get the apple in the tree and eventually use a stick and get it, and then (perhaps much later) he realize he can strike also the beast going for the apple, etc. The difference is that one is selected from random variation and the other is invented, possibly by evaluating, in thought, random ideas of tools. In practice the difference is that the latter is much faster. Over the last few millenia, cultural and technological evolution has far outstripped Darwinian evolution. Brent Very similar things appear at the molecular level, and at many possible biological meta-levels. I am not sure you can put a precise frontier between Darwinism and "free-will". The Darwinian evolution has selected quickly machines/programs having goals: eating enough, mating enough, and avoiding being eaten (to much). Then free-will and deliberate action becomes a matter of will and chance. Bruno -- 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/d/optout.
Re: Thompson's Answer: Sound of One Hand clapping
Zen koans do tend towards bathos. -- 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/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 07:03:31AM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:57:39 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > A large component of the political spectrum do feel alienated from science > > and that does leave them - and so as find with climate Science - vulnerable > > in a way it once was not. And there is a reason for that, that the > > institutions of science show no willingness to reflect on at all. For up to > > 50 or 60 years, academic institutions, usually in the form of academics > > with too much say over who gets posts, have blatently followed corruption > > recruitment practiced, packing people in that reflect ONE part of the > > political and economic, social and ideological spectrum. Broadly, > > conservatives have been pushed and kept out. > > > > Chickens come home to roost. Look in the mirror time. > > > > I'm trying to improve my typo problem. So that sentence above should have > read > o > "A large component of the political spectrum do feel alienated from science > and that does leave them - and so as we now find with AGW - Science itself, > vulnerable in a way it once was not. Vulnerable to this kind of > manipulation, from admittedly even fouler sources. > > What would be a good piece of science would be to find out (a) what the > impact this internal corrupt practice within science of effectively making > political views a criteria for gettingices o ahead. and (a) about the > practices deployed to distort the public view. How many people that are > found first by the sophisticated denial approach, ever change their mind? > And vice verca? > Do you have evidence that "conservatives have been pushed and kept out (of academia)"? Whilst it is true that people who's views lie outside the current paradigm might be pushed out, I'd be very surprised if that aligned along the conservative-progressive political axis - except perhaps in Political Science departments. 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- 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/d/optout.
Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
On 4/13/2014 6:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 07:03:31AM -0700, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:57:39 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: A large component of the political spectrum do feel alienated from science and that does leave them - and so as find with climate Science - vulnerable in a way it once was not. And there is a reason for that, that the institutions of science show no willingness to reflect on at all. For up to 50 or 60 years, academic institutions, usually in the form of academics with too much say over who gets posts, have blatently followed corruption recruitment practiced, packing people in that reflect ONE part of the political and economic, social and ideological spectrum. Broadly, conservatives have been pushed and kept out. Chickens come home to roost. Look in the mirror time. I'm trying to improve my typo problem. So that sentence above should have read o "A large component of the political spectrum do feel alienated from science and that does leave them - and so as we now find with AGW - Science itself, vulnerable in a way it once was not. Vulnerable to this kind of manipulation, from admittedly even fouler sources. What would be a good piece of science would be to find out (a) what the impact this internal corrupt practice within science of effectively making political views a criteria for gettingices o ahead. and (a) about the practices deployed to distort the public view. How many people that are found first by the sophisticated denial approach, ever change their mind? And vice verca? Do you have evidence that "conservatives have been pushed and kept out (of academia)"? Whilst it is true that people who's views lie outside the current paradigm might be pushed out, I'd be very surprised if that aligned along the conservative-progressive political axis - except perhaps in Political Science departments. And Business and Economics departments, where the current paradigm in the U.S. is 'free market capitalism'. 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/d/optout.
