RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

['Chris de Morsella ' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:28 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

 

On 23 April 2014 15:09, 'Chris de Morsella ' via 
Everything List  wrote:

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

>>Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but 
>>reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything 
>>nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to 
>>reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be 
>>installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it 
>>will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be 
>>available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us 
>>never the less.

And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) 
of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new 
installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's 
total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting 
installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and 
Thailand.  The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target 
of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 
GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of 
installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move 
to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly 
based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are 
a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program 
-- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving 
aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly 
overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of 
its installed solar PV base.
What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has 
(in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads 
the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans 
mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually 
leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy 
with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by 
comparison has less than 5 GW.
Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in 
Asia -- lead again by China.
Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program?

You're engaged in a smog reduction programme yourself! :-)

 

LOL Yes J

Information smog enables the carbon interests to continue to keep the world 
addicted to their product, at great profit for them, hence the motive.

 

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[LizR]

On 23 April 2014 15:09, 'Chris de Morsella ' via
Everything List  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
>
> >>Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but
> reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything
> nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to
> reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be
> installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it
> will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must
> be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will
> help us never the less.
>
> And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts
> (GW) of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total
> for new installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over
> last year's total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity
> (95%) is getting installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan,
> India, Australia, and Thailand.  The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently
> announced an aggressive target of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed
> on rooftops, and the remaining 4 GW located on the ground. It has set
> itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of installed solar power capacity by
> the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move to transition away from a
> carbon based energy towards a system increasingly based off of harvesting
> the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are a little confused on
> the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program -- though it will
> certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving aggressively on a
> large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly overtaking the US --
> which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of its installed
> solar PV base.
> What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also
> has (in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters,
> and leads the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans
> and Europeans mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is
> that actually leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW,
> followed by Italy with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as
> China's 250GW) The US by comparison has less than 5 GW.
> Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be
> made in Asia -- lead again by China.
> Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program?
>
> You're engaged in a smog reduction programme yourself! :-)

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

['Chris de Morsella ' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

Yes they're trying to reduce smog but that should still have that effect to 
some extent (reducing AGW). But yes, clean green energy is needed - maybe 
nuclear reactors (Russia is doing a good line in small portable reactors, I 
believe). Probably not THE best solution but needs must...

 

Solar PV is on, continues to be on and has long been on a path of geometric 
growth and of rapidly falling prices. Within five years or so it is going to be 
the least expensive form of electric power generation bar none; and will have a 
very large existing manufacturing base able to churn out the equivalent of many 
new nuclear power plants per year. People need to understand geometric growth 
in order to understand the what is going on with PV. Already PV supplies about 
1% of the world’s electricity. It’s capacity (and hence capacity to produce) is 
doubling every two and a half years or so. How many doublings of 1% does it 
take to become the dominant electric energy supply?

Not that many with just five doublings it reaches 32% of total generation, 
which would definitely make it the dominant electric energy player. I have been 
hearing prognosticators pronounce solar dead every year – several times a year 
– for the past ten years – if I had a nickel for every “in the know” person who 
has told me it is dead I could at least buy myself a very nice dinner. For an 
alleged corpse it has proven to be remarkably dynamic…. No? 

The global – Asia centered – solar sector, already has a well-developed global 
supply chain from mine to rooftop; it has achieved the kind of scale that 
ensures it can and will continue to muscle its way into the world electricity 
markets, inexorably expanding its market share.

Solar is going to win on price. And that is the reason it is going to win. 

 

On 23 April 2014 14:04,  wrote:


Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but reducing 
smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything nowbin east asia 
as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to reduce carbon 
emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be installed quickly, 
reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it will be cleaner then 
coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or 
steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us never the less.

 

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

['Chris de Morsella ' via Everything List]

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

>>Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but 
>>reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything 
>>nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to 
>>reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be 
>>installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it 
>>will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must be 
>>available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will help us 
>>never the less.

And yet... APAC countries are forecast to install more than 23 gigawatts (GW) 
of solar PV in 2014, which is around half of the expected world total for new 
installed capacity for this year and is a 35% annual growth over last year's 
total for the APAC region. Almost all of this new capacity (95%) is getting 
installed in just five (APAC) countries: China, Japan, India, Australia, and 
Thailand.  The Chinese Bureau of Energy recently announced an aggressive target 
of 12 GW for 2014, with 8 GW to be installed on rooftops, and the remaining 4 
GW located on the ground. It has set itself a goal of having 35 gigawatts of 
installed solar power capacity by the end of 2015. This is an aggressive move 
to transition away from a carbon based energy towards a system increasingly 
based off of harvesting the natural and FREE solar flux. Again I think you are 
a little confused on the facts here. This is not just a smog reduction program 
-- though it will certainly contribute to reducing smog -- this is moving 
aggressively on a large scale towards solar power. China is very rapidly 
overtaking the US -- which already lags behind Germany and Italy -- in terms of 
its installed solar PV base. 
What most Americans and also Europeans are not aware of is that China also has 
(in 2012) an installed base of 250GW of rooftop solar water heaters, and leads 
the world in solar hot water heating by a huge margin. Americans and Europeans 
mostly burn natural gas to heat their water. Following? Or is that actually 
leading? The next largest country is Germany with about 30GW, followed by Italy 
with about 20GW (nice but not in the same league as China's 250GW) The US by 
comparison has less than 5 GW.
Oh and by the way more than 80% of PV modules produced globally will be made in 
Asia -- lead again by China.
Is this what you meant by a smog reduction program?
Chris


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air 
pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the 
problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/


*an environmental pun, what next?



On 23 April 2014 09:04,   wrote:
Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a 
techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich.  If 
we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said 
then done, but what isn't?
 
The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold 
war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor 
pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do 
peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the 
Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why 
we have war.
 
Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than 
what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise 
its revolution and war.
 
You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing 
in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror --  that the 
military industrial complex has profited so nicely  from… In the amount of 
trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy 
trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – 
on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice 
the four hundred pound hogs.
Chris





-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm
Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

 
 
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
 
Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate 
remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out 
for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy 
train

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[LizR]

I should have said, my emphasis.


On 23 April 2014 14:23, LizR  wrote:

> I was just a bit surprised at his use of "billions" rather than "millions"
> which in context seems rather extravagant. Actually google indicates that I
> am not alone in wondering this.
>
> http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2006/12/did_mark_twain_1.html
>
> Wikiquote also agrees with me :-)
>
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years
> before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from
> it.
>
>- Quoted in Dawkins, 
> Richard(2006). "A Much Needed 
> Gap?". *The
>God Delusion*. Bantam Press. p. 354. ISBN 
> 0-618-68000-4
>., but no source is given. *Note that during Twain's life the Age of
>the Earth  was thought to be
>measured in tens of millions not billions of years.*
>
>
>

-- 
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: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[LizR]

I was just a bit surprised at his use of "billions" rather than "millions"
which in context seems rather extravagant. Actually google indicates that I
am not alone in wondering this.

http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2006/12/did_mark_twain_1.html

Wikiquote also agrees with me :-)

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years
before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from
it.

   - Quoted in Dawkins,
Richard(2006). "A Much
Needed Gap?". *The
   God Delusion*. Bantam Press. p. 354. ISBN
0-618-68000-4
   ., but no source is given. *Note that during Twain's life the Age of the
   Earth  was thought to be
   measured in tens of millions not billions of years.*

-- 
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: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[spudboy100]

Even if Clemmens said it, I don't take that statement as anything more 
than a witty line. When his daughter died, she was a pre schooler, I 
had read the it messed him up. Yes, we can jolly it all away till it 
happens to us and hits home. Then its a different story, and I don't 
mean Tom Sawyer. Twains last published short story, released after his 
death in 1910, was about people rowing about in what turned out to be a 
water drop under a microscope, under which an ever present giant eye 
monitored the passengers struggle to survive.  The eye was Twains idea 
of an uncaring God.


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

On 23 April 2014 11:37, meekerdb  wrote:


"I do not fear death,  in view of the fact that I had been dead for 
billions and billions  of years before I was born, and had not 
suffered the slightest  inconvenience from it."'

     --- Mark Twain



Did Mark Twain really say that? I thought the age of the Eartfr was  
estimated to be millions of years (as in "The Time Machine") around the 
end of the 19th century, but I don't know what people thought the age 
of the universe was.







--
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[LizR]

Yes they're trying to reduce smog but that should still have that effect to
some extent (reducing AGW). But yes, clean green energy is needed - maybe
nuclear reactors (Russia is doing a good line in small portable reactors, I
believe). Probably not THE best solution but needs must...


On 23 April 2014 14:04,  wrote:

>
> Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but
> reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything
> nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way then to
> reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, that can be
> installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will follow, because it
> will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper thsn nukes. But it must
> be available to buy or steal from us, so if the chinese do this, it will
> help us never the less.
>

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[spudboy100]

Understood, but China is not pursuing a policy of eliminating AGW, but 
reducing smog in its cities. Its not a kumbaya  moment now for anything 
nowbin east asia as you hsve noticed, regarding china. The best way 
then to reduce carbon emissions is to develop clean energy generators, 
that can be installed quickly, reliably, abundantly, and china will 
follow, because it will be cleaner then coal, and quicker and cheaper 
thsn nukes. But it must be available to buy or steal from us, so if the 
chinese do this, it will help us never the less.

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Apr 22, 2014 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* 
air pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, 
because the problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and 
production.


http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/


*an environmental pun, what next?



On 23 April 2014 09:04,   wrote:
Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on 
a techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber 
rich.  If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water 
vapor. Easier said then done, but what isn't?

 
The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old 
cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons 
expansion, nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way 
street. One side cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no 
further than the Putin grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your 
values, are not Putin's values, which is why we have war.

 
Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are 
greater than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards 
better occur, otherwise its revolution and war.

 
You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be 
focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on 
terror --  that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely 
from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start 
talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant 
in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the 
world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound 
hogs.

Chris





-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm
Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

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

 
Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate 
remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all 
looking out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the 
tax payer funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some 
solutions to propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the 
serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had 
brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, 
solutions do.

 
You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be 
focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on 
terror --  that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely 
from… In the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start 
talking about government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant 
in the room. You focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the 
world of government subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound 
hogs.

Chris

 



--
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.






--
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.
V

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[LizR]

On 23 April 2014 11:37, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> "I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for
> billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the
> slightest inconvenience from it."'
> --- Mark Twain
>

Did Mark Twain really say that? I thought the age of the Eartfr was
estimated to be millions of years (as in "The Time Machine") around the end
of the 19th century, but I don't know what people thought the age of the
universe was.

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[LizR]

I think you'll find China is trying to cut its pollution, particularly* air
pollution, and succeeding to some extent. Basically it has to, because the
problem is so bad that it's severely impacting health and production.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/specials/gpm04/fierce-fight-gdp-air/

*an environmental pun, what next?


On 23 April 2014 09:04,  wrote:

> Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a
> techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber
> rich.  If we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor.
> Easier said then done, but what isn't?
>
> The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old
> cold war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion,
> nor pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side
> cannot do peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin
> grab of the Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's
> values, which is why we have war.
>
> Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater
> than what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur,
> otherwise its revolution and war.
>
>
> You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be
> focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror
> --  that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In
> the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about
> government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You
> focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government
> subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs.
> Chris
>
>   -Original Message-
> From: Chris de Morsella 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm
> Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *spudboy...@aol.com
>
>  Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate
> remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking
> out for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer
> funded gravy train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to
> propose, beyond proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will
> listen. The Reich, the Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working
> for them too. Piling-on doesn't sell, solutions do.
>
> You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be
> focusing in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror
> --  that the military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In
> the amount of trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about
> government gravy trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You
> focus too much – IMO – on the wee little mice (in the world of government
> subsidy) and fail to notice the four hundred pound hogs.
> Chris
>
>   --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2014 4:28 PM, LizR wrote:

would like to read those papers but haven't had time yet.


On 23 April 2014 04:00, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


On 22 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Pierz wrote:


Just came across this presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who is
knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got the gist. 
What
intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm wondering if anyone can 
throw any
more light on it. He makes a lot of jumps which are obviously clear in his 
mind but
hard to follow. He says that MWI is supportable by the maths, but that he 
prefers a
"zero universes" interpretation, according to which we are classical 
simulations in
a quantum computer. I'm not sure I follow this. I mean, I can follow the 
idea of
being a classical simulation in a quantum computer, but I can't see how 
this is
different from MWI, except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to 
be
unreal because they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I 
guess what
interested me was the possibility of a coherent alternative to MWI (because 
frankly
MWI scares the willies out of me),


Me too. But at some deeper level my open-mindedness on this is  "protected" 
by an
even bigger fear: the fear to get it wrong.




"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions 
of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."'

--- 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.

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[LizR]

I would like to read those papers but haven't had time yet.


On 23 April 2014 04:00, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 22 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Pierz wrote:
>
> Just came across this presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
>
> It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who is
> knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got the gist.
> What intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm wondering if anyone
> can throw any more light on it. He makes a lot of jumps which are obviously
> clear in his mind but hard to follow. He says that MWI is supportable by
> the maths, but that he prefers a "zero universes" interpretation, according
> to which we are classical simulations in a quantum computer. I'm not sure I
> follow this. I mean, I can follow the idea of being a classical simulation
> in a quantum computer, but I can't see how this is different from MWI,
> except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to be unreal because
> they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I guess what
> interested me was the possibility of a coherent alternative to MWI (because
> frankly MWI scares the willies out of me),
>
>
> Me too. But at some deeper level my open-mindedness on this is
>  "protected" by an even bigger fear: the fear to get it wrong.
>
>
> but in spite of what he said, I couldn't see what it was...
>
>
> Physicists are unclear on what they mean by "world". I agree with you: to
> be a classical emulation in a quantum computer is basically equivalent with
> the MWI, assuming computationalism and a level above the quantum level.
>
> Computationalism can be ontologically simpler, as all there is needed is
> the number 0, and its successors, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and nothing else. (the
> dreams will emerge from the additive-multiplicative relations).
>
> This is automatically a 0 worlds a priori. But sharable dreams can cohere
> enough to make open the question if we are in a complete (in some sense)
> physical reality (one universe), or one multiverse, or a cluster of
> multiverses, etc. But this is only from inside, because from "outside", all
> what exists are the piece of dreams which cohere (enough or not).
>
> Here "dream" means "computation from some point of view".
>
> That is what is translated in arithmetic by "sigma_1" and provable by a
> machine ("me" in 3p), in a consistent environment, that is "[]p & <>t",
> with p an arithmetical sigma_1 sentence. (+ the "theaetetus nuance: []p &
> <>t & p).
>
> Is there a consolation for the MWI fears?
>
> Well "MWI" is not the explanation, it is the whole "theology" which is the
> explanation, and things are complex there, especially after 1500 years of
> "no mind change" on this. You might really read Plato, neoplatonists, the
> mystics, and study the comparison with some eastern school, ... and with
> actual machine's self-reference.
>
> Bruno
>
> *Life, what is it, but a dream. (*Lewis Carroll*)*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[spudboy100]

Yeah, it will be costly whether we live or die. It's better to focus on a 
techno fix rather than social engineering by red-greens, and the uber rich.  If 
we want to reduce heating, then reduce CO2, methane, water vapor. Easier said 
then done, but what isn't? 

The military industrial complex was a feature on both sides of the old cold 
war, and china, for example has not renounced its weapons expansion, nor 
pollution. Peace, by behavior, has to be a two way street. One side cannot do 
peace while the other pursues war. Look no further than the Putin grab of the 
Ukraine for a timely example. Your values, are not Putin's values, which is why 
we have war. 

Probably, if people get focused on intermediate rewards that are greater than 
what war brings, we could have peace. But those rewards better occur, otherwise 
its revolution and war.


You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing 
in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror --  that the 
military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of 
trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy 
trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – 
on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice 
the four hundred pound hogs.
Chris




-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm
Subject: RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



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

Simply put, we need better energy technology, for energy and climate 
remediation, and not better government dictatorship, who, are all looking out 
for us all. If climate scientists want to pile on to the tax payer funded gravy 
train, that is incidental. If they have some solutions to propose, beyond 
proposing green fascist rules for the serfs, then I will listen. The Reich, the 
Soviets, and Mao, had brilliant scientists working for them too. Piling-on 
doesn't sell, solutions do. 
 
You sound confused. By tax payer funded gravy train did not seem to be focusing 
in on the more or less permanent state of war – the war on terror --  that the 
military industrial complex has profited so nicely from… In the amount of 
trillions of dollars. If you want to start talking about government gravy 
trains why not begin with the elephant in the room. You focus too much – IMO – 
on the wee little mice (in the world of government subsidy) and fail to notice 
the four hundred pound hogs.
Chris

 


-- 
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: Barriers to 'hearing' other viewpoints

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2014, at 15:19, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

First of all, on reflection I think my behaviour has been a little  
hostile lately, and I'd like to broadcast a general apology about  
that. Not only Bruno, but I make a special mention for him because  
the guy gives me and other people a lot of time, and I was actually  
rather unpleasant in at least one post. Sorry man!  But also no  
exceptions to this 'sorry'...the only reason I don't mention each  
and every regrettable conduct, is because then maybe I'd be  
forgetting someone. One other problem is the swearing...which is a  
behaviour reasonable avoid rules aboutbecause everyone is  
reasonable. I think I've been flying close to unreasonable...so  
again apologies for that also. Can we put it all down to a few hard  
days at the office :O)


No problem. Glad you were aware, and that you have the courtesy to  
recognize.





So the interesting part of any self-reflection is normally - for me  
- about noticing how easy it is to pigeon hole other people - or  
their views - based on small evidence and/or perhaps mistakes that  
they are making in how they judge you - me...oneself. What I'd like  
to say about this, is I don't think it's a very interesting matter,  
save those aspects that are fairly general to all or most people. At  
least as 'risks' or 'influences' or 'tendencies.


For example, thinking about the Internet, an observation would be  
that many debates that are important, are heavily represented across  
internet social/debate mediums, and that by-and-large there are  
typical battle-lines which are fairly reliably drawn in terms, not  
of a specific position but 'packages' of positions...often which -  
also reliably - span not just one of the important contemporary  
questions, but a whole a range. Reliably enough, spanning really  
large patchworks of political/philosophical/social positionings.


So...no surprisesthat a landscape such as this gives rise to the  
'rule of thumb'. If someone introduces him/her self into a debate  
with a certain positioning, the rule of thumb can be  powerful  
psychological imprint for a great many people in that debate.  
Particularly when a debate has become furious, distrusting, and  
intractable. What I'd suggest - based on personal observations of  
myself...and other people toois that these 'rule of thumbs' that  
we experience online, in certain types of debate (like climate) are  
actually subject to a kind of group-think self-fulfilling  
accelerant. It's not just the 'other' side that will pigeon hole our  
position, but the 'home' side.


People on one side will assume you are one of the 'good' guys in  
that debate. They will leap to your defence, just as those from the  
'other' side, having identified you as one of the 'bad' guys of the  
debate will have thrown possibly some slightly loaded response at  
you. A hostile projection from one direction, and a friendly/homely  
projection from another, can sort of drive you into a 'camp' that  
perhaps represents package of positions that you are very much not  
on board with. But the ferocity of the argument can be such that,  
you never really get a chance to position yourself in a way that  
might have been much easier for people on all sides to bridge.


It's not that we don't try. We do try, but chances are, the other  
side will have a lot of individuals who are currently midway through  
a heated debate, intellectually enraged about one thing or another,  
and chances are the way these attempts at individual positioning  
will be received, will be as weaknesses, or opportunities, to make  
some allegationwhich in fact is also typically a package of  
positions, not just an allegation but also including various slants  
on professed innocence, or purety of motivationpregnancies of  
proving associations,...that if this allegation that your attempt at  
an individual positioning just opened the door to, is true...and the  
argument is suddenly that it must be based on what you just tried to  
say..,.,..that all those other connected positions are true also.


So the whole place just explodes in a new round of enraged  
arguing...with the net result of hardening the engrained battle- 
lines, rather than softening.


I'm offering the above very much as an ad-lib written 'illustration'  
of what is very much one instance - I think - of a more general  
difficulty...that may be related to the complexities of the  
communication revolution we are still in the early stages of. I'll  
be viewing the presentation telmo recommends in his latest post to  
the cannabis thread, because I think the issues he touches on in the  
bullet points are significant. The perception I'm offering here is  
that, we seem to be finding it harder and harder to talk to about  
anything that is more and more important that we should be. Be 'we'  
I mean humanity on the airwaves in general.


I am probably simple minded, but I think tha

Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2014, at 02:39, Pierz wrote:

I agree with you, up to the point when you start advocating (on the  
other thread?) the notion that drink driving should be legal.


Well, I agree that we have to wait the politics invests a bit more in  
education.






The key point relates to harm caused.



OK. I would say that the key point is harm reduction.





If you choose to smoke tobacco and thereby ruin your lungs and put  
yourself at risk of lung cancer, it's your body, your choice.


OK. You do have the right to cross the ocean with a sieve. Your friend  
have the right to inform you that it is risky, but they have not the  
right to impeach you to do what you have decided to do (unless medical  
evidence that you lost your mind, if that is possible).





But I support the right of others around you not to have to  
passively inhale your drug and thereby suffer harm for your choices.  
Same goes for drink driving. It'd be fine if others weren't  
affected, but they are, and the fact is that many people lack  
responsibility, so to try to make them be responsible for themselves  
is as pointless as trying to make a three year old be responsible  
for him or herself.


I am not sure. you are betting that people are stupid and  
irresponsible. but most are not. If you have some right, you learn the  
responsibility. If the society protects you too much it makes you  
irresponsible.


I would not vote for the right to drive with alcohol in one day. This  
would be a ten years program, and experiment in some willing state  
before perhaps, and may be only to people above 25 years, to begin with.


My bet, is that in the long run, this would cure the real cause of the  
accident, which is the irresponsible driving, and the driving codes  
which encourage the responsibility. I bet this would save lives, and  
diminish the harm.


You know, some automated part of the automated pilot in plane, have  
lead to similar problems, and now pilot have to learn technic to stay  
vigilant about that. Some circuits have been eliminated, I heard, to  
be sure that the pilot reminds that he is the pilot, not the plane  
(yet).






When I worked as a counsellor with offenders, we used to run a  
program called "consequential thinking" in which we tried to drum  
into the minds of prisoners the simple notion that actions have  
consequences that they might like to think about before doing  
something. Wasted breath, much of the time.


On a special audience, though.



The main point of the law is to prevent and/or minimize the harm we  
cause night cause others through our ignorance, unregulated emotion,  
selfishness etc. It should not be paternalistically concerned with  
the harm we cause ourselves, because then we get into the realm of  
all kinds of problematic judgements (like 'sinful' sexual practices)  
- we can't trust "society" to know what's best for us.


OK.



Wearing a bike helmet or seatbelt is a grey area because arguably  
the costs to society/the health system etc of our sustaining a  
serious traffic injury are a significant 'harm' to others, and so in  
any society in which everyone pays to provide services for all, we  
must weight up questions of personal liberty against the  
responsibility to limit the extent to which we prevail upon the  
support of the health system due to bad choices.


OK.





This of course also could be argument for banning smoking, but  
that's where the heavy taxation of tobacco comes in - you pay a  
disproportionate tax in order to support the health system that  
you're more likely to need.


On another subject, we know that swiy likes salvia. I wonder if he  
has tried DMT? Swim has, and he tells me it was pretty terrifying,  
whereas he enjoys salvia. With salvia he almost feels a sense of  
homecoming,


Swim can relate.



a relief to be reunited with something transcendent,


OK.



whereas with DMT it's like being shot down the barrel of a cannon  
into some bizarre cartoon-world ruled by a maniacal god hell bent on  
busting his sanity. Or maybe he's just not hitting the salvia hard  
enough... ;)



Swim never smoked DMT, but made an oral experience, which was a bit  
like you describe, although rather mild, but with strong reaction from  
liver/stomach.


From the reports it seems DMT is like the "magical garden or  
carnival" part of the salvia experience, where you are given somehow  
the choice to go through or not. I have few report of dissociation  
with high doses (less than with LSD).


Now, like PGC said, different dosage => possible different experience.  
With salvia it seems that there is that clear threshold, but even that  
is debatable, and by salvia inverse tolerance, breaking through can be  
done with smaller and smaller amount of salvinorin.
Salvia has many effects and each such effects is present or not in  
different people, or even for the same people in different sets and  
setting.


Swim is baffled by salvia.

I try to understand 

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Pierz wrote:


Just came across this presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who  
is knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got  
the gist. What intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm  
wondering if anyone can throw any more light on it. He makes a lot  
of jumps which are obviously clear in his mind but hard to follow.  
He says that MWI is supportable by the maths, but that he prefers a  
"zero universes" interpretation, according to which we are classical  
simulations in a quantum computer. I'm not sure I follow this. I  
mean, I can follow the idea of being a classical simulation in a  
quantum computer, but I can't see how this is different from MWI,  
except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to be unreal  
because they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I  
guess what interested me was the possibility of a coherent  
alternative to MWI (because frankly MWI scares the willies out of me),


Me too. But at some deeper level my open-mindedness on this is   
"protected" by an even bigger fear: the fear to get it wrong.




but in spite of what he said, I couldn't see what it was...


Physicists are unclear on what they mean by "world". I agree with you:  
to be a classical emulation in a quantum computer is basically  
equivalent with the MWI, assuming computationalism and a level above  
the quantum level.


Computationalism can be ontologically simpler, as all there is needed  
is the number 0, and its successors, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and nothing  
else. (the dreams will emerge from the additive-multiplicative  
relations).


This is automatically a 0 worlds a priori. But sharable dreams can  
cohere enough to make open the question if we are in a complete (in  
some sense) physical reality (one universe), or one multiverse, or a  
cluster of multiverses, etc. But this is only from inside, because  
from "outside", all what exists are the piece of dreams which cohere  
(enough or not).


Here "dream" means "computation from some point of view".

That is what is translated in arithmetic by "sigma_1" and provable by  
a machine ("me" in 3p), in a consistent environment, that is "[]p &  
<>t", with p an arithmetical sigma_1 sentence. (+ the "theaetetus  
nuance: []p & <>t & p).


Is there a consolation for the MWI fears?

Well "MWI" is not the explanation, it is the whole "theology" which is  
the explanation, and things are complex there, especially after 1500  
years of "no mind change" on this. You might really read Plato,  
neoplatonists, the mystics, and study the comparison with some eastern  
school, ... and with actual machine's self-reference.


Bruno

Life, what is it, but a dream. (Lewis Carroll)








--
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: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Apr 2014, at 17:46, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:05:20 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:





Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked  
with cannabis use,


http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs

Sounds pretty serious.






Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper  
show is just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they  
talk about joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and  
marijuana, and it is not clear if they have verified that the person  
did not also drink alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that  
cannabis augments the number of neurons, and it is not clear in what  
sense those deformations constitutes a problem.


You haven't been forthcoming about the evidence for serious brain  
damage as a result of cannabis. When I said I'd seen two friends  
institutionalised, you didn't acknowledge, yes there is serious  
evidence for brain damage of this kind. You didn't do that.


I only said that two cases are not a statistics. Then the references  
given talk on multiuplication of neurons, and yes, both nicotine and  
some cannabinoids seems to have that property, but unless you show me  
evidence of a role in deformation or brain damage, statsitically  
relevant, I consider this as speculation.







You are apparently making the same sort of mistake as you do over on  
climate threads. Taking everything into account, is not a case of  
any two lines of evidence, one being negative one being positive,  
can be compared and played off against one another.


I will aske you to quote me. I don't even remember having taking part  
in the climate thread, except to say I am not an expert on climate,  
and explain that my common sense would encourage two always chose the  
less polluting alternative, and I illustrate that this is difficult  
with the corporate interests (well illustrated in the Hemp/Oil  
alternative last century).






Evidence for serious brain damage, can be compared to evidence for  
serious brain enhancements...or neutral effects. In the event of  
neutral effects, then the median would still be in the negative,  
since the other evidence is for serious brain damage.


Comparing to alcohol, which is already legal and embedded into  
society, is not a sort of, opportunity for an open season arguing  
for other harmful substances be embedded into society in the same way.


Why, we can measure brain damage after the ingestion of one glass on  
wine, and the evidences are that alcohol is *far* more damaging than  
cannabis, at many levels. So if people are informed on the risks,  
cannabis can be a safer alternative.


A good book written by cops of LEAP on that very point is: "Marijuana  
is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?":


http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Safer-Driving-People-Drink/dp/1603581448/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top







Cannabis is clearly a very mixed bag. There is clearly some very  
worrying evidence linking cannabis to mental illness.



That point is controversial. The link might be due to the fact that  
cannabis seems to help people with mental illness.


Again, for the illegality, we would expect a comparison with alcohol  
and legal medication.






There is also a lot of individual testimony linking cannabis to a  
collapse in most interest in life, ambition, goals, responsibilities.


This is something which I have stopped to believe.

I know someone who took for 10 years cannabis as a sleeping pill. One  
day, I told him, he could also use it remain alert and awake (he got a  
lot of work, and search something to work the night). He tried this  
with success.


All case of "lost motivation" seems to be in case of people lacking  
motivation, and used cannabis to pretext their lack of motivation. But  
of course when the adult around plays the "exepected role",  
dramatizing the situation and glad to have a simple culprit (the drug  
evil).


On all user, cannabis enchance the motivation, and amplifies the  
pleasure people can have with any pleasing thing (be it, sex, music,  
video, TV, movies, climbing, surfing, or doing math (for those who  
like), etc. It is, like alcohol, (but safer) mainly a life appetizer  
(unlike more typical hallucinogen or dissociative which are more  
afterlife appetizers).






So there's a lot of really negative information and you want to  
sweep all that under the carpet and discredit the sources. That's  
very devious conduct, on the face of things.


Which sources? I discredited only your statistics.





But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all  
studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people  
who will not ask the ID to their "clients". On the contrary, the  
criminals will target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug  
without any price an

Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Pierz  wrote:

> I agree with you, up to the point when you start advocating (on the other
> thread?) the notion that drink driving should be legal. The key point
> relates to harm caused. If you choose to smoke tobacco and thereby ruin
> your lungs and put yourself at risk of lung cancer, it's your body, your
> choice. But I support the right of others around you not to have to
> passively inhale your drug and thereby suffer harm for *your* choices.
>

I inhale pollution every day from large city traffic. Have lived in million
citizen smog bowl cities around the globe. But people's irritation to
passive smoke always amuses me: let's make driving and fossil fuel use
illegal then.

I mean sure, there is no arguing against long term exposure to smoking, say
in some work environment, where in some close enclosure you are to tolerate
the boss' chronic cigar smoke at 2 feet distance.

But for Jazz bars and outdoor venues etc, I think prohibiting smoking for
passive smoking harms just makes people more nervous with their hands
fumbling around, conversation gets so functionally boring, and the whole
event looks like some children's party for adults.

Oh, and the "but my clothes smell funny" whine... like we haven't invented
washing machines; or like those whiners never wash their clothes (which is
really gross and raises more of a red flag than somebody lighting up
whatever it is that they are inhaling next to me). Give me a break, there
are greater threats to humans than passive smoke.


> Same goes for drink driving. It'd be fine if others weren't affected, but
> they are, and the fact is that many people lack responsibility, so to try
> to make them be responsible for themselves is as pointless as trying to
> make a three year old be responsible for him or herself.
>

You assume people will never change. Speak for yourself, but I wouldn't
impose that on others, because I simply don't know.


> When I worked as a counsellor with offenders, we used to run a program
> called "consequential thinking" in which we tried to drum into the minds of
> prisoners the simple notion that actions have consequences that they might
> like to think about before doing something. Wasted breath, much of the
> time.
>

You can't relate something as complex as responsibility by telling people
about it.


> The main point of the law is to prevent and/or minimize the harm we cause
> night cause others through our ignorance, unregulated emotion, selfishness
> etc.
>

This is paternalistic though. Who says you are certainly ignorant, cannot
regulate your emotions, and are default selfish?


> It should not be paternalistically concerned with the harm we cause
> ourselves, because then we get into the realm of all kinds of problematic
> judgements (like 'sinful' sexual practices) - we can't trust "society" to
> know what's best for us.
>

Again, I wouldn't presume to know what or what not we can trust society
with.


> Wearing a bike helmet or seatbelt is a grey area because arguably the
> costs to society/the health system etc of our sustaining a serious traffic
> injury are a significant 'harm' to others, and so in any society in which
> everyone pays to provide services for all, we must weight up questions of
> personal liberty against the responsibility to limit the extent to which we
> prevail upon the support of the health system due to bad choices. This of
> course also could be argument for banning smoking, but that's where the
> heavy taxation of tobacco comes in - you pay a disproportionate tax in
> order to support the health system that you're more likely to need.
>

You are arguing pro NSA big brother plus implementation and observation of
vice control mechanisms and penalties, implicitly here.


>
> On another subject, we know that swiy likes salvia. I wonder if he has
> tried DMT? Swim has, and he tells me it was pretty terrifying, whereas he
> enjoys salvia. With salvia he almost feels a sense of homecoming, a relief
> to be reunited with something transcendent, whereas with DMT it's like
> being shot down the barrel of a cannon into some bizarre cartoon-world
> ruled by a maniacal god hell bent on busting his sanity. Or maybe he's just
> not hitting the salvia hard enough... ;)
>

There are thousands of experience reports out there. I'd say Sally smells
much better, than Dimitri who smells like morbid grave. But right on the
edge of that morbid grave cloud of death smell, there are, upon closer
inspection with the right kind of nose: gardens of Eden and palaces of
infinite... oh, never mind. Correct dose finding, can this be? PGC


>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:34:23 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Apr 2014, at 04:40, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>> PGC - you have spoken some great wisdom in this post. Personally I can
>> see the time quickly arriving when it will become the self evident
>> responsibility of education to provide young people with the knowledge to
>> recreate 

Re: Barriers to 'hearing' other viewpoints

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 2:19:07 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
>
 
 

> The perception I'm offering here is that, we seem to be finding it harder 
> and harder to talk to about anything that is more and more important that 
> we should be. Be 'we' I mean humanity on the airwaves in general. 
>
 
Which is obviously not a rarified perception in and of itself...in fact 
it'd be reasonable to say it's a perception a lot nearer the hackneyed end 
than rare. 
 
But...the significant part of it, I think, is that this list...despite the 
high average IQ's, the average education at academic levels (dragged down 
by the likes of me), and the over all reasonable countenance of 
individualsis nevertheless not able to talk and interact 'above the 
fray'. Which is interesting...and really I think that's the distinctiveness 
of the perception I'm throwing out. An instance of when stating the obvious 
is a strength.  

-- 
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.

Barriers to 'hearing' other viewpoints

[ghibbsa]

First of all, on reflection I think my behaviour has been a little hostile 
lately, and I'd like to broadcast a general apology about that. Not only 
Bruno, but I make a special mention for him because the guy gives me and 
other people a lot of time, and I was actually rather unpleasant in at 
least one post. Sorry man!  But also no exceptions to this 'sorry'...the 
only reason I don't mention each and every regrettable conduct, is because 
then maybe I'd be forgetting someone. One other problem is 
the swearing...which is a behaviour reasonable avoid rules 
aboutbecause everyone is reasonable. I think I've been flying close to 
unreasonable...so again apologies for that also. Can we put it all down to 
a few hard days at the office :O) 
 
So the interesting part of any self-reflection is normally - for me - about 
noticing how easy it is to pigeon hole other people - or their views - 
based on small evidence and/or perhaps mistakes that they are making in how 
they judge you - me...oneself. What I'd like to say about this, is I don't 
think it's a very interesting matter, save those aspects that are fairly 
general to all or most people. At least as 'risks' or 'influences' or 
'tendencies. 
 
For example, thinking about the Internet, an observation would be that many 
debates that are important, are heavily represented across internet 
social/debate mediums, and that by-and-large there are typical battle-lines 
which are fairly reliably drawn in terms, not of a specific position but 
'packages' of positions...often which - also reliably - span not just one 
of the important contemporary questions, but a whole a range. Reliably 
enough, spanning really large patchworks of political/philosophical/social 
positionings. 
 
So...no surprisesthat a landscape such as this gives rise to the 'rule 
of thumb'. If someone introduces him/her self into a debate with a certain 
positioning, the rule of thumb can be  powerful psychological imprint for a 
great many people in that debate. Particularly when a debate has become 
furious, distrusting, and intractable. What I'd suggest - based on personal 
observations of myself...and other people toois that these 'rule of 
thumbs' that we experience online, in certain types of debate (like 
climate) are actually subject to a kind of group-think self-fulfilling 
accelerant. It's not just the 'other' side that will pigeon hole our 
position, but the 'home' side. 
 
People on one side will assume you are one of the 'good' guys in that 
debate. They will leap to your defence, just as those from the 'other' 
side, having identified you as one of the 'bad' guys of the debate will 
have thrown possibly some slightly loaded response at you. A hostile 
projection from one direction, and a friendly/homely projection from 
another, can sort of drive you into a 'camp' that perhaps represents 
package of positions that you are very much not on board with. But the 
ferocity of the argument can be such that, you never really get a chance to 
position yourself in a way that might have been much easier for people on 
all sides to bridge. 
 
It's not that we don't try. We do try, but chances are, the other side will 
have a lot of individuals who are currently midway through a heated debate, 
intellectually enraged about one thing or another, and chances are the way 
these attempts at individual positioning will be received, will be as 
weaknesses, or opportunities, to make some allegationwhich in fact is 
also typically a package of positions, not just an allegation but also 
including various slants on professed innocence, or purety of 
motivationpregnancies of proving associations,...that if this 
allegation that your attempt at an individual positioning just opened the 
door to, is true...and the argument is suddenly that it must be based on 
what you just tried to say..,.,..that all those other connected positions 
are true also. 
 
So the whole place just explodes in a new round of enraged arguing...with 
the net result of hardening the engrained battle-lines, rather than 
softening. 
 
I'm offering the above very much as an ad-lib written 'illustration' of 
what is very much one instance - I think - of a more general 
difficulty...that may be related to the complexities of the communication 
revolution we are still in the early stages of. I'll be viewing the 
presentation telmo recommends in his latest post to the cannabis thread, 
because I think the issues he touches on in the bullet points are 
significant. The perception I'm offering here is that, we seem to be 
finding it harder and harder to talk to about anything that is more and 
more important that we should be. Be 'we' I mean humanity on the airwaves 
in general. 

-- 
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 t

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2014 4:54 AM, Pierz wrote:
Thanks Brent. I read Mermin and am both wiser and none-the. It seems to me in this paper 
he is chickening out by saying that QM shouldn't really think about the conscious 
observer, because that leads to the "fairy tale" of many worlds. Instead it should 
consider consciousness to reside outside the competent scope of a physical theory.


I don't think he means that.  He just means that it's a separate question from the 
interpretation of QM and that it's a mistake to mix them together.


It's kind of like his answer is to say "don't ask those questions". And he explicitly 
repudiates the notion that "it's all in your head" or that a quantum state is a "summary 
of your knowledge of the system". The correlations are objective. What I liked about the 
paper though was the notion of correlations without correlata (which Garrett invokes) - 
the idea that quantum theory is about (and only about) systemic relationships makes a 
lot of sense. To take the answer to "what is QM telling us?" just a little further 
philosophically than what Mermim is prepared to, I'd say it's telling us (for one thing) 
that we've hit the limits of atomism. We're bouncing off the boundary of the 
reductionistic epistemology.


Anyway, sadly I haven't yet seen anything that could supply a cogent alternative to MWI. 
I'll move on to the other papers tomorrow night... :)


Chris Fuchs is the main proponent of quantum Bayesianism, which also takes the 
wave-function to just be a summary of one's knowledge of the system - and so there is 
nothing surprising about it "collapsing" when you get new information.


Of course another alternative is an objective collapse theory like GRW.  I'm just now 
reading a book by Ghirardi,"Sneaking a Look at God's Cards" which surveys the experiments 
that force the weirdness of QM on us and the various interpretations.  Of course he 
devotes a special chapter to GRW theory, but he is very even handed.


I'm not sure why you're worried about MWI though.  Is it because you read "Divide by 
Infinity"?  I don't think that's what MWI really implies.


Brent



On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:36:16 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:

Read Mermin who has written some popular papers on "The Ithaca 
Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics", e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9801057.pdf
 and the paper by Adami and 
Cerf, which
is where Garrett gets his talk, arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405005
/‎/

They take an information theoric approach to the quantum measurement 
problem and
show that a measurement can only get you part of the information in the 
quantum
state. From the MWI standpoint this 'other information' is in the other 
world
branch.  Mermin and Adami and also Fuchs (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5209.pdf

)
take a more instrumentalist approach in which your conscious perceptions are
fundamental and QM is a way to compute their relations.  The wave-function 
is just a
summary representation of your knowledge of the system. That's why he 
refers to it
as the zero-worlds interpretation; it's all in your (our) mind.

Brent

On 4/21/2014 5:03 PM, Pierz wrote:

Just came across this presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc


It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who is
knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got the gist. 
What
intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm wondering if anyone can 
throw any
more light on it. He makes a lot of jumps which are obviously clear in his 
mind but
hard to follow. He says that MWI is supportable by the maths, but that he 
prefers a
"zero universes" interpretation, according to which we are classical 
simulations in
a quantum computer. I'm not sure I follow this. I mean, I can follow the 
idea of
being a classical simulation in a quantum computer, but I can't see how 
this is
different from MWI, except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to 
be
unreal because they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I 
guess what
interested me was the possibility of a coherent alternative to MWI (because 
frankly
MWI scares the willies out of me), but in spite of what he said, I couldn't 
see
what it was...

-- 
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

Re: Interesting Google tech talk on QM

[Pierz]

Thanks Brent. I read Mermin and am both wiser and none-the. It seems to me 
in this paper he is chickening out by saying that QM shouldn't really think 
about the conscious observer, because that leads to the "fairy tale" of 
many worlds. Instead it should consider consciousness to reside outside the 
competent scope of a physical theory. It's kind of like his answer is to 
say "don't ask those questions". And he explicitly repudiates the notion 
that "it's all in your head" or that a quantum state is a "summary of your 
knowledge of the system". The correlations are objective. What I liked 
about the paper though was the notion of correlations without correlata 
(which Garrett invokes) - the idea that quantum theory is about (and only 
about) systemic relationships makes a lot of sense. To take the answer to 
"what is QM telling us?" just a little further philosophically than what 
Mermim is prepared to, I'd say it's telling us (for one thing) that we've 
hit the limits of atomism. We're bouncing off the boundary of the 
reductionistic epistemology.

Anyway, sadly I haven't yet seen anything that could supply a cogent 
alternative to MWI. I'll move on to the other papers tomorrow night... :)

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:36:16 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>
>  Read Mermin who has written some popular papers on "The Ithaca 
> Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", e.g. 
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9801057.pdf  and the paper by Adami and 
> Cerf, which is where Garrett gets his talk, arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405005
> *‎*
>
> They take an information theoric approach to the quantum measurement 
> problem and show that a measurement can only get you part of the 
> information in the quantum state.  From the MWI standpoint this 'other 
> information' is in the other world branch.  Mermin and Adami and also Fuchs 
> (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.5209.pdf)
>  
> take a more instrumentalist approach in which your conscious perceptions 
> are fundamental and QM is a way to compute their relations.  The 
> wave-function is just a summary representation of your knowledge of the 
> system.  That's why he refers to it as the zero-worlds interpretation; it's 
> all in your (our) mind. 
>
> Brent
>
> On 4/21/2014 5:03 PM, Pierz wrote:
>  
> Just came across this presentation: 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
>  
>  It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who is 
> knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got the gist. 
> What intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm wondering if anyone 
> can throw any more light on it. He makes a lot of jumps which are obviously 
> clear in his mind but hard to follow. He says that MWI is supportable by 
> the maths, but that he prefers a "zero universes" interpretation, according 
> to which we are classical simulations in a quantum computer. I'm not sure I 
> follow this. I mean, I can follow the idea of being a classical simulation 
> in a quantum computer, but I can't see how this is different from MWI, 
> except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to be unreal because 
> they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I guess what 
> interested me was the possibility of a coherent alternative to MWI (because 
> frankly MWI scares the willies out of me), but in spite of what he said, I 
> couldn't see what it was...
>
>  -- 
> 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.
>
>
> 

-- 
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.