date:20140614



On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote:


You're right, oftentimes they do. But I wouldn't include Bruno in
"people" here (if you see what I mean). Once one assumes the existence
of the UD (or rather its infinite trace) the hard problem then becomes
one of justifying in detail every aspect of the *appearance* of matter
through its interaction with mind. Then, as Bruno is wont to say, the
problem turns out to be (at least) twice as hard as we might have
feared. As to the admissibility of the UD, for me, in the end, it's
just another theoretical posit. As it happens, it strikes me as
sufficiently motivated, because once computation is fixed as the base,
I don't see how one would justify restricting its scope to certain
computations in particular.


By Gödel's traditional textbook presentation of the incompleteness  
theorem, the "belief in the UD" is equivalent with the believe in  
elementary arithmetic.


The computable facts are those are equivalent with sigma_1 sentences,  
and proof for sigma_1 sentences.


Actually p <-> []p is true for them. The löbian number can even prove  
p -> []p,

but they still will not prove  []p -> p for all sigma_1 propositions.
For example they still not prove <>t = []f -> f (and f = "0=1" which  
is trivially sigma_0 and thus sigma_1).


Well, I meant that to believe in the UD is a theorem in arithmetic.  
Even a constructive one.


Thanks to many years of research the UD*, which is a sort of splashed  
universal machine, dovetailing on all her abilities, can be put in the  
explicit form below. You need only to believe in the existence of the  
solution of the following universal system of diophantine equations:



Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y

ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2

Qu = B^(5^60)

La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5

Th +  2Z = B^5

L = U + TTh

E = Y + MTh

N = Q^16

R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +  
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)

 + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)

P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2

(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2

4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2

K = R + 1 + HP - H

A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2

C = 2R + 1 Ph

D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga

D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1

F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1

(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1

I don't show this to impress, but to illustrate that arithmetic is  
effectively universal at a rather law level of complexity  
(polynomials!). This results from the works of Putnam, Davis,  
Robinson, Matiyazevich, solving negatively Hilbert tenth problem, and  
Jones, getting a not to big universal (and thus Turing complete)  
system of polynomials.


Ontologically, you need only to believe in the solutions or non  
solutions of those equations.


Of course B^(5^60) is an abbreviation of B * (B * (B * ( ... 5^60  
times, when written in the {s, 0, +, *} language.


The solutions of that system emulates all Turing emulable processes.  
Each choice of the values of the variables A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,  
J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta,  
Ph, and the two parameters:  Nu and X will do, or not do. In fact  
phi_Nu(X) converges iff the numbers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,  
L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph  
exist verifying the universal diophantine equation. So (even without  
CT) anything "computational" is automatically provided by the minimal  
arithmetical realism (subtheory of any current physical theory).


In that sense, comp assumes less than any other theory.

If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select  
and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which  
would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that reason, and  
proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, which  
would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even if  
those Davids and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just  
logically incompatible with mechanism (and that argument is simpler  
than step 8).


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: Selecting your future branch



On 13 Jun 2014, at 20:10, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:


Citeren Bruno Marchal :



On 13 Jun 2014, at 05:06, LizR wrote:


On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
So a person would be a "garden of forking paths" laid out by   
deterministic physics, within which their conscious mind could   
move around (within limits). So the p-zombies are, so to speak,   
the materialist / eliminativist versions of people, while   
consciousness is something that can flow through the "network"   
provided by the p-zombies.


Well, it is simpler to admit the p-zombies are conscious.

But then you can't select your branch, because you end up in all  
of  them!


Yes. That's the point. It makes the outcome non determinable.  
That's  the FPI.


Bruno



The persons in the different branches are not the same persons and  
neither of them is the same as the original.


They can be considered as being the same, by being consistent  
extension of the "original".
Of course such identity is not transitive. The W-copy and the M-copy  
are both equal (in that personal identity sense) to the H-guy (the  
"original" in Helsinki), but are different from each others.




You only exist at each instant of time, a moment later who exists   
is no longer the orignal you.


Not in the usual use of "I" (be it 3p or 1p). I live not just an  
instant. I would not do a cup of coffee if I did not knew that I will  
benefit of it.


Accepting amnesia here, we get that we are already all the same  
person. But this would be misleading to use to derive physics, which  
is not concerned with personal identity, but statistics on possible  
consistent extensions.




In case there is no  slitting, you can reconstruct the original from  
the new as the inverse time evolution will reconver the original  
person. When there has been a splitting into dofferent branches, you  
need all the branches to recover the original person.


Or its code before the splitting.

Bruno




Saibal

--
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: Selecting your future branch

On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:22, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> We have agree that free will = will

If free will just means will then why stick on the "free" ?

Because we believe that "free" does not add anything, except some  
emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of freedom.

> = ability to make an image of an uncertain local future (will I  
drink tea or coffee?), and to make choice

Did you really think you could sneak in a word like "choice" without  
me noticing? The ability to make a choice = the ability to have free  
will and  the ability to have free will = ability to make a choice.  
And round and round we go.

We have self-indeterminacy?? I could not fail to disagree with  
you less.

>>>This astonished me

>> What astonishes you?

> That you dismiss the Turing indeterminacy.

 I could not fail to disagree with you less. Indeterminacy means not  
known and in general there is no way to know what a Turing Machine  
will do other than just watch it and see even though there is not  
one ounce of randomness in it.

Well, there is uncertainty. That machine does not know in advance its  
future state, and that is what I meant.

> Usually you dismiss the first person indeterminacy.

I have never in my life said that first person indeterminacy does  
not exist, what I dismissed is that the discovery I sometimes don't  
know what I'm going to do or see next is profound and was first made  
by Bruno Marchal

WONDERFUL!

I am glad you agree now with the FPI. So you accept step 3. I am not  
interested in judging if it is profound or not.  I just say that it  
makes theology, including physics, into a branch of elementary  
arithmetic. Something you might understand if you are willing to move  
on step 4 and sequel.

>> I've been on this list for several years and I've yet to find one  
person who could add anything of interest to the "free will" noise,  
a sound that many like to make with their mouth. There are endless  
debates about if human beings have "free will" or not but both sides  
of the argument quite literally don't know what they're arguing  
about. It's as if geometers where debating if squares were  
klogneated or unklogneated but nobody thinks to ask what klogneated  
means.

> Only bad philosophers do that.

OK I won't argue the point, but that is exactly what happens  
whenever the subject of free will comes up on this list.

In all forum there will always been non compatibilist people,  
creattionist, etc. This does not change the fact that there is a  
compatibilist theory of free-will, and that people can progress in  
that topic.

And if only bad philosophers do that then, well,... I will leave it  
as a exercise to the reader to form a conclusion from that fact.

Yes, and they will see that we agree, and that each time you say "free  
will" is non sense, you mean that the non compatibilist theory of free- 
will is non sense.

You: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon all  
notion of free will.
Me: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon "non  
compatibilism".

You do the same error than with atheism: the christian literal God is  
non sense, so let us decree that all what the christian asserts on God  
is false.

In logic your error is called non valid generalization.

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: TRONNIES - SPACE



On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/13/2014 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program  
of looking for what's most fundamental (in a TOE) and reifying  
it is the right way to look at things.  It leads to making  
strings or numbers, which we never experience, "real" and  
everything we experience (on which we base or theories)  
"illusory".  I think this called the error of the misplaced  
concrete.


In that case we are just no machine and should never accept an  
artificial brain (or UDA is invalid of course).


That doesn't follow.  The doctor can still make a prosthetic  
brain.


Then you have to assume matter, and some magical non Turing  
emulable "essential" property, like its "real existence" to get  
consciousness (and prevent it in the arithmetical reality). that  
is akin to non-comp.


That's confusing (computation theory of mind)->(doctor can make  
artificial brain) with (doctor can make artificial brain)- 
>(computational theory of mind).


Well, I was assuming you intended the guy to survive with the  
prosthetic brain.


We have by definition:

comp theory of mind <-> doctor can make (in principle) a successful  
artificial brain.


But I think you equivocate on "comp theory of mind".  Your eight  
step argument is trying to get from (doctor can make an artificial  
brain) to (comp theory of mind); so it's circular to assume it by  
definition unless you mean two different things by "comp theory of  
mind" depending on which way the -> or <- goes.


?

Comp theory of mind is defined (with <->, not -> nor <-) by "yes  
doctor". It assumes nothing about existence or not of primitive  
matter. It assumes some physical reality rich enough to emulate  
universal machine like brain and doctors.
Then the reasoning show that any possible physical reality has to be  
recovered uniquely from arithmetic.


You introduce a difference between "comp theory of mind" (which is the  
comp hypothesis) and "yes doctor", which is just a tool to explain  
what we mean by "comp theory of mind".


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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 14 Jun 2014, at 03:49, LizR wrote:

On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already
"hugely mind-bogglingly incremental". It has evolved over decades of
incremental improvement involving thousands upon thousands of
workers building up layers of increasing abstraction from the
unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. And yet Siri, far from
being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty much dumb as dog-
shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised intelligence
built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was wearing, and
she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm
still agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this
conspicuous failure represents evidence against computationalism. I
do however consider the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch
(and even our own dear Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains
or something by the end of the century or sooner to be deluded.
Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the computational power required for
human intelligence is already present in a modern laptop; we just
haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I think that is
preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.

This looks like a more realistic estimate...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-human-brain-activity-takes-82944-processors

Making abstraction of the glial cells, and with some high neuronal
description level.

We might survive with such artificial brain, but we might get problem
after month or years.

Bruno

PD I have to go. More comment tomorrow probably.

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.

Disproving physicalism from COMP

Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies.

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select
> and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which
> would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that reason, and
> proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, which
> would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even if

Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to
arithmetic and the primitive matter?

> those Davids and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just
> logically incompatible with mechanism (and that argument is simpler
> than step 8).
> 
> 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.

-- 


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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz > 
> wrote:
>
>  > The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
>> current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
>>
>
> If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
> intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
> just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 
>

For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot is 
understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like make 
a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with intelligence, 
on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature generic 
activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or whatever. Then 
we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can learn skills by 
repetition and we have to be able to say whether these correlations are 
about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of thing has been 
going on now for over a century there are things like 'g factor'. 

It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
want to hear. 

So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
somewhere. 

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz  wrote:
>>
>>  > The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
>>> current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
>>>
>>
>> If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
>> intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
>> just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 
>>
>  
> For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot 
> is understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like 
> make a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with 
> intelligence, on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature 
> generic activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or 
> whatever. Then we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can 
> learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say whether these 
> correlations are about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of 
> thing has been going on now for over a century there are things like 'g 
> factor'. 
>
> It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
> be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
> particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
> it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
> makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
> constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
> want to hear. 
>
> So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
> need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
> anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
> consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
> in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
> field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
> life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
> somewhere. 
>

 Sorry I said " it appears you may be well informed in that respect" but 
meant to say it appeared you MAY NOT be well informed on that respect. 
Purely because you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not 
consciousness. When we've got a hard science of intelligence in humans 
anyway, but  barely a brainfart thrown against the wall for consciousness 
thus far

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
> > Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later. 
> > 
> > 
> > On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
> going by 
> > > a 
> > > > comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
> > > processors 
> > > > haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more "cores", 
> i.e. 
> > > > they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the 
> > > > density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
> predicted 
> > > > amount (or so I'm told). 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
> > > transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
> that 
> > > has 
> > > been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips 
> > > now on the market). 
> > > 
> > > But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
> > > time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
> > > (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
> > > '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
> > > magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
> > > years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
> > > following purchases were made*: 
> > > 
> > > 1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
> > > 1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
> > > 2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
> > > 2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
> > > 2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
> > > 
> > > * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
> > >   facts 
> > > 
> > > Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
> > > function of year. 
> > > 
>
> Incidently, the "kink" at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
> systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
> purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
> colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
> flatter! 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>

it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
which they do with you - my window anyway

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish  > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
>> sophisticated
>> > piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
>> mailing
>> > list/forum software we are using is already "hugely mind-bogglingly
>> > incremental". It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
>> > involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
>> > increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
>> > And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
>> pretty
>> > much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
>> > intelligence built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was 
>> wearing,
>> > and she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm 
>> still
>> > agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
>> > failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
>> consider
>> > the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
>> > Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
>> the
>> > century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
>> > computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
>> in a
>> > modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
>> > think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
>> it.
>> >
>>
>>  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
>> about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
>> Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.
>>
>
>  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by 
> a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
> processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
> "cores", i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
> But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
> predicted amount (or so I'm told).
>   
>  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
> Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
>
> Brent
> "The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
> they build vacuum cleaners."
> --- Anon- 
>
Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from memory 
 - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile industry had 
advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting London-->Oxford in half 
a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in its wake about crashes. 
Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the last he had to say on that 
score. 

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:19:16 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>>> > Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
>>> sophisticated
>>> > piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
>>> mailing
>>> > list/forum software we are using is already "hugely mind-bogglingly
>>> > incremental". It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
>>> > involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
>>> > increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down 
>>> below.
>>> > And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
>>> pretty
>>> > much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
>>> > intelligence built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was 
>>> wearing,
>>> > and she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm 
>>> still
>>> > agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
>>> > failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
>>> consider
>>> > the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
>>> > Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end 
>>> of the
>>> > century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
>>> > computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
>>> in a
>>> > modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
>>> > think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
>>> it.
>>> >
>>>
>>>  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
>>> about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
>>> Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.
>>>
>>
>>  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going 
>> by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
>> processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
>> "cores", i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
>> But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
>> predicted amount (or so I'm told).
>>   
>>  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
>> Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
>>
>> Brent
>> "The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
>> they build vacuum cleaners."
>> --- Anon- 
>>
> Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from 
> memory  - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile 
> industry had advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting 
> London-->Oxford in half a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in 
> its wake about crashes. Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the 
> last he had to say on that score. y 
>

p.s.  just as someone else says they'll stick with Linux anyway, I'll 
probably stick with Microsoft even though I know Apple make a better box 
these days. Possibly silly reasons. I think MS made a lot of mistakes in 
their heydayand paid the price too because for a long while they had 
the power to 'make it so'. Be a monopoly if they wanted to be. But they - 
he - in doing so fooled himself into thinking economic laws are only about 
delivering a price service to the consumer. When they are just as relevant 
for the internals of an enterprise. So he paid the price and still is and 
won't re-coupe. 

But what gets lost is that Bill Gates was the first internet revolution. 
Just before the internet - essentially a set of standards - emerged. But it 
only came along because Bill had created a networks and user-points 
revolution on the ground. Also I with the Bill and Melinda 
foundationhooking up with the other good-guy of the billionaire set, 
forget his name temporarily, they are a role model for the rest of them. 
Which even if ignored as currently...at lest they have tried.

-- 
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: The Really Real Part of Reality

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> > when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly 
> explicitly to anything I say). 
>
> I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks of something or other 
> on the emotional level. I would say that people generally make the best 
> effort to read and understand your posts many of which are highly detailed 
> and yes, verbose. I actually find Bruno easier to understand than you on a 
> plain english language level and you are the native English speaker. Now 
> just wrap your head around that. I would like to understand what you are on 
> about a whole lot better but am usually stonkered by your writing style. A 
> good rule of thumb to adopt is to not write anything in a white heat of 
> passion but to write the shortest possible sentences and use the minimal 
> amount of words. Throw out all unnecessary adjectives. These are just 
> personal value judgement-laden objects anyway and say far more about the 
> writer than what the writer is trying to communicate. This is a plea for 
> simplicity. If people don't respond In a way you might want, I am 
> suggesting that they may be finding you a tad tedious. Having said that, I 
> sincerely mean it when I say that I believe you have something important to 
> say and would like to come to grips with it. 

 Kim - I don't have a problem with yours and almost no one else either, 
 sense of the balance in the situation between Bruno and myself, because 
even though I regard it as unfair in practice, what I don't perceive is 
anything malign. It's normal and natural by the looks. But it's very unfair 
and biased in how it actually exists. But that's lifeeven with everyone 
on best intentions. 

For a very long time, I persevered to land an insight on Bruno - not for 
badgering but purely for taking him at his word, that he was open to it and 
interested to know if we could get to the drop, but that he genuinely did 
not know whati I was talking about. This ran for months. And I think the 
perhaps natural perception of others, who also don't understand the point, 
but on-top of that are not particularly interested to know the point - 
which is fine - have accumulatd this perception of what traits this 
dialogue contained. 

The perceived traits - easy to understand from a very basic psychological 
perspective - are that Bruno has been a 'gentleman' continuously tolerant 
of what most people would find irritating and bat away, and entirely 
consistent throughout from start to finish. Because on a mildly 
disinterested 'browsing/glancing' basis that's what it looks like. Because 
Bruno has literally repeated himself throughout every post more or less. 
So one side has the traits of a diverse, sometimes psychological, array of 
positionings, while the other exhibits consistency. Then there's the fairly 
plausibly default landscaping that might have Bruno as the busy guy who is 
giving up time, and possibly myself as the anonymous-wastrel with nothing 
but time. Or some milder version of that. 

Problem is, Kim, exactly the same traits can indicate one person not being 
sincere about understanding another person, but being very sincere and 
committed to any opportunity to reinforce thinking to a sensitized 
audience. While the other guy, an outsider to that community, so not able 
to discern that sort of thing at the outset, initially and for a long time 
accepts the community interpretations without question, and duly responds 
to is clearly an invitation by the other guy, to keep trying. 

So fairness - which incidentally I am not demanding and don't expect  - 
would be, if you want to get involved, that you would first puti yourself 
through the treatment of recognizing there are two sides to this, and that 
prima facie the high level evidence is indeterminate in terms of those two 
sides, and that this is a typical candidate situation in which what someone 
- you - are sensitized to the most taking on a disproportionate influence 
in deciding. 

It isn't going to be about my shortcomings in writing, slightly 
verbose...flabby vocab, Kim. I write extremely for someone that never went 
to school. And basic social contract would probably say that we need to 
work at our writing but also our reading - particularly speed of reading - 
skills such that we are all able to get past the shortcomings of others up 
to a point. I think I'm well inside that point. 

So is the situation intractably tied to - potentially - your sensitivities, 
or is there a way to know more should you want to? Yes there is a way, 
because it's all documented. And does not have to read or internalized. But 
only that you construct simple predictions what sort of other traits would 
be present. On my narrative, and on his. 

In reality, I haven't had a problem with Bruno particularly. I don't think 
he's bad guy on the whole. I don'

Re: Pluto bounces back!

I submit that with the official religion of Afghanistan, and with the 
enablement of Sharia, or a watered down form of it under the Afghani royals, is 
was a sucker for the Soviets. But the Soviets, under Brezhnev, war would have 
come anyway. It just would not have seemed such a slam dunk. The people, for 
example in Syria and Iraq, are part of the problem. As far as national 
complicity, against the Jihad and all that it means, I would have inflicted a 
lot more. 

 Afghanistan – which I have lived in before the Russians – has suffered war 
imposed on it by the great powers (of the era) since the British Raj. It is 
easy to blame these victims of a forty year state of war – counting from the 
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a little bit harder to understand the 
degree to which their lives have become shattered by war. Maybe because it is 
uncomfortable to admit our national complicity in the deaths of so many goat 
and sheep herders.
Yes, its called the United States. The people that you cite want to go to 
paradise, Jannah, so sacrificing sons, and brothers is a noble feat for them, 
the ticket to women and wine literally. Peace, under Quran, Soonah, Bukhari, is 
not permitted between a Kurfar (infidel) and a Muslim, on a hudna, a truce is 
permitted. You cannot separate Afghanistan from its belief systems. You cannot 
separate Iraq and Syria from its belief systems. 




Have you ever lived in a war zone? I have. I have witnessed the horror of 
modern war (as a young teenager); I have looked into empty soul dead eyes of 
profoundly traumatized people… have you ever had such experiences?
Those who have truly experienced war tend not to be so enthusiastic about 
violence as a means to solving problems, unless they are psychopaths who enjoy 
it that is.


-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:06 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
 

Yes, cycles absolutely can be broken, last things first, but first, people have 
to see in themselves that something is wrong. This, we must conclude is fairly, 
rare. The kind of people I am referring to, are the kind of people, that over 
your dead body, get to heaven in a little green boat, as the kiddie ditty went. 
On top of this we have unmedicated, and undermedicated, people with deep 
personality disorders. The Hatfield-McCoy thing when applied elsewhere in the 
world lack the cultural background. Also, there's no reward to stopping a bad 
habit, and there's no sufficient incentive to starting good ones. With the 
mental problem aspect there is something we can do, which is medication and 
therapy. With cultural-religious driven attacks, this is more complicated. But 
first, one must have the will and desire to radically change things, on the 
ground. The ruling elites, have no great incentive to do things which halt what 
is going on, nor, is there a great enough punishment, if they are doing 
political malpractice. Thus, the world rolls on as it has. 
 
It seems to me that you are ignoring a massive incentive to violence arising 
from the utter fragmentation of all social structures resulting from an 
unending state of war, imposed on the suffering goat herders you seem to enjoy 
demonizing in the most colorful language. Afghanistan – which I have lived in 
before the Russians – has suffered war imposed on it by the great powers (of 
the era) since the British Raj. It is easy to blame these victims of a forty 
year state of war – counting from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a 
little bit harder to understand the degree to which their lives have become 
shattered by war. Maybe because it is uncomfortable to admit our national 
complicity in the deaths of so many goat and sheep herders.
Observe the insanity unleashed now in Syria (in which we are again heavily 
involved) the monsters on the loose over there and in the Sunni areas of Iraq – 
who do you think is backing and funding them (even if through Saudi etc. 
proxies). 
No doubt monsters are created in war. But more war merely begets more monsters 
in an endless and ultimately futile cycle of blood spilling blood.
Have you ever lived in a war zone? I have. I have witnessed the horror of 
modern war (as a young teenager); I have looked into empty soul dead eyes of 
profoundly traumatized people… have you ever had such experiences? 
Those who have truly experienced war tend not to be so enthusiastic about 
violence as a means to solving problems, unless they are psychopaths who enjoy 
it that is. 
Chris


You assume people do violence for no reason other than that they are "vastly
different" (whatever that really means). This is a faulty assumption -- IMO.
People do violence, in almost every case because violence was done

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:13:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
>> > Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom 
>> later. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
>> going by 
>> > > a 
>> > > > comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
>> > > processors 
>> > > > haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more "cores", 
>> i.e. 
>> > > > they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But 
>> the 
>> > > > density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
>> predicted 
>> > > > amount (or so I'm told). 
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
>> > > transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
>> that 
>> > > has 
>> > > been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core 
>> chips 
>> > > now on the market). 
>> > > 
>> > > But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
>> > > time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
>> > > (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
>> > > '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
>> > > magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
>> > > years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
>> > > following purchases were made*: 
>> > > 
>> > > 1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
>> > > 1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
>> > > 2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
>> > > 2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
>> > > 2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
>> > > 
>> > > * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
>> > >   facts 
>> > > 
>> > > Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
>> > > function of year. 
>> > > 
>>
>> Incidently, the "kink" at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
>> systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
>> purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
>> colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
>> flatter! 
>>
>> Cheers 
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>
>
> it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
> which they do with you - my window anyway
>

p.s. "say" I am 99% sure is obvious, but due to some minor local 
self-esteem issues and the other local matter of a one-to-many rearguard 
action, I shall have to cave in and add "in a very positive direction"

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-14 Thread jross

My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I
understand is not explained by QM.  QM does not explain logically why
electrons do not blow themselves apart.  I don't believe in quantum
weirdness.  There is a universe.

John Ross

>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:51, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our
>> Universe
>> was created and how it works.  Our Universe existed for billions of
>> years
>> before there was intelligent life to be conscious.
>
> IF there is a universe. We don't know that. But we do know that the
> computations exists in arithmetic, and that from the machine's points
> of view, an infinity of universal machines competes to continue them,
> below our substitution level. It explains intuitively and formally
> some quantum weirdness.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Quantum mechanics is ok so long as it is consistent with my model.
>
> If the people are not happy, change the people! (Stalin, I think).
>
> If my theory does not fit nature, change nature!
>
> QM is not just positively confirmed since a long time, but it is
> confirmed in its most startling aspects.
>
> It is also the only theory which makes sense of liquid, solid, gaz,
> atoms and molecules, stars and black holes, particles and their
> relations (bosons, fermions, fractional spins, condensed states theory).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> My
>> theory includes an explanation of the results of the two-slit
>> experiment.
>
>
> If is not a MW theory, or a "Many Dream" theory, I am afraid you will
> need non local indeterminist sort of magic.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>>>
 I do not explain consciousness.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
>>> Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
>>> of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
>>> theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
>>> identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
>>> brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities.
>>> With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can
>>> still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain
>>> to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative
>>> universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the
>>> many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me
>>> what
>>> is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two
>>> slits experiment.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>

 Jr

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of LizR
 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

 On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
 There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
 are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
 so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
 predict you will be forced to agree with me.

 I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
 is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
 energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?

 --
 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-
>>> l...@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 "

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-14 Thread jross

I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
Aristotle.  I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my
theory relates to the thinking of these fellows.

John Ross

>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
>
>> I am well aware of the two slit experiment.  You can't send tronnies
>> one-by-one anywhere.  They exist in twosomes and threesomes as
>> electrons,
>> positrons or entrons.  The entron is the energy-mass of each photon.
>> Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their
>> entrons.
>> In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its
>> Coulomb force wave goes through both slits.
>
> Like  Bohm and de Broglie. Today, this is known to introduce non local
> physical action.
>
>
>
>>
>> My theory does not deal with consciousness.
>
> It might the grain of dust which forces us to revise our opinion on
> Plato, on mind and physics.
>
> I argue that if the brain works like a machine, that is mainly in a
> local causal way ("no magic"), then Plato is right and the physical
> reality is the border of the universal mind, i.e. the mind of the
> universal machine (Turing, Church, Post, ...).
>
> I am afraid that the "Ross theory" is still in the frame of taking
> Aristotle theology for granted.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote:
>>>
 I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect.  I am trying
 to prove my theory is correct.  If my theory is correct, and quantum
 mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may
 very well be incorrect.  There is also a possibility that on some
 issues the two theories may both be correct.
>>>
>>> QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been
>>> refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have
>>> been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected
>>> to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply "not useful" in some
>>> context).
>>>
>>> So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens
>>> when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a
>>> plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about
>>> Young two slits experience?).
>>>
>>>
>>>

 You lost me with Turing emulable.
>>>
>>> We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much
>>> interested
>>> in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now.
>>> Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain
>>> is a
>>> natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of
>>> illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or
>>> theology. See my URL or post, if interested.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 JR

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
 Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

 On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:

 I do not explain consciousness.

 Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
 Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin
 of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian
 theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive
 identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between
 brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual
 infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing
 emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you
 cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an
 infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness.
 This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is
 not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or
 your explanation of the two slits experiment.

 Bruno

 Jr

 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of LizR
 Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

 On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross  wrote:
 There is a theory of everything - my theory, "The Ross Model".  You
 are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject,
 so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book.  And I
 predict you will be forced to agree with me.

 I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is -
 is the idea "primitive materialism" - that space, time, matter and
 energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscr

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-14 Thread jross

Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
beams are curved by these large masses.  I say that large masses produce
Coulomb grids through which light travels.  Under both theories the paths
of light are affected. I don't see any problem.  Einstein and I reach the
same conclusion.

John R

> On 13 June 2014 03:50,  wrote:
>
>> Yes, light changes speeds many time as it passes through our Universe,
>> but
>> it is always traveling at the speed of light through the grid it is
>> currently traveling through.  There is no reason for it to become
>> blurred.
>>  When light travels through a good prism or a microscope or a telescope
>> it
>> can change speeds several times and it does not necessarily become
>> blurred.
>>
>
> My point is that a distant extended object will send light through regions
> of space which are at a large distances from each other on its way to our
> telescopes. So a galaxy which appears to us to be partly hidden by another
> galaxy is sending light through a region of space thousands of light years
> across. This region contains a large number of massive objects, such as
> stars. If these all have their own CGs, each one travelling at a different
> speed, the light signal would be effectively scrambled as it passed
> through
> this varying "landscape" on its way to us.
>
> But it isn't, as thousands of astronomical pictures of galaxies at
> different distances which happen to lie along the same line of sight show.
>
> --
> 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: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-14 Thread David Nyman

On 14 June 2014 04:32, meekerdb  wrote:

> I thought I'd been pretty clear that it's ill defined, a point on which I
> agree with Bruno.  I tried to define it in the exchange with David, but he
> seemed to reject my definition and just assumed everybody knows what it
> means.

As I recall you proposed that physical might equate to sharable, in an
operational sense, and indeed I wouldn't demur from that as an
operational definition. But the question I was focusing on was the
mode of derivation of that particular set of operationally definable
entities and relations from whatever universe of possibility is
postulated by the underlying theory. And it is here that I would
contrast Bruno's approach with, say, string theory or the MUH, in that
the mode of derivation relies on "epistemological logic" from the
bottom up, as it were. This is why for me, if it can indeed be made to
work, such an approach seems to take more than a step or two towards
explicating the co-emergence of "matter" and "mind" from the
computational universe of possibility. In many, if not most, other
formulations, the latter is treated more like a metaphysical rabbit
that is assumed to pop out of the hat "just in time", so to speak,
purely as an epiphenomenon of physical processes.

David

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" - Physical theory with
numbers and so on:


I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression,
now I certainly don't.
Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
John M



On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
 under
> physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
> This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
> exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the
> final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one
> or another description of some basic set of underlying physical
> relations.
>
> Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is
> absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter
> from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on
> these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the
> level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for
> by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or
> multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the
> selective logic of its epistemology.
>
 ?? Too dense for me.

 I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains,
 as
 in computers.

>>> I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little
>>> flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such
>>> a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism
>>> still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very
>>> point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness
>>> of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the
>>> distinctively different role that is played by their various
>>> conceptual elements.
>>>
>>> To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively
>>> reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle,
>>> be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of
>>> fundamental entities and relations.
>>>
>>
>> So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be
>> functions in arithmetic?
>>
>> It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that
> work have been constructed.
>
> E.g.
>
> Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT"
>
> Physical theory with numbers and so on:
>
>
> 
>
>  --
> 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: TRONNIES - SPACE

6  6   6  !  Boo!   


Actually, The numerical number of God reminds me of some of the writings of 
Clifford Pickover, so sort of half-believes in his math magic. 






I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I 
certainly don't. 
Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
John M





-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am
Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE


Liz wrote:
E.G.: Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" - Physical theory with numbers 
and so on:





I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I 
certainly don't. 
Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
John M






On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR  wrote:



On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb  wrote:


On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:

On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb  wrote:

under
physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the
final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one
or another description of some basic set of underlying physical
relations.

Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is
absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter
from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on
these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the
level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for
by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or
multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the
selective logic of its epistemology.

?? Too dense for me.

I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as
in computers.

I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little
flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such
a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism
still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very
point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness
of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the
distinctively different role that is played by their various
conceptual elements.

To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively
reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle,
be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of
fundamental entities and relations.



So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions 
in arithmetic?




It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have 
been constructed.


E.g.


Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT"


Physical theory with numbers and so on:


 
  
   
  
  
   
   










-- 
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: Pluto bounces back!

Spudboy (whatever that may mean) I was 22 when burried under bombing ruins
during WWII - and dug out by the enemy due to my good fluency in their
language. I was also arrested by a "Gestapo-like" facility (talked out
myself) and later by the commis for questioning.
So I have personal experiences.
I was NEVER in uniform, never a soldier and never participated in violent
actions. All I did was save lives using the underground activities.
I yell:  NO WARS!!. I don't recognise the "problems" as such, they are
mostly man-made corruption-based policies of crooks. On ANY side. Heroes?
rather victims.
What business of the USA and Europe is to take part in a religious war
dating back ~1500 years about the successor of the Prophet?
They could manage fine: Saddam Hussein (Sunni) kept Iraq at bay and Assad
(Shia) Syria, until the region's oil triggered the profit-hungry forces
into aggression. The US stabbed Mubarak in the back (a 'friend' of over 30
years) and liberated a jihad - indeed a competition between the Saudi and
Iranian oil, Then supported the arch-enemy:
AlQaeda (and ilk) plus the Muslim Brotherhood - now declared by Egypt a
terrorist movement. Afghanistan became an oil-sideline to get the Central
Asian oil to the Indian Ocean. And there comes the profit of the
war-related industrials.

I apologize for the not quite 'TOE' text.

JM


On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I submit that with the official religion of Afghanistan, and with the
> enablement of Sharia, or a watered down form of it under the Afghani
> royals, is was a sucker for the Soviets. But the Soviets, under Brezhnev,
> war would have come anyway. It just would not have seemed such a slam dunk.
> The people, for example in Syria and Iraq, are part of the problem. As far
> as national complicity, against the Jihad and all that it means, I would
> have inflicted a lot more.
>
>  Afghanistan – which I have lived in before the Russians – has suffered
> war imposed on it by the great powers (of the era) since the British Raj.
> It is easy to blame these victims of a forty year state of war – counting
> from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a little bit harder to
> understand the degree to which their lives have become shattered by war.
> Maybe because it is uncomfortable to admit our national complicity in the
> deaths of so many goat and sheep herders.
>
> Yes, its called the United States. The people that you cite want to go to
> paradise, Jannah, so sacrificing sons, and brothers is a noble feat for
> them, the ticket to women and wine literally. Peace, under Quran, Soonah,
> Bukhari, is not permitted between a Kurfar (infidel) and a Muslim, on a
> hudna, a truce is permitted. You cannot separate Afghanistan from its
> belief systems. You cannot separate Iraq and Syria from its belief
> systems.
>
>
> *Have you ever lived in a war zone? I have. I have witnessed the horror of
> modern war (as a young teenager); I have looked into empty soul dead eyes
> of profoundly traumatized people… have you ever had such experiences?*
> *Those who have truly experienced war tend not to be so enthusiastic about
> violence as a means to solving problems, unless they are psychopaths who
> enjoy it that is.*
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 3:38 pm
> Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:06 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pluto bounces back!
>
>  Yes, cycles absolutely can be broken, last things first, but first,
> people have to see in themselves that something is wrong. This, we must
> conclude is fairly, rare. The kind of people I am referring to, are the
> kind of people, that over your dead body, get to heaven in a little green
> boat, as the kiddie ditty went. On top of this we have unmedicated, and
> undermedicated, people with deep personality disorders. The Hatfield-McCoy
> thing when applied elsewhere in the world lack the cultural background.
> Also, there's no reward to stopping a bad habit, and there's no sufficient
> incentive to starting good ones. With the mental problem aspect there is
> something we can do, which is medication and therapy. With
> cultural-religious driven attacks, this is more complicated. But first, one
> must have the will and desire to radically change things, on the ground.
> The ruling elites, have no great incentive to do things which halt what is
> going on, nor, is there a great enough punishment, if they are doing
> political malpractice. Thus, the world rolls on as it has.
>
> It seems to me that you are ignoring a massive incentive to violence
> arising from the utter fragmentation of all social structures resulting
> from an unending state of wa

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

Is 666 not the "Apokalyps" number?
JM


On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *6  6   6  !  Boo! *
>
>  Actually, The numerical number of God reminds me of some of the writings
> of Clifford Pickover, so sort of half-believes in his math magic.
>
>
>  I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression,
> now I certainly don't.
> Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
> John M
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Mikes 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
>
>  Liz wrote:
> E.G.: Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" - Physical theory with
> numbers and so on:
>
>
>   I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long
> expression, now I certainly don't.
> Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
> John M
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>>   On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
>>>
 On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb  wrote:

> under
>> physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic).
>> This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an
>> exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the
>> final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one
>> or another description of some basic set of underlying physical
>> relations.
>>
>> Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is
>> absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter
>> from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on
>> these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the
>> level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for
>> by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or
>> multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the
>> selective logic of its epistemology.
>>
> ?? Too dense for me.
>
> I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in
> brains, as
> in computers.
>
 I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little
 flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such
 a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism
 still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very
 point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness
 of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the
 distinctively different role that is played by their various
 conceptual elements.

 To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively
 reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle,
 be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of
 fundamental entities and relations.

>>>
>>>  So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be
>>> functions in arithmetic?
>>>
>>>   It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that
>> work have been constructed.
>>
>>  E.g.
>>
>>  Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT"
>>
>>  Physical theory with numbers and so on:
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>--
>> 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.
>

-- 
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 ever

Re: Near the crux of any possible TOE

Bruno: my software reproduced none of the proposed parts of that "square".
Maybe your French base does it? I am on USA-English and have Hungarian
as 2nd installed. (Or Microsoft is the culprit not liking 'square' ones?)
John


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dear Bruno, I find it beyond my aging capabilities to respond in all
> details to this long and diversed deluge of posts, also I have no learned
> basis to evaluate YOUR profession with those 'squares' for p etc. (btw HOW
> does your computer produce those squares?)
> so I reflect to the title: "... any POSSIBLE  T O E" .  We talked about
> 'our' (not identical) agnosticism and in 'mine' a TOE is impossible for us,
> humans at the level of foreseeable development our mind(?) reached so far.
> We may cover a restricted (reduced?)  TOE comprising the portion we so far
> adjusted to our mental capbilities.
> Considering the unfathomable mass of 'observations' we received over the
> past millennia (not that we understood them - even as qualia accessible to
> us at times)
> your position echoes in my mind as saying: we choose the most likely and
> this is a good basis for "science" (truth?) to proceed upon them.
> Well, it is not for me. I rather claim "I dunno" and disclaim my Nobel
> prize.
> TOE is bound to Everything, not the inventory-content of our books.
> Similarly the mentioned "qualia" are humanly approvable,
> anthropocetric/morphic distortions for "whoknowswhat".
> You ask: why gravity? because that was an observation (and name) of Newton.
> Why spacetime? because Einstein said so.
> Maybe YOUR universal machine knows more - why? because you said so.
> Justifications, evidences are figments somebody found fittable.
> The reason I write this is my plea for more humbleness in 'sciences'.
> Somebody should get an award for NOT KNOWING.
>
> Agnostically yours
>
> John M
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> I (re)comment Brent, on this crucial topic, when tackling the mind-body
>> problem, or the consciousness/matter problem.
>>
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2014, at 01:22, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>  On 10 June 2014 21:04, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>>  I would argue that, at the ontological level, the explanation *does
 indeed*
 make heat, or temperature, "illusory". The whole point of the reduction
 is
 to show that there could not, in principle, be any supernumerary
 something
 left unaccounted for by an explanation couched exclusively at the
 "primordial" level, whatever one takes that to be. Given that this is
 the
 specific goal of explanatory reduction, what we have here is a precise
 dis-analogy, in that there *is indeed* a disturbingly irreducible
 something
 left behind, or unaccounted for, in the case of consciousness: i.e. the
 1p
 experience itself.

>>>
>> That is the key point. I guess written by David (and what follows just
>> below is Brent's answer, and then David's reply).
>> As we have discussed this before,  if competence can be reduced to
>> computer programs in a similar way that temperature can be reduced to
>> molecules kinetic, the analogy does not work for consciousness, or at least
>> not completely.
>> In fact it is here that the theaetetus idea get the morst effective, as
>> it will explain that the analogy is wrong. If it was true, consciousness
>> would be a 3p notion (both kinetic and temperature are 3p observable), but
>> by showing that the [] and ([]p & p) obey different logics, despite proving
>> the same 3p sentences p (something unbelievable for the machine) it
>> justifies a distinct apprehension of a same truth from the different points
>> of view existing for the machines.
>>
>>
>>
>>  (Brent:
 You're simply assuming it's unaccounted for. The hypothesis was that
 there
 might be a theory which was successful in "reading minds" and
 "predicting
 thoughts" based on physical observation of a brain.

>>>
>> Not at all. Predicting is not explaining. Explaining is more in
>> reducing-without-eliminating.
>>
>>
>>
>>   Brent:

>>>
>>  I'd say that is all
 that can be done;

>>>
>> I think we can do more.
>>
>>
>>
>>  to ask for more is just anthropic prejudice about what an
 explanation should look like - it's like asking, "But why does gravity
 want
 to pull things together?"

>>>
>> Yes, why?  :)
>>
>> And why gravity at all?
>>
>> I give you the reason, roughly:  it is a consequence of the theory of
>> simple groups. They encapsulate the diverse symmetries (made necessary by
>> the "p->[]<>p" laws).
>>
>> Ah! The number 24 has also some role in there, I feel so.
>>
>> Sorry David. below you make well the point, I think.
>>
>>
>>> But I strenuously reject that this is a gratuitous assumption in
>>> context. In fact, you appeal to the same assumption in your statements
>>> above. You hypothesise a theory capable of describing and predicting
>>> mental states entirely on

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM,  wrote:

>
>  > A lot is understood about intelligence in humans
>

Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we
could double our IQ  by knowing which modes of thought are productive and
which just waste time and lead nowhere.

> > we can do things like make a list of life outcomes that are most
> strongly tied in with intelligence
>

And if a machine can obtain more of those outcomes than I can then the
machine is smarter than me.

> you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness.
>

Yes, that's why so many people on this list have a consciousness theory but
not one has a intelligence theory. There is no easier job in the world than
being a consciousness theorist because any theory works about as well as
any other, and even if you happen to stumble upon the correct one there is
no way to know that you have. On the other hand there is no harder job in
the world than being a intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to
stumble upon the correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly
become the world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your
theory is on the right track.

> > humans can learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say
> whether these correlations are about learning skills or intelligence.
>

More pathetic sore looser rationalizations, you didn't win because you're
smarter than me, you're just more skilful. And so it came to pass that
after outmaneuvering 8 billion people the last surviving member of the
species Homo Sapiens turned to the Jupiter Brain 4 seconds before the
Godlike computer sent it into oblivion forever and said "nevertheless I
still think I'm *really* smarter than you".

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!


Hi John.
Spudboy (whatever that may mean) I was 22 when burried under bombing ruins 
during WWII - and dug out by the enemy due to my good fluency in their 
language. I was also arrested by a "Gestapo-like" facility (talked out myself) 
and later by the commis for questioning. 
So I have personal experiences. 
I was NEVER in uniform, never a soldier and never participated in violent 
actions. All I did was save lives using the underground activities. 
I yell:  NO WARS!!. I don't recognise the "problems" as such, they are 
mostly man-made corruption-based policies of crooks. On ANY side. Heroes? 
rather victims.

We need more rational actors, in the world, such as yourself, however and yes, 
violence causes psychological stress, and trauma-this is a scientific fact. I 
am not disputing this. 

 
What business of the USA and Europe is to take part in a religious war dating 
back ~1500 years about the successor of the Prophet? 
They could manage fine: Saddam Hussein (Sunni) kept Iraq at bay and Assad 
(Shia) Syria, until the region's oil triggered the profit-hungry forces into 
aggression. The US stabbed Mubarak in the back (a 'friend' of over 30 years) 
and liberated a jihad - indeed a competition between the Saudi and Iranian oil, 
Then supported the arch-enemy: 
AlQaeda (and ilk) plus the Muslim Brotherhood - now declared by Egypt a 
terrorist movement. Afghanistan became an oil-sideline to get the Central Asian 
oil to the Indian Ocean. And there comes the profit of the war-related 
industrials. 

Yeah, I know the history of Sunni versus Shia, and it was about 1300 years 
indeed. A struggle for power and control, and no surprise there. I am not 
picking sides in the Iran v Saudi Arabia thing, right now, because they are 
both vile, actors, and on the side of religious madness, in my opinion. I can 
only decide for myself, what seems to be true. What is important for me is 
who's the most dangerous, to the world that is non-Muslim?? John, it is against 
Sharia for a Muslim to "make peace" with a non-Muslim, because only 
Salaam/Peace can be between Muslims. The only thing permitted is a Hudna, which 
is a short truce, so as the faithful can re-arm and later win. If a muslim 
makes peace, they are an apostate, a irtidad, a relapse, a traitor, The problem 
is John, the world is smaller now, and things like nuclear weapons and 
bio-engineered bacteria, viruses, and nerve gas, as well as thermobaric 
explosives, are decades old now and the world is smaller. Plus, the ruling 
class lacks courage to change the game now being played in Syria, and Iraq and 
Nigeria, and Sudan. 

Think of 9-11, or 7-5, or Madrid, and think of a well-designed attack. Or think 
about the sharing of intercontinental missile tech as well as fission tech 
being shared, back and forth from Iran to Pakistan to North Korea. But yes, we 
need to be prudent in this situation. On the Bush thing it really wasn't oil, 
rather it was the reluctance of the Bushes to go after Bin Laden, who fled to 
Pakistan. Pakistan was an "ally" of the US and the elites feared that if we 
went in and pursued Bin Laden, it would have  toppled Musharef government. They 
opted for a diversion instead. Why? One reason was that the ISI, Pakistan's spy 
agency would lean heavily toward arming the Taleban, and Al Qeda and side 
militarily, using Pakistan's French made AGN-94 fuel cell powered subs that are 
anechoic and can submerge for months, and can surface and launch nuclear cruise 
missiles against the US and Europe and then sink again. This missiles 
purportedly have a range of about 2000 km. Great use for a de-capitation 
attack. Adios, DC, Berlin, Rome, London, Stockholm, etc. 

Well, that's my case, your honor! I am guessing that it must've been Hungary 
and not Deutschland you experienced war as a child, so I am thinking Hungary's 
Green-Arrow Cross, you encountered. Or was it in Holland? Sorry for me being 
nosy, but it piqued my interest. You don't need to share painful memories 
online with strangers.

Sincerely,
 Mitch



 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


Spudboy (whatever that may mean) I was 22 when burried under bombing ruins 
during WWII - and dug out by the enemy due to my good fluency in their 
language. I was also arrested by a "Gestapo-like" facility (talked out myself) 
and later by the commis for questioning. 
So I have personal experiences. 
I was NEVER in uniform, never a soldier and never participated in violent 
actions. All I did was save lives using the underground activities. 
I yell:  NO WARS!!. I don't recognise the "problems" as such, they are 
mostly man-made corruption-based policies of crooks. On ANY side. Heroes? 
rather victims.
What business of the USA and Europe is to take part in a religious war dating 
back ~1500 years about the successor of the Prophet? 
They could manage fine: Saddam Hussein (Sunni) kept Iraq

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE


On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate 
consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly "Brunos and 
Davids" finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to 
arithmetic, 


?? Why might that not be a truth of arithmetic that is not provable?

Brent

which would be false, and that is  a mathematical contradiction, even if those Davids 
and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just logically incompatible with 
mechanism (and that argument is simpler than step 8).


--
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute


On 6/14/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

 > A lot is understood about intelligence in humans


Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we could double our 
IQ  by knowing which modes of thought are productive and which just waste time and lead 
nowhere.


As a species we've probably multiplied our intelligence many times over, first by 
inventing language, then writing, then mathematics, and more recently computers.


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.

Re: The Really Real Part of Reality

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> > when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly 
> explicitly to anything I say). 
>
> I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks of something or other 
> on the emotional level. I would say that people generally make the best 
> effort to read and understand your posts many of which are highly detailed 
> and yes, verbose. I actually find Bruno easier to understand than you on a 
> plain english language level and you are the native English speaker. Now 
> just wrap your head around that. I would like to understand what you are on 
> about a whole lot better but am usually stonkered by your writing style. A 
> good rule of thumb to adopt is to not write anything in a white heat of 
> passion but to write the shortest possible sentences and use the minimal 
> amount of words. Throw out all unnecessary adjectives. These are just 
> personal value judgement-laden objects anyway and say far more about the 
> writer than what the writer is trying to communicate. This is a plea for 
> simplicity. If people don't respond In a way you might want, I am 
> suggesting that they may be finding you a tad tedious. Having said that, I 
> sincerely mean it when I say that I believe you have something important to 
> say and would like to come to grips with it 
> cent
> Kim

Or let me say it another less gentle way. Because I think that's 
the trajectory...you haven't signalled a wish to change it, in any kind of 
resolutiofn seeking manner known to be effective. You've intervened in the 
dialogue between Bruce and myself, I'd estimate 10 to 15 times.  Here it's 
all about my bad talking and my bad thinking by conceiving - and this is 
effectively verbatim your position KIM, my bad thinking fisor thinking ill 
will is the sort of thing anyone does. But me.

 Everyone is basically good and well intentioned. You are. You sure 
are...because you've trying..and you want to understand...but my bad 
talking is just too bad. And you've positive that you've told me how I can 
change. You've listed why beyond being linguistically bad, specific 
structures in my bad talking indicate strong negatives about character. 

And you have tried. You've studied this from many angles. I can attest to 
that. Because you've come into this discussion about 10 - 15 times and 
almost each time has centred on something different; A different trait. 
This time language...but feasibly all of them fit into that because 
its language. But sometimes the analysis has been much more precise...like 
maybe I say something to Bruno that involves a criticism. You've been able 
to contribute by analysing that, and finding on 2 or more occasion from 
memory, that the exact opposite was true. 

I've got to learn the lesson, because the bad thinking - that there's a 
shared burden of responsibility or culpability, or motive, bad talking, bad 
thinking...is realistic and good philosophy in any plausible universe. You 
are coming into this having done a lot of hard work, and objective 
analysis.,..and taken together your 10 to 15 interjections I think I'm 
starting to benefit here. I can see it was more bad thinking slipping in 
that someone was basically finding a way to 100% support Bruno and 100% 
find a way to do that involved making me 100% responsible, was your good 
intentions and hard analysis from many angels was thoroughness and not an 
indication someone was basically signalling they didn't give a fuck about 
anything I had to say that wasn't a total and unconditional acknowledgement 
of their own reading, which involved one loved person being above all 
question and another basically being there to pick up anything smelly and 
negative.

NO. Bad thinking. Thinking others could share a burden., Bad bad. It's me. 
All me. All those 10 to 15 different. All me what PGC says. All me 
Bruno...goes without question. 

And that's a good resolution seeking approach. Bad thinking it was bad. 
I've seen that one work many many. And very quickly and it stays worked on 
a pretty long term basis. Resolution seeking strategies are the same 
wherever you go in the world. The tools...the stakes...ok that can be 
different. You're one...some places is about someone begs for their life or 
if it's too late for that, then their families life. And maybe they can get 
to stick around on this planet. Or they can get a bullet in the head. It's 
an effective resolution Kim. I get that. Here the stakes aren't high. But 
it's definitely a convergent strategy that I can fuck off out of this place 
or acknowledge your theory that I get to pick up all negatives all contexts 
because everyone else particularly Bruno are good people, and make best 
efforts. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving email

Re: Pluto bounces back!

>
> Afghanistan – which I have lived in before the Russians – has suffered war
> imposed on it by the great powers (of the era) since the British Raj. It is
> easy to blame these victims of a forty year state of war – counting from
> the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a little bit harder to understand
> the degree to which their lives have become shattered by war.
>
> Read "Kara Kush" by Idries Shah to get some idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah#Fiction

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

> On 15 Jun 2014, at 2:34 am, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
> intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the correct 
> intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the world's first 
> trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the right track.

That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is 
the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the 
car is driven. He may have come up to the level of a trillionaire at some point 
but he did at one point own 4 islands, one of them off the coast of Venice and 
a castle or two in France as well as seeding organisations in over 34 countries 
devoted to teaching thinking ability. He appears on a list of 250 people who 
have contributed the most to humanity and NASA named an asteroid after him. 

Now comes the sad part. He had a lousy marriage and had to sell off those 
islands to finance his divorce settlement. So much for thinking ability. Just 
the same, I don't see too many people making the necessary distinction between 
perception ("seeing with the mind and the emotions/values") and thinking (data 
crunching and survival strategies) People on this list routinely argue about 
different things, thinking they are arguing about the same thing. That's 
perception. De Bono also understood Gödelian Incompleteness; in the 1970s he 
said that the choice of premises in any argument or discussion is arbitrary and 
that the outcome of most discussions is determined by the starting point or 
premises, so it hardly matters what happens in between.

A big part of intelligence is indeed knowing how to choose modes of thinking as 
John says, and the biggest enemy of clear, effective thinking is confusion. 
Confusion in thinking is where we try to do everything at once which is 
impossible. The neurotransmitters governing the different modes of thinking 
cannot all be optimised in the same direction simultaneously. So, De Bono 
devised the Six Thinking Hats to force people to literally do one thing at a 
time. Each coloured hat represents a particular mode of thinking: Red for 
feelings, gut intuitions, White for facts and observations, Yellow for the 
benefits, Black for the logical negative, Green for creativity and seeking the 
alternatives (so-called "Lateral Thinking") and the Blue Hat is for 
metacognition or the broad overview of the thinking process. This was based on 
the neuroscience insight of the early 80s that a reasonably normal human has 
about seven "slots" that comprise their thinking capacity that can be filled. 
So, De Bono surmised that we would do better then to back-off by maybe one slot 
to ensure brains don't go into meltdown so there are only six hats, not seven. 
If you or your kid have not had this unbelievably simple yet incredibly 
effective and powerful routine run past them at school yet, then you aren't 
getting value for money for your school fees.

Kim 

-- 
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.

de Bono

Yeah, I remember Edward de Bono. I read what I think was his first book, which was all
about thinking "outside the box" as the current phrase goes. It was good advice.

Brent

On 6/14/2014 3:35 PM, Kim wrote:

On 15 Jun 2014, at 2:34 am, John Clark wrote:

On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a intelligence
theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the correct intelligence
theory the fact that you've suddenly become the world's first trillionaire is a
pretty good hint that your theory is on the right track.

That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is
the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the
car is driven. He may have come up to the level of a trillionaire at some point
but he did at one point own 4 islands, one of them off the coast of Venice and
a castle or two in France as well as seeding organisations in over 34 countries
devoted to teaching thinking ability. He appears on a list of 250 people who
have contributed the most to humanity and NASA named an asteroid after him.

Now comes the sad part. He had a lousy marriage and had to sell off those islands to
finance his divorce settlement. So much for thinking ability. Just the same, I don't see
too many people making the necessary distinction between perception ("seeing with
the mind and the emotions/values") and thinking (data crunching and survival
strategies) People on this list routinely argue about different things, thinking they are
arguing about the same thing. That's perception. De Bono also understood Gödelian
Incompleteness; in the 1970s he said that the choice of premises in any argument or
discussion is arbitrary and that the outcome of most discussions is determined by the
starting point or premises, so it hardly matters what happens in between.

A big part of intelligence is indeed knowing how to choose modes of thinking as John says, and the
biggest enemy of clear, effective thinking is confusion. Confusion in thinking is where we try to
do everything at once which is impossible. The neurotransmitters governing the different modes of
thinking cannot all be optimised in the same direction simultaneously. So, De Bono devised the Six
Thinking Hats to force people to literally do one thing at a time. Each coloured hat represents a
particular mode of thinking: Red for feelings, gut intuitions, White for facts and observations,
Yellow for the benefits, Black for the logical negative, Green for creativity and seeking the
alternatives (so-called "Lateral Thinking") and the Blue Hat is for metacognition or the
broad overview of the thinking process. This was based on the neuroscience insight of the early 80s
that a reasonably normal human has about seven "slots" that comprise their thinking
capacity that can be filled. So, De Bono surmised that we would do better then to back-off by maybe
one slot to ensure brains don't go into meltdown so there are only six hats, not seven. If you or
your kid have not had this unbelievably simple yet incredibly effective and powerful routine run
past them at school yet, then you aren't getting value for money for your school fees.

Kim

Re: Pluto bounces back!


Interesting wiki bio. By the way, the mystical Sufi's have also come out in 
favor of jihad against the Qufar recently. It's not like they are Muslim 
hippies.Now, if we are looking for reasonable people on the other side, look to 
the Amadi Muslims.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya
 
They are reviled by the Sunnis, Shia, and Alawi Muslims as traitors 'kha'en. 
The Sufis are mystics but not peace-niks. Fatwas have been issued.  
 
 


Read "Kara Kush" by Idries Shah to get some idea.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah#Fiction







 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!





Afghanistan – which I have lived in before the Russians – has suffered war 
imposed on it by the great powers (of the era) since the British Raj. It is 
easy to blame these victims of a forty year state of war – counting from the 
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a little bit harder to understand the 
degree to which their lives have become shattered by war.


Read "Kara Kush" by Idries Shah to get some idea.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idries_Shah#Fiction








-- 
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: Pluto bounces back!

On 15 June 2014 03:37, John Mikes  wrote:

> Spudboy (whatever that may mean) I was 22 when burried under bombing ruins
> during WWII - and dug out by the enemy due to my good fluency in their
> language. I was also arrested by a "Gestapo-like" facility (talked out
> myself) and later by the commis for questioning.
> So I have personal experiences.
> I was NEVER in uniform, never a soldier and never participated in violent
> actions. All I did was save lives using the underground activities.
> I yell:  NO WARS!!. I don't recognise the "problems" as such, they are
> mostly man-made corruption-based policies of crooks. On ANY side. Heroes?
> rather victims.
> What business of the USA and Europe is to take part in a religious war
> dating back ~1500 years about the successor of the Prophet?
> They could manage fine: Saddam Hussein (Sunni) kept Iraq at bay and Assad
> (Shia) Syria, until the region's oil triggered the profit-hungry forces
> into aggression. The US stabbed Mubarak in the back (a 'friend' of over 30
> years) and liberated a jihad - indeed a competition between the Saudi and
> Iranian oil, Then supported the arch-enemy:
> AlQaeda (and ilk) plus the Muslim Brotherhood - now declared by Egypt a
> terrorist movement. Afghanistan became an oil-sideline to get the Central
> Asian oil to the Indian Ocean. And there comes the profit of the
> war-related industrials.
>
> I apologize for the not quite 'TOE' text.
>
> Fine by me. You have my sincere admiration.

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

On 15 June 2014 02:13,  wrote:

> Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light
> beams are curved by these large masses.  I say that large masses produce
> Coulomb grids through which light travels.  Under both theories the paths
> of light are affected. I don't see any problem.

OK, maybe you're right. It's possible all the CGs generated by all the
masses involved average out to produce something akin to the smooth
space-time curvature predicted by GR. Since neither of us has done the
maths, who can say?

> Einstein and I reach the same conclusion.
>

Hmm. He reached it via something like 13 tensor equations which can be
solved to give exact results. You reach it via some vague wordy
description... whether the universe is in fact a mathematical structure or
similar, it sure *behaves* like it is, so personally, out of these
approaches I would go for the maths and the exact predictions, which can
actually be used for useful stuff like GPS and looknig for distant
planets

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-14 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 15 June 2014 02:42, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *6  6   6  !  Boo! *
>

As anyone who watches "QI" will tell you, it's actually 616 (it's there in
Revelations, altho I forget the exact wording). Someone miscalculated.

-- 
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: Pluto bounces back!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:41 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

I submit that with the official religion of Afghanistan, and with the 
enablement of Sharia, or a watered down form of it under the Afghani royals, is 
was a sucker for the Soviets. But the Soviets, under Brezhnev, war would have 
come anyway. It just would not have seemed such a slam dunk. The people, for 
example in Syria and Iraq, are part of the problem. As far as national 
complicity, against the Jihad and all that it means, I would have inflicted a 
lot more. 

Afghanistan – which I have lived in before the Russians – has suffered war 
imposed on it by the great powers (of the era) since the British Raj. It is 
easy to blame these victims of a forty year state of war – counting from the 
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a little bit harder to understand the 
degree to which their lives have become shattered by war. Maybe because it is 
uncomfortable to admit our national complicity in the deaths of so many goat 
and sheep herders.

Yes, its called the United States. The people that you cite want to go to 
paradise, Jannah, so sacrificing sons, and brothers is a noble feat for them, 
the ticket to women and wine literally. Peace, under Quran, Soonah, Bukhari, is 
not permitted between a Kurfar (infidel) and a Muslim, on a hudna, a truce is 
permitted. You cannot separate Afghanistan from its belief systems. You cannot 
separate Iraq and Syria from its belief systems.  

A few questions. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Have you ever been to any 
Muslim country at all? 

I ask, because you seem to style yourself an expert on the thinking and inner 
mind of people in the Middle East. So naturally I am curious about the nature 
of your expertise and from what fount of knowledge you drink.

Also… you leave me, still left wondering if you have ever actually been in a 
war zone and seen what war actually is about? 

Why do I ask? It is to understand some kind of reason for the enthusiasm you 
seemingly display for a violent clash of civilizations. 

Chris

Have you ever lived in a war zone? I have. I have witnessed the horror of 
modern war (as a young teenager); I have looked into empty soul dead eyes of 
profoundly traumatized people… have you ever had such experiences?

Those who have truly experienced war tend not to be so enthusiastic about 
violence as a means to solving problems, unless they are psychopaths who enjoy 
it that is.

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:06 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

Yes, cycles absolutely can be broken, last things first, but first, people have 
to see in themselves that something is wrong. This, we must conclude is fairly, 
rare. The kind of people I am referring to, are the kind of people, that over 
your dead body, get to heaven in a little green boat, as the kiddie ditty went. 
On top of this we have unmedicated, and undermedicated, people with deep 
personality disorders. The Hatfield-McCoy thing when applied elsewhere in the 
world lack the cultural background. Also, there's no reward to stopping a bad 
habit, and there's no sufficient incentive to starting good ones. With the 
mental problem aspect there is something we can do, which is medication and 
therapy. With cultural-religious driven attacks, this is more complicated. But 
first, one must have the will and desire to radically change things, on the 
ground. The ruling elites, have no great incentive to do things which halt what 
is going on, nor, is there a great enough punishment, if they are doing 
political malpractice. Thus, the world rolls on as it has. 

It seems to me that you are ignoring a massive incentive to violence arising 
from the utter fragmentation of all social structures resulting from an 
unending state of war, imposed on the suffering goat herders you seem to enjoy 
demonizing in the most colorful language. Afghanistan – which I have lived in 
before the Russians – has suffered war imposed on it by the great powers (of 
the era) since the British Raj. It is easy to blame these victims of a forty 
year state of war – counting from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; it is a 
little bit harder to understand the degree to which their lives have become 
shattered by war. Maybe because it is uncomfortable to admit our national 
complicity in the deaths of so many goat and sheep herders.

Observe the insanity unleashed now in Syria (in which we are again heavily 
involved) the monsters on the loose over there and in the Sunni areas of Iraq –

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes  wrote:

> Liz wrote:
> E.G.: Physical theory with words: "GOD DID IT" - Physical theory with
> numbers and so on:
>
>
> I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression,
> now I certainly don't.
> Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD?
>

According to The Pixies, "God is Seven", which is just about the age he
acts in most of the Old Testament.

-- 
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: de Bono

> On 15 Jun 2014, at 9:03 am, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I remember Edward de Bono.  I read what I think was his first book, 
> which was all about thinking "outside the box" as the current phrase goes.  
> It was good advice.
> 
> Brent

Yes. And the implications for the TT are there to be seen. What makes up the 
best in human thinking is the ability to conjur something out of nothing on the 
spot. Creativity, in other words. Thinking outside the box means something very 
profound. It means we have organised our perception around all these 
Aristotelian boxes and they all have labels on them. The natural behaviour of 
the human mind is to seek that box into which something or other should placed 
or filed. Then the lid is slammed shut and the label slapped on. A thing is 
either in the box or out of the box. A thing can never be halfway in and 
halfway out. a thing can never be in two boxes at once. Everett is now spinning 
in his grave. Our thinking system is predicated on the fable that only one 
version of something can ever exist. You either accept something or you reject 
something. You either agree with me or you disagree with me. De Bono called 
this "old-fashioned intellectualism" or "Rock logic" where there is only 
dialectic opposition of ideas with some truly vain hope of the ultimate 
synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis. Nobody ever wrote a good book about 
how this was ever supposed to come about. He then made a plea for what he 
called "Water logic" where the idea is to go with the flow and to not worry 
about the obstacles in the stream but to do as water does and to flow around 
things. The biggest obstacle to the success of all human endeavours is this 
thing called "human nature." That's a very difficult rock to remove from the 
river. Intelligence is then about knowing when to call off the attack and to 
keep your mouth shut. You can tell when people are arguing from their deep 
emotional insecurities about themselves and blathering all over the place with 
fine phrases and many words. They aren't talking about the topic at all; they 
are justifying their need for others to reassure them that it's OK to be part 
of the playgroup. There is also the famous "Intelligence Trap." This is the 
observation that some highly intelligent people with 8 stroke motors between 
their ears can easily be duped or misled by simple con tricks for the basic 
reason that they have a deep need to be seen tfo be right about anything and 
everything, therefore if they cannot see what is going on inside of 5 seconds 
they start to get uppity. Some things take longer than 5 seconds to work 
through, let's face it. Comp has kept me on my toes since 1998 and I don't 
think I am all that stoopid. If you have a high IQ you have probably been told 
by your mommy and your daddy and your schoolteacher that you are an 
"accelerant" or some such bullshit, so you expect to race through everything 
and always win for the least expenditure of time and energy. Such people then 
marry the first partner that seems to fit the bill and end up in messy divorces 
and get fleeced. Humans will make a judgement about something in a nanosecond - 
this being the default behaviour of our argument-based adversarial thinking 
style. Either I will eat or I will be eaten. This then translates into things 
like "democracy" which is basically an excuse for yet more tribal behaviour. 

Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An argument 
style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing fourth wheel 
is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from agreement and 
disagreement. The idea should be the need to explore the terrain of ideas 
rather than to seek the chink or the flaw in each other's armour. Exploring a 
terrain of ideas such as we do here routinely is best done when we neither 
agree nor disagree with each other but turn and face in the same direction and 
simply report to each other on what we "see just up ahead." This way we advance 
as a group and do not dissolve into sectarian, tribal "I am right, you are 
wrong" adversarial squabbles. In the rare moments where humans do this, we are 
truly persons; possibly the self-referentially correct Löbian entities of comp.

Sorry - this post was too long. 

Kim 

> 
>> On 6/14/2014 3:35 PM, Kim wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 15 Jun 2014, at 2:34 am, John Clark wrote:
>>> 
>>> On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
>>> intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
>>> correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
>>> world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the 
>>> right track.
>> That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence 
>> is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with 
>> which the car is driven. He may have come up to the level of a trillionaire 
>> at some point

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-14 Thread Pierz

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish  > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
>> sophisticated
>> > piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
>> mailing
>> > list/forum software we are using is already "hugely mind-bogglingly
>> > incremental". It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
>> > involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
>> > increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
>> > And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
>> pretty
>> > much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
>> > intelligence built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was 
>> wearing,
>> > and she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm 
>> still
>> > agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
>> > failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
>> consider
>> > the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
>> > Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
>> the
>> > century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
>> > computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
>> in a
>> > modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
>> > think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
>> it.
>> >
>>
>> It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
>> about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
>> Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.
>>
>
> Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a 
> comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors 
> haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more "cores", i.e. 
> they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the 
> density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted 
> amount (or so I'm told).
>

No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing 
serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers 
have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this 
can't continue indefinitely. However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we 
require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat 
expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of 
course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the 
massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing 
anyway. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve 
human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's 
an article of faith that all that is required is a programming 
breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is 
fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be 
convinced that we have any understanding of that yet. I am familiar of 
course with all the arguments on this subject, including Bruno's theory 
about unprovable true statements etc, but in the end I remain unconvinced. 
For instance I would ask how we would torture an artificial consciousness 
(if we were cruel enough to want to)? How would we induce pain or pleasure? 
Sure we can "reward" a program for correctly solving a problem in some kind 
of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and knows 
what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how 
incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain). 
Anyway. Old hat I guess. My point is it comes down to a "bet", as Bruno 
likes to say. An statement of faith. At least Bruno admits it is such. As 
things stand, given the current state of AI, I'd bet the other way. 

>  
>> However, it is also true that having a 1000-fold more powerful
>> computer does not get you human intelligence, so the programming
>> breakthrough is still required.
>>
>> Yes, you have to know how people do it.
>  
>
Quote from ... someone: "If the brain were so simple we could understand 
it, we'd be so simple we couldn't." 

-- 
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: de Bono


On 6/14/2014 6:29 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

This is the observation that some highly intelligent people with 8 stroke 
motors between their ears can easily be duped or misled by simple con tricks 
for the basic reason that they have a deep need to be seen tfo be right about 
anything and everything, therefore if they cannot see what is going on inside 
of 5 seconds they start to get uppity

Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An argument 
style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing fourth wheel 
is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from agreement and 
disagreement.


Bad metaphors for a guy who races 2-stroke motorcycles.

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.

Re: de Bono

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:29:04AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote:

...
> 
> Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An argument 
> style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing fourth 
> wheel is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from agreement 
> and disagreement. The idea should be the need to explore the terrain of ideas 
> rather than to seek the chink or the flaw in each other's armour. Exploring a 
> terrain of ideas such as we do here routinely is best done when we neither 
> agree nor disagree with each other but turn and face in the same direction 
> and simply report to each other on what we "see just up ahead." This way we 
> advance as a group and do not dissolve into sectarian, tribal "I am right, 
> you are wrong" adversarial squabbles. In the rare moments where humans do 
> this, we are truly persons; possibly the self-referentially correct Löbian 
> entities of comp.
> 
> Sorry - this post was too long. 

:)

The real trick is to strike a balance between criticism, that prevents
unproductive and obviously _wrong_ ideas from consuming time and
energy, and free-wheeling speculation that leads to creative ideas.

The question is - where do you think the balance is in this forum? I
can see arguments for both ends of the spectrum.


-- 


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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 06:34:51PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
> 
> No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing 
> serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers 
> have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this 
> can't continue indefinitely. 

Hmm we're hitting limits to what can be achieved with 2D lithographic
processes on silicon, although exotic negative refractive index
materials may well allow lithographic techniques to be scaled to much
smaller than the wavelength of UV. This means there will probably be a
"bump" in store for Moore's law shortly. But we're still a long way
from fundemental physics limitations.

Where to from here? Probably the most obvious is the move to 3D. But
that direction will bump into thermal limits pretty soon, as a 3D object
tends lower surface to volume ratios. So the answer will probably need
to involve exotic materials - maybe Gallium, or maybe the memristor
stuff HP is working on. Or organic transitors. There's any number of
ideas in the research lab, that might be the successor to current VLSI
technology. 

>However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we 
> require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat 
> expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of 
> course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the 
> massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing 
> anyway. 

Most of the machine learning algorithms (our most succesful AI
algorithms) are quite parallel as it is. Do you really think the learning
algorithm behind Google's language translation tool runs as a single
process task?

And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve 
> human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's 
> an article of faith that all that is required is a programming 
> breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is 
> fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be 
> convinced that we have any understanding of that yet.

There is a simpler task that doesn't involve qualia (unless you happen
to be a creationist). Create a creative evolutionary system that
mimics biological evolution in continuously creating new solutions to problems.

I suspect that once that problem is understood, the step to genuine
AGI will be rather short. Of course, we'll probably still be arguing
over whether those AGIs are conscious or not, but as Brent notes,
maybe that particular question will then become uninteresting...

-- 

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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz  wrote:

> Sure we can "reward" a program for correctly solving a problem in some
> kind of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and
> knows what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how
> incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain).
>
> You could scrub the floor of your Chinese Room with some really abrasive
bleach, that would teach it a thing or two.

And then polish it with a soft duster...

-- 
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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz  wrote:
>
> Quote from ... someone: "If the brain were so simple we could understand
> it, we'd be so simple we couldn't."
>
> Excellent!

-- 
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.

"Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-neuroscience-behavior-animals-science

-- 
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: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"


On 6/14/2014 9:37 PM, LizR wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-neuroscience-behavior-animals-science


Interesting that this experiment is all about qualia, which we're told are ineffable and 
can't be possessed by computers because they're not human.


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.

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 15 June 2014 16:49, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 6/14/2014 9:37 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-
>> neuroscience-behavior-animals-science
>>
>
> Interesting that this experiment is all about qualia, which we're told are
> ineffable and can't be possessed by computers because they're not human.
>

Yes. At least we assume there are qualia involved. The experiment only
measures their "neural correlates" (since you can't ask a rat what it's
experiencing, obviously that's all they can do, of course).

However, I'm sure Bruno would be happy to allow a suitably programmed
computer to have qualia.

-- 
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: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 6/14/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:

On 15 June 2014 16:49, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 6/14/2014 9:37 PM, LizR wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-neuroscience-behavior-animals-science

Interesting that this experiment is all about qualia, which we're told are
ineffable
and can't be possessed by computers because they're not human.

Yes. At least we assume there are qualia involved. The experiment only measures their
"neural correlates" (since you can't ask a rat what it's experiencing, obviously that's
all they can do, of course).

But if you asked and the rate replied that would just be a different neural
correlate.

However, I'm sure Bruno would be happy to allow a suitably programmed computer to have
qualia.

Bruno proposes that consciousness goes along with being able to understand the proof of
Godel's incompleteness theorem. I think that's too high a bar. There must be different
levels and kinds of consciousness.

And there's this experiment:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36705/title/Manipulating-Mouse-Memory/

Which is another step toward being able to engineer consciousness. Once that is possible,
questions about qualia will seem just another way of talking about neuroscience.

Brent

Re: "Rats! I should have done that, not this!"

On 15 June 2014 18:12, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 6/14/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 15 June 2014 16:49, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/2014 9:37 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140608-regret-rats-neuroscience-behavior-animals-science
>>>
>>
>> Interesting that this experiment is all about qualia, which we're told
>> are ineffable and can't be possessed by computers because they're not human.
>>
>
>  Yes. At least we assume there are qualia involved. The experiment only
> measures their "neural correlates" (since you can't ask a rat what it's
> experiencing, obviously that's all they can do, of course).
>
> But if you asked and the rat replied that would just be a different neural
> correlate.
>
> No it wouldn't. That would be the rat introspecting and telling you about
its subjective impressions. There would presumably be neural correlates to
that process, which could in principle be detected, but the rat replying
wouldn't be those, it would be the rat replying.

> However, I'm sure Bruno would be happy to allow a suitably programmed
> computer to have qualia.
>
> Bruno proposes that consciousness goes along with being able to understand
> the proof of Godel's incompleteness theorem.  I think that's too high a
> bar. There must be different levels and kinds of consciousness.
>

He does? I must admit I haven't come across that in the parts of comp I've
tried to understand so far. Could you elucidate?

>
> And there's this experiment:
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36705/title/Manipulating-Mouse-Memory/
>
> Which is another step toward being able to engineer consciousness.  Once
> that is possible, questions about qualia will seem just another way of
> talking about neuroscience.
>

I don't see how they're engineering consciousness. Presumably the mouse's
brain can do that (assuming mice are in fact conscious). As far as I can
tell from the article, they appear to be creating false memories, i.e.
changing what the mice are conscious *of*.

-- 
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: de Bono

> On 15 Jun 2014, at 12:17 pm, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:29:04AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An argument 
>> style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing fourth 
>> wheel is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from agreement 
>> and disagreement. The idea should be the need to explore the terrain of 
>> ideas rather than to seek the chink or the flaw in each other's armour. 
>> Exploring a terrain of ideas such as we do here routinely is best done when 
>> we neither agree nor disagree with each other but turn and face in the same 
>> direction and simply report to each other on what we "see just up ahead." 
>> This way we advance as a group and do not dissolve into sectarian, tribal "I 
>> am right, you are wrong" adversarial squabbles. In the rare moments where 
>> humans do this, we are truly persons; possibly the self-referentially 
>> correct Löbian entities of comp.
>> 
>> Sorry - this post was too long.
> 
> :)
> 
> The real trick is to strike a balance between criticism, that prevents
> unproductive and obviously _wrong_ ideas from consuming time and
> energy, and free-wheeling speculation that leads to creative ideas.
> 
> The question is - where do you think the balance is in this forum? I
> can see arguments for both ends of the spectrum.
> 
Yes, of course. This is why thinking - real productive thinking and not 
freewheeling point to point conversation - is best carried out under the aegis 
of an artificially designed framework, like de Bono's Six Thinking Hats. The 
trouble is, until you see the output of a Hats session, one tends to think that 
this is just a way to shackle thinking when in fact the reverse is the case. De 
Bono held to the firm assertion that thinking is best done in a formal way and 
in terms of a set of rules which he generally tricked up as a kind of a game. 
For this reason you can teach the Hats to 4 year olds in kindergarten and you 
can teach it to Nobel Laureates with equally amazing results. The idea is to 
defeat the naturally negative adversarial hyper-critical default frame of human 
thinking and make it impossible for people to just sit around and criticise 
each other and get nowhere at all. Thinking is done for a reason, not for 
entertainment. Unfortunately, it may just be that posting to lists like this 
one may be its own reward which is what goes on with most social media. De Bono 
said that social media just makes people lazy and stupid in their thinking and 
the older I get the more I see what he means.

Having said that, and to address your question more directly, de Bono thinkers 
allow that in science there is a big role given to the Black Hat, which is 
where you are allowed to demonstrate in logical terms why an idea is flawed, 
may not work, has serious drawbacks etc. because this is indeed the basis of 
the scientific method and Popperism etc. It may just be though that the use of 
the Yellow Hat and Green Hats is somewhat underplayed. With the Yellow Hat on 
(everyone wears the same-coloured metaphorical Hat at the same time) you MUST 
seek the benefits of an idea, even if your Red Hat gut feeling wants to 
intervene and say what a bunch of crap, which is the old-fashioned argument 
style where people interrupt each other and smack one another down the moment 
they have a chance to. You cannot say "I am the resident Black Hat thinker 
around here, I only do the Black Hat" because if you do, you will instantly be 
seen to be very deficient at Yellow Hat and Green Hat thinking which will get 
you laughed out of the room. This is where the balance in the positive and the 
negative is seriously and productively achieved. One of the rules of the gsme 
is to always wear the Yellow Hat before the Black Hat since absolutely everyone 
is an expert at Black Hat thinking whereas Yellow Hat thinking needs to be 
inculcated.

My invoice for this consultancy session will arrive in the post soon.

Kim

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

On 15 June 2014 01:38,  wrote:

> My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I
> understand is not explained by QM.  QM does not explain logically why
> electrons do not blow themselves apart.  I don't believe in quantum
> weirdness.


Please elaborate. Certain Aspects* of quantum weirdness have been very well
tested experimentally ,
and shown to hold.


>  There is a universe.
>

The universe is a hypothesis we use to explain our observationsone that
seems to have held up quite well, although Bruno may have found an
unexpected hole in it.

* quantum physics joke :)

-- 
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: de Bono

> On 15 Jun 2014, at 12:02 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 6/14/2014 6:29 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>> This is the observation that some highly intelligent people with 8 stroke 
>> motors between their ears can easily be duped or misled by simple con tricks 
>> for the basic reason that they have a deep need to be seen tfo be right 
>> about anything and everything, therefore if they cannot see what is going on 
>> inside of 5 seconds they start to get uppity
>> 
>> Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An argument 
>> style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing fourth 
>> wheel is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from agreement 
>> and disagreement.
> 
> Bad metaphors for a guy who races 2-stroke motorcycles.
> 
> Brent
> 

Tee hee. Tee hee. The funny part is, to continue the metaphor for a moment, you 
might have the means to possess a Ferrari but not the skill to drive one. 
Ferrari owners are likely to be the high IQ types that expect everything to be 
quick and easy for them and only manage to wrap themselves and the car around 
the nearest tree. You might, on the other hand possess a humble 2 stroke Deux 
chevaux and spend three times as long arriving at your destination, but do so - 
and in one piece.

Intelligence is the horsepower of the vehicle, thinking skill is the ability to 
optimise your available horsepower, which may not be all that great. You can 
teach thinking to Autism spectrum kids. Been there, done that.

K

-- 
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: TRONNIES - SPACE

On 15 June 2014 01:54,  wrote:

> I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and
> Aristotle.  I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone
> number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my
> theory relates to the thinking of these fellows.
>
> "Aristotelianism" is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories
which assume that matter/energy and space/time are "primitive", which means
they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all
that existed were "atoms and the void" which is still roughly what
"materialist" scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what
I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of
physicists). The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears
self-evidently true!

"Platonism" is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in
some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms" - the
modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect
forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would
mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi
 attempted to produce a
TOE
based
on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has
suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so
years, maths has been the "royal road to physical explanations" - there is
nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls "surplus baggage" -
an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological
significance is still unknown.

-- 
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: de Bono