date:20140625



On 25 Jun 2014, at 03:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is  
in the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their  
lucrative criminal activities.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money  
which can purchase goods, luxury, women, power.


I agree.


So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury,  
women, power,..?


I did not suppose that. Exactly the contrary. I insist that this is  
the weakness of religion and the theological, but also the health,  
fields. They are used by bandits who exploits them; But the religion  
is not the problem, it is the bandits who exploit them, and we should  
not confuse them.





You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some "criminal  
acts".


Yes. To criticize religion for that would be like criticizing money  
for the stealing of money, or criticizing blood for the feeding of  
cancer.







  What is a crime is often defined by religion


That makes sense in "primitive society", but religion might have  
nothing to say on the terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and the  
institutionalization of religion.




and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official  
dogma.


That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a science,  
we might have just forbid the institutionalization of any religion.


Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them.




So the problem is not just "radical Islam"; it is any Islam, and any  
religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that dogma to  
avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative  
afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.


In occident. After theology has been abandoned to politics and  
bandits. I use religion in the original sense. For me there is just no  
relation between, even just christianity, and what followed its roman  
institutionalization.


Only by coming back to seriousness in theology, we will be able to  
fight against the religious institutions. Mocking religion and  
theology only profits to the (fake) religions and to its  
authoritarianism.


Bruno






Brent
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over  
them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27

--
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: Disproving physicalism from COMP



On 25 Jun 2014, at 09:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014-06-25 6:52 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote:

On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb  wrote:

If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for  
consciousness, or for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the  
argument above, makes that role very mysterious, so much that it is  
not clear why we could still say yes to the doctor in virtue of  
correct digital rendering.


You can still say yes to the doctor because he is going to use  
matter to make your brain prosthesis.


Surely that will just be a copy that thinks it's you - it won't be  
you, so if you are destroyed in the process of making the digital  
copy, you really do die. While in comp the digital copy is you, by  
definition.


?? Comp is the theory that it will be you after the doctor gives you  
a prothesis for your brain (plus some other assumptions).


Not only that, as comp stands for *computationalism* so, it also  
means that whatever your mind is, it can be captured by a form of  
computation... what you're defining here is functionalism (and  
computationalism is of course included in functionalism, but not the  
other way around).



In this list. Yes. But historically (and in many books),  
"functionalism" is the term coined by H. Putnam for a particular case  
of computationalism, with a brain modeled at an implicit high level by  
a Turing machine(*).


Functionalism, without computationalism, is not a doctrine, as it is  
fuzzy about functions and level. You need to define the calss of  
functions that are allowed.  If you take all functions: it is a  
basically empty.


So the term functionalism can mean 'comp' in some context (Putnam,  
Cognitive science), and 'non-computationalism' (here).


You might look at:

PUTNAM H., 1960, Minds and Machines, Dimensions of Mind : A Symposium,  
Sidney
Hook (Ed.), New-York University Press, New-York. Repris dans Anderson  
A. R. (Ed.),1964.


ANDERSON A.R. (ed.), 1964, Minds and Machine, Prentice Hall inc. New  
Jersey. Trad.

Française : Pensée et machine, Editions du Champ Vallon, 1983.

Bruno






Quentin

It will be you even after you are duplicated (though it's troubling  
for JKC that "you" is both singular and plural).


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.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
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: Disproving physicalism from COMP

2014-06-25 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-06-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 25 Jun 2014, at 09:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-06-25 6:52 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
>
>>  On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>
 If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for consciousness, or
 for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the argument above, makes that
 role very mysterious, so much that it is not clear why we could still say
 yes to the doctor in virtue of correct digital rendering.

>>>
>>>  You can still say yes to the doctor because he is going to use matter
>>> to make your brain prosthesis.
>>>
>>
>>  Surely that will just be a copy that thinks it's you - it won't be you,
>> so if you are destroyed in the process of making the digital copy, you
>> really do die. While in comp the digital copy *is* you, by definition.
>>
>>
>> ?? Comp is the theory that it will be you after the doctor gives you a
>> prothesis for your brain (plus some other assumptions).
>>
>
> Not only that, as comp stands for *computationalism* so, it also means
> that whatever your mind is, it can be captured by a form of computation...
> what you're defining here is functionalism (and computationalism is of
> course included in functionalism, but not the other way around).
>
>
>
> In this list. Yes. But historically (and in many books), "functionalism"
> is the term coined by H. Putnam for a particular case of computationalism,
> with a brain modeled at an implicit high level by a Turing machine(*).
>

Well the term predates hime; and if I look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

*"Its core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in pain,
etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role – that is, they are
causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral
outputs."*

 It tells nothing about how the function is realized... so yes
computationalism is a sort of functionalism, but functionalism is
broader... it could be that mind is not a computation but a sort of analog
machinery could replicate it, so it would be a form of functionalism but
not computationalism (or digital mechanism as I see them both as synonym)
at all.

Quentin



> Functionalism, without computationalism, is not a doctrine, as it is fuzzy
> about functions and level. You need to define the calss of functions that
> are allowed.  If you take all functions: it is a basically empty.
>
> So the term functionalism can mean 'comp' in some context (Putnam,
> Cognitive science), and 'non-computationalism' (here).
>
> You might look at:
>
> PUTNAM H., 1960, Minds and Machines, Dimensions of Mind : A Symposium,
> Sidney
> Hook (Ed.), New-York University Press, New-York. Repris dans Anderson A.
> R. (Ed.),1964.
>
> ANDERSON A.R. (ed.), 1964, Minds and Machine, Prentice Hall inc. New
> Jersey. Trad.
> Française : Pensée et machine, Editions du Champ Vallon, 1983.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Quentin
>
>
>> It will be you even after you are duplicated (though it's troubling for
>> JKC that "you" is both singular and plural).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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 gr

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP



On 25 Jun 2014, at 10:22, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014-06-25 10:15 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 25 Jun 2014, at 09:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014-06-25 6:52 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
On 6/24/2014 2:29 AM, LizR wrote:

On 24 June 2014 17:04, meekerdb  wrote:

If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for  
consciousness, or for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the  
argument above, makes that role very mysterious, so much that it  
is not clear why we could still say yes to the doctor in virtue of  
correct digital rendering.


You can still say yes to the doctor because he is going to use  
matter to make your brain prosthesis.


Surely that will just be a copy that thinks it's you - it won't be  
you, so if you are destroyed in the process of making the digital  
copy, you really do die. While in comp the digital copy is you, by  
definition.


?? Comp is the theory that it will be you after the doctor gives  
you a prothesis for your brain (plus some other assumptions).


Not only that, as comp stands for *computationalism* so, it also  
means that whatever your mind is, it can be captured by a form of  
computation... what you're defining here is functionalism (and  
computationalism is of course included in functionalism, but not  
the other way around).



In this list. Yes. But historically (and in many books),  
"functionalism" is the term coined by H. Putnam for a particular  
case of computationalism, with a brain modeled at an implicit high  
level by a Turing machine(*).


Well the term predates hime; and if I look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

"Its core idea is that mental states (beliefs, desires, being in  
pain, etc.) are constituted solely by their functional role - that  
is, they are causal relations to other mental states, sensory  
inputs, and behavioral outputs."


 It tells nothing about how the function is realized... so yes  
computationalism is a sort of functionalism, but functionalism is  
broader... it could be that mind is not a computation but a sort of  
analog machinery could replicate it, so it would be a form of  
functionalism but not computationalism (or digital mechanism as I  
see them both as synonym) at all.


I agree with you. Just said the original meaning. "functionalism" is  
rarely used in a context using explicit non computable functions. The  
term is too much broad imo. If you take all functions, then  
functionalism is tautological. I think.


Bruno





Quentin



Functionalism, without computationalism, is not a doctrine, as it is  
fuzzy about functions and level. You need to define the calss of  
functions that are allowed.  If you take all functions: it is a  
basically empty.


So the term functionalism can mean 'comp' in some context (Putnam,  
Cognitive science), and 'non-computationalism' (here).


You might look at:

PUTNAM H., 1960, Minds and Machines, Dimensions of Mind : A  
Symposium, Sidney
Hook (Ed.), New-York University Press, New-York. Repris dans  
Anderson A. R. (Ed.),1964.


ANDERSON A.R. (ed.), 1964, Minds and Machine, Prentice Hall inc. New  
Jersey. Trad.

Française : Pensée et machine, Editions du Champ Vallon, 1983.

Bruno






Quentin

It will be you even after you are duplicated (though it's troubling  
for JKC that "you" is both singular and plural).


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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
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.


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.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everythin

Re: American Intelligence --> Thinking about Thinking

2014-06-25 Thread Kim Jones

If you look at a plate and see two apples on it then the testing apparatus is 
your eye. Anyone else with properly functioning eyes would see the same to 
Apples.

When people tell you about their experience you are not using their testing 
apparatus directly. The person might have experienced an illusion. The person's 
memory might be faulty. When some children were asked about their childhood 
several falsely accused a parent of abuse. This was not deliberate but memory 
had constructed a scenario which never existed. A person might also be 
deliberately deceitful.

The whole purpose of 'scientific truth' is to get rid of most of these 
difficulties and to show that the same tests applied by many different people 
will produce the same results. What scientists do not always understand is that 
this validity of testing does not equally apply to the interpretation of the 
results. The interpretation of results is more individual and relies on 
individual hypotheses and frameworks which have not themselves being tested. 

In science, proof is often no more than lack of imagination. We are sure that B 
must have been caused by A simply because we cannot imagine any other cause. So 
many errors in science have arisen just from this obvious limitation.

With 'general experience' we are we accept as true what most people claim to 
have experienced. This gets rid of the problem of personal deceit, personal 
faulty memory and personal illusion. What it does not get rid of is 'selective 
perception'. 

The patterns formed in the brain insure that the brain perceives what it is 
most ready to perceive. This gives rise to prejudice, stereotypes, 
discrimination etc. If there is an existing prejudice that people from the land 
of Palia tend to be thieves then you will particularly notice any thieving 
behaviour by Palians. You will not notice that 98% of Palians are not thieves. 
You will not notice that thieving among Palians is not higher than among any 
other ethnic group. It is for these reasons that newspapers in many countries 
are forbidden to give the ethnic origin of arrested criminals unless this is 
directly relevant.

Belief based on selective perception is one of the most dangerous forms of 
belief because it is genuinely experienced and genuinely believed to be true. 

'Truth' based on selective perception is a particular form of 'belief truth'. 
Here we set up a framework of beliefs and values. Looking at the world through 
that framework reinforces the truth of that framework. Belief is that way of 
looking at the world that reinforces that way of looking at the world. 
Religious beliefs are of this type. 

Unfortunately, in order to confirm the truth of your beliefs you may need to 
show that other belief systems are 'not true'. This has historically meant war, 
persecution, pog-roms etc. On this list it means the usual childish squabbles 
and snide remarks, none of which assist the search for the TOE.

Muslims accept Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'. They consider that 
Islam is merely the latest edition of the same book or religion. This may 
explain why historically, Muslims were much less inclined to persecute 
Christians or Jews in Muslim cities than the other way around. If you are 
confident you have much less need to prove yourself right.

The need to prove yourself right and be seen to be right by others about 
something is the first great sin committed by anyone who wishes to learn how to 
be an effective thinker. There is a much greater need to be able to navigate a 
large terrain of ideas with a correspondingly large range of possible values. 
Judgement is always prematurely applied by poor thinkers and this is the source 
of much fallout, argy-bargy and is an enormous impediment to progress. True 
explorers have no map to refer to in their quest. Rather, they construct the 
map.

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: American Intelligence

No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence, as 
in ignoring what people say and do and just going with "a feeling." This is 
years of observing the actions of "your" side. It's purely, observing speeches 
and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude Shannon (who worked for the OSS 
from 1942-45) you observe what people say to each other, of their own 
persuasion, and also what they do not say. For example, in my country, there is 
now a big scandal, that the president and his loyal press cannot bury. 
Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US IRS, 
and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of the 
heads of the IRS. Its' the use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a 
"conservative" report for Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its 
spying capabilities, It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal 
press, which gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections, 
the news comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to themselves, 
psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover up, which got 4 
people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved them. Motivations for 
not acting? Military action would weakened support from his fellow, lib voters, 
for the 2012 election, and also, and this is just my guess, he was rocking the 
ganj in the whitehouse with some girfriend. Look to Michelle's quietude, to 
Hillary Clinton's quietude, to Jacqueline Kennedy's quietude on marital 
dalliances, as a solid history. I suppose sex in the whitehouse has some charm 
for some women. My point is BHO didn't want to be bothered, and for months "his 
press" shilled for him. Oh, that's right! Liberals are the good guys, you care 
about people, because you're so willing to use other people's money, so you can 
"feel" better. Yeah. 


 I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of yours 
gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no way of 
knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning. 
Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on people 
who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do you have 
starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.
Chris





-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
  
 



To most "liberals/progressive/Marxists" is a wet dream, a fantasy come true for 
them. The "boi" thing is nice and I wish I thought of it. People are not 
xenophobic, if they actually have world, idiots actively seeing you go bye bye, 
Since the baddies have won the last US election, its their world now. However, 
I still suspect an X crossing Y point in the US, not went the 53% get angry, 
but when the 47% feels they have had enough. As far as who to like and hate in 
the world, there's nothing stopping any nationalist from working together on 
important trade, and technical pursuits. Race is no big deal as we are all 
related, seemingly, but, now, cultures are a wy, different thing, because 
it conveys who one identifies with, and what one values. That's where things 
are more nuanced. But even here, if the rewards are great enough, we can have 
enough incentive, for people to work together. But not if they're out to cut 
one's throat. 

Where have I ever said that a destabilized America is to my liking? Never said 
anything remotely suggesting that. Does spudboi mean "xenophobic potato head" 
perchance?

 
 I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of yours 
gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no way of 
knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning. 
Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on people 
who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do you have 
starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.
Chris




 




-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 



>>This will likely bring some sort of conflict, I am guessing. However, a 
>>destabilized, US, might be to your liking, emotionally, so as to fit your 
>>personal world view? In any case you can test out your national friendships 
>>with China, Russia, Iran, and maybe, ISIS? (That's a great name for a 
>>group-Ian Fleming couldn't have done better!).


Where have I ever said that a destabilized Am

Re: American Intelligence

2014-06-25 Thread Richard Ruquist

Spud: Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the
US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the
admission of the heads of the IRS.

RR: Untrue. As of last year the only org to lose their tax exempt status
was a liberal org from Maine
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/



On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:11 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be
> avoidence, as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with "a
> feeling." This is years of observing the actions of "your" side. It's
> purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude
> Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say
> to each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For
> example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the president and
> his loyal press cannot bury. Specifically, it's the use of auditing
> conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing
> liberal groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. Its' the
> use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a "conservative" report for
> Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its spying capabilities,
> It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal press, which
> gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections, the news
> comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to themselves,
> psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover up, which
> got 4 people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved them.
> Motivations for not acting? Military action would weakened support from his
> fellow, lib voters, for the 2012 election, and also, and this is just my
> guess, he was rocking the ganj in the whitehouse with some girfriend. Look
> to Michelle's quietude, to Hillary Clinton's quietude, to Jacqueline
> Kennedy's quietude on marital dalliances, as a solid history. I suppose sex
> in the whitehouse has some charm for some women. My point is BHO didn't
> want to be bothered, and for months "his press" shilled for him. Oh, that's
> right! Liberals are the good guys, you care about people, because you're so
> willing to use other people's money, so you can "feel" better. Yeah.
>
>  I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  insert whatever label here> are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of
> yours gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no
> way of knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning.
> Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on
> people who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do
> you have starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
> You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 7:46 pm
> Subject: Re: American Intelligence
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* spudboy100 via Everything List 
>
>   To most "liberals/progressive/Marxists" is a wet dream, a fantasy come
> true for them. The "boi" thing is nice and I wish I thought of it. People
> are not xenophobic, if they actually have world, idiots actively seeing you
> go bye bye, Since the baddies have won the last US election, its their
> world now. However, I still suspect an X crossing Y point in the US, not
> went the 53% get angry, but when the 47% feels they have had enough. As far
> as who to like and hate in the world, there's nothing stopping any
> nationalist from working together on important trade, and technical
> pursuits. Race is no big deal as we are all related, seemingly, but, now,
> cultures are a wy, different thing, because it conveys who one
> identifies with, and what one values. That's where things are more nuanced.
> But even here, if the rewards are great enough, we can have enough
> incentive, for people to work together. But not if they're out to cut one's
> throat.
>
> Where have I ever said that a destabilized America is to my liking? Never
> said anything remotely suggesting that. Does spudboi mean "xenophobic
> potato head" perchance?
>
>
>  I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  insert whatever label here> are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of
> yours gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no
> way of knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning.
> Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on
> people who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do
> you have starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
> You force me to admi

Re: Pluto bounces back!

I always thought the Organian (was that the blond kid in the toga?) looked like 
he should've been serving crudites' in a fine restaurant. It wasn't the Gorn, 
ss! Or the light globes betting 10 Qwat-loo's? Anyways, God, as a mind 
emerging from the universe, gets us away from Aquinas' view or Rabbi, Ben Bag 
Bag (a name I treasure for some reason?).  Your quote is Shemer's last law, 
which I am real good with. It doesn't pimp-slap me, one way or another. 

This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least in 
fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come across them 
with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:28 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!



On 25 June 2014 03:34, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box thinking. I 
don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human species? But it might 
in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get me a coffee latte. Any 
thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816



"Any sufficiently advanced alien is indistinguishable from God."


This has been exploited by explorers meeting primitive peoples, at least in 
fiction but probably in reality too. Plus Captain Kirk used to come across them 
with monotonous regularity - the Organians and all that.



-- 
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!

Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore, so let's focus 
where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and draw 
together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways' one could 
concede your point. Also, I am not a Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya 
want to beat up JC why not this quote, "I come not to bring peace but with a 
sword." And the Christians surely did, right into the 20th century, but no 
longer.

This is naive.  Bandits  do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can 
purchase goods,  luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses 
religion  to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse   
   religion and blame it all on some "criminal acts".  What is a  crime is 
often defined by religion and it often includes  questioning the priesthood 
and the official dogma.  So theproblem is not just "radical Islam"; it is 
any Islam, and anyreligion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that 
dogma toavoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative
afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign overthem, 
bring hither, and slay them before me."
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 




-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!


  

On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real  problem is in the 
exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide  their lucrative criminal 
activities.

This is naive.  Bandits  do lucrative criminal acts to get money which 
can purchase goods,  luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one 
uses religion  to get goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to 
excuse  religion and blame it all on some "criminal acts".  What is a  
crime is often defined by religion and it often includes  questioning the 
priesthood and the official dogma.  So theproblem is not just "radical 
Islam"; it is any Islam, and anyreligion, which has a dogma and requires 
belief in that dogma toavoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a 
putativeafterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign overthem, 
bring hither, and slay them before me."
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 
  

-- 
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: American Intelligence

2014-06-25 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Right off the bat: sorry for this slightly OT post. There is stuff about
> discrimination/labeling in the linked video clip below, concerning the
> profound truth of "All men are rats", however. Higher standards, here we
> come!
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
>> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Telmo Menezes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have to say, I find it a bit silly when people identify too much with
 their nationality (or profession, or gender...) to the point that they get
 offended when a generic remark is made.

 It is fairly obvious that Kim is not suggesting that Chris or Brent or
 any other specific American in this list is a person of low intelligence.
 The generalisation per se might be without merit, but even so it's perhaps
 a good exercise in to learn to tolerate it.

 We have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of
 any of our respective countries.
 Why care so much about imaginary lines in the ground?

>>>
>>> Because without it, opium for the masses like FIFA world cup makes less
>>> sense, and people would start to realize and have more time to ponder that
>>> they are getting shafted... and by whom.
>>>
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>
>>>  Also we need to get rid of those immigrants stealing all our jobs and
>>> vote hard right. At least that's what civilized Europe is doing
>>> increasingly.
>>>
>>
>> I want to believe that this is a passing fad of populism festering on the
>> economic recession.
>>
>
> Yes, same here. Grain of salt is: in Weimar Republic this reasoning was
> quite similar with intellectuals until it was too late.
>

I know...

>
> What is left/progressive in the states is somehow moderate business as
> usual in Europe, dead center... But this matters little as foe example the
> general state prosecutor in Germany finds "no concrete indication of
> spying" in the wake of Merkel scandal and snowden. Word is he styles
> himself as keeping peace in international relations, servant to German
> state interests.
>

This reminds me of how Berlusconi reacted to WikiLeaks. Something along the
lines of: "this is so funny, now everyone can see that they are all like
me".

>
> Of course we need measures to oversee ideological nutjobs
> activity/dangerous tech movements etc. But the manner in which this is
> conducted needs more scrutiny:
>

In terms of ideological nutjobs, I suspect that the solution is
counter-intuitive. Instead of fighting them, perhaps it's better to not
react to them at all. Treat a skinhead like a perfectly normal person and
the skinhead is destroyed. The feeling of persecution is exploited in
recruiting people to these organisations.

>
> if we can only keep ourselves secure by agreeing to do each others' dirty
> laundry, bypassing other sovereign nations' laws, so they may bypass our
> own, then I don't see why this isn't perceived as dangerous and cynical;
> and because of legal complexity times digital age, even counterproductive
> to security on all levels of democratic model (multiplying hacker warfare
> etc).
>

I think the illusion that has to be broken is very much related to
patriotism. Merkel, Obama, Hollande, etc. have more allegiance to each
other than to their citizens. It's naive to assume that Merkel is German of
Obama is American. They are world leaders and belong to the cast of the
world leaders. They feed on patriotism to act against their people. In a
globalised western world, patriotism is the old strategy of "divide and
conquer".

>
> If "everybody does it" justification would hold sway in courts the way it
> does here internationally...
>

>
>>
>>
>>>  So you're saying this, but really, you are lamenting Portugal's
>>> performance ;-) PGC
>>>
>>
>>  Eheh. Hey, Ronaldo had the best haircut though :)
>>
>
> By far! But through long hard work, if time is on our side, we'll
> naturally gravitate to better role models/exemplars.
>
>
>>
>> I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to
>> say about nationalism and hating immigrants:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4
>>
>
> He has an indoor smoking permit?
>

In many places, smoking on stage is allowed if part of an artistic
performance. I heard him joke about how he exploits this rule just because
he wants to smoke.

> Unbelievable, you'd think that people would drop dead next to him due to
> passive inhalation! Gosh what chicken have we become when all jazz bars
> must be smokeless, no exceptions!
>

It's depressing.

> While our pollution, all the threads this has spawned, Liz's thread with
> the pesticides...ok.
>
> In appreciation of Telmo's link, here's a recent one you might not have
> caught yet:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvJqiyiMq

Re: American Intelligence

2014-06-25 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> In terms of ideological nutjobs, I suspect that the solution is
> counter-intuitive. Instead of fighting them, perhaps it's better to not
> react to them at all. Treat a skinhead like a perfectly normal person and
> the skinhead is destroyed. The feeling of persecution is exploited in
> recruiting people to these organisations.
>

This I have been barking at for years. The same way we don't point the
camera at some flasher at sporting event or World Cup and don't put them up
on big screen. I find the extra attention that savage, ideological acts of
violence receive totally counterproductive. They should face trial like any
mass murderers and the propaganda thirst of the west has to be quenched
elsewhere.

Elevating obscure groups/individuals to global publicity status for this is
idiotic, inspires misguided followers, empowers right wing hawk types and
the interests they represent everywhere: extremist, weapons industry and
its black market, both right and left political side, prohibition
tendencies, and abuse of authoritative argument all benefit from this
mutually beneficial publicity system.

>
>
>>
>> if we can only keep ourselves secure by agreeing to do each others' dirty
>> laundry, bypassing other sovereign nations' laws, so they may bypass our
>> own, then I don't see why this isn't perceived as dangerous and cynical;
>> and because of legal complexity times digital age, even counterproductive
>> to security on all levels of democratic model (multiplying hacker warfare
>> etc).
>>
>
> I think the illusion that has to be broken is very much related to
> patriotism.
>

Culture not only as the bringer of progress, but also collective jailor.
But as long as we get to watch drama of some ball being kicked around, who
cares? Tomorrow Germany plays US to prove that they're good at kicking a
ball around; if they can't safeguard their democracy from getting legal
system undermined and US intimidation, then at least they get to penetrate
a fishing net with a spherical piece of cow skin, or its space age
replacement nowadays, I guess...

> Merkel, Obama, Hollande, etc. have more allegiance to each other than to
> their citizens. It's naive to assume that Merkel is German of Obama is
> American. They are world leaders and belong to the cast of the world
> leaders. They feed on patriotism to act against their people. In a
> globalised western world, patriotism is the old strategy of "divide and
> conquer".
>
>
>
>>> I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to
>>> say about nationalism and hating immigrants:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4
>>>
>>
>> He has an indoor smoking permit?
>>
>
> In many places, smoking on stage is allowed if part of an artistic
> performance.
>

I know. I need more clout in local bars. People have done all kinds of
disgusting things on stage, like cut themselves and what not... my
inability to do so (uhm smoke, not cut...) reflects my bad/needy/overly
polite PR strategy. You've got to have some things to look forward to in
life, I suppose. To infinitely higher standards and beyond, lol. ;-) PGC

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

Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture



On 27 May 2014, at 01:37, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything  
List  wrote:





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

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer  
architecture




On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR  wrote:

On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes  wrote:



On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens  
wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related  
to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...




Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy  
billions of years before our star was born and we are just the local  
Sol branch off the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger  
scale) tree of life. A plausible hypothesis - actually saw it a few  
nights ago on the Cosmos reboot is that when stars transit through  
interstellar gas clouds (the nurseries of new stars and planets)  
their attendant comet clouds become gravitationally perturbed,  
initiating an era of cometary bombardment.



I think they're doing a fine job with that reboot, although probably  
not up to Bruno's standards, lol.


Recently found a video where the host chats for 3 minutes on his  
take regarding "atheism and agnosticism":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos



Very nice. I am not astonished that Tyson is systematically renamed  
"atheist" on the wiki page on him (that he did not create, but try to  
correct, unsuccessfully!).


In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this  
can only create a confusion.


Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to  
"Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic  (~[] g)  
and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~.  
Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference.


Bruno




PGC

If a planet orbiting a star that is transiting one of these immense  
clouds get a good whack some of its life bearing rock can be hurled  
from the system and every once in a great while find its way to  
another water bearing planet orbiting some other star. This actually  
sounds plausible to me... that interstellar nurseries are also the  
cosmic engines for spreading advanced microbial life forms from  
planets of one star to other planets orbiting other stars Over the  
eons. Perhaps star systems have been exchanging DNA and microbial  
life since life first began somewhere in our galaxy and that this  
kind of emergent process is occurring in every galaxy in every  
universe with laws consonant with stable wet organic chemistry.


Chris



Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know  
enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space  
for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or  
above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only  
viable solution, or the most likely solution.




Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically  
similar. We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with  
any other species that evolved on the same planet under very similar  
conditions to us - for example, we are very closely related to  
chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them.




Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were  
talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding.  
So functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in "sheep are  
nervous". :)




Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in  
(or an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad  
range of items, depending on your tastes (See "A melon for ecstasy"  
and "The unrepentant necrophile" for some suggestions for things one  
can "have sex with" in this sense, should one be so inclined).


However your original reply (in blue above) certainly appeared to be  
talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are  
"the only viable solution for fetishists who happen to get their  
kicks from anally probing members of other species" ?)




But anyway  OK, aliens may want to have sex with humans, just as  
a human may want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they  
won't, because sexual attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by  
evolution and social norms (indeed it's so fine tuned that species  
that could in theory interbreed often don't) - and, at least in my  
experience, most humans don't even want to have sex with most other  
humans . never mind fancying members of a different species who  
will almost certainly give out all the wrong visual, behavioural,  
and chemical cues.


--
You received this message because

Re: Selecting your future branch

2014-06-25 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Predictions are great for validating scientific theories but
>> predictions, good bad or ugly, have absolutely nothing to do with
>> establishing a sense of self.
>>
>
> > We use the usual sense of self defined by the "yes doctor".
>

Nobody does that, even you don't do that to define yourself except when
you're arguing philosophy on the internet. If you made a prediction
yesterday about what would happen today that turned out to be wrong you
don't feel like you've ceased to exist, you just feel like you made a
mistake and continue to believe you're Bruno Marchal because you still
remember being Bruno Marchal yesterday. There is no way to define yourself
from the present into the future, you can only define yourself from the
present into the past; you know who you were but you don't know who you
will be.

> >> And not that it matters but even your prediction is wrong; each and
>> every time you repeat your experiment Mr. You sees Moscow, not half the
>> time, ALWAYS.
>>
>
> > Just iterate the experiences.
>

There is no choice, if probability is to be derived its got to be iterated,
and no matter how often you iterate it Mr. You ALWAYS sees Moscow only AND
Mr. You ALWAYS sees Washington only; and a logician should know that this
is not a paradox because Mr. You HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. It's your thought
experiment and you're the one who invented the duplicating machine, but
it's clear you haven't  thought through what that really means.

> > Once done the W-guy admits seeing only W and [ blah blah]
>

There is no need for a "and", you already know all you need to know. This
entire exercise is about finding out what Mr. You will or will not see, if
Mr. W is not Mr. You then there is no point of even asking what Mr. W sees,
it's irrelevant. The fact that Bruno Marchal thinks it would be productive
to ask Mr. W anything at all logically means that Bruno Marchal thinks that
Mr. W is Mr. You;  thus if Mr. W ALWAYS sees Washington then the
probability Mr. You will see Washington  is 1.0 not 0.5.

> >> not M, and the M-guy admits having seen M, and not W. They wrote each a
>> different letter than the doppelganger.
>>
>
> > If you iterate the experiences 10 times, only one guy among the  2^10
> one will say that has the story "MM".
>

And that one guy is Mr. You. Yes, it's perfectly true that other guys have
seen different sequences and those other guys are not each other, but they
are all Mr. You because they all remember being the Helsinki Man even if
different things have happened to them after the duplication. But so what?
As I keep saying this is a very odd situation because we're not accustomed
with dealing with duplicating machines, but it is NOT a logical paradox
because Mr. You HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.

No doubt you will come back and say that if there are difficulties in your
theory the same ones exist in the MW interpretation of the 2 slit
experiment but this is  untrue for two reasons:

1) In the 2 slit experiment it's always crystal clear who Mr. You is, but
in Bruno Marchal's thought experiment the pronouns "You" and "he" and "I"
are thrown around like confetti (apparently Bruno just can't stop himself)
without giving a single thought to who those personal pronouns refer to.

2) The 2 slit experiment is about what a observer will see, Bruno's thought
experiment is about the sense of self of the observer.

And please don't come back with your standard "you confuse the 1p from the
3P", I am not confused , I am saying that both the 1P and the 3P are
adjectives and I am saying that atoms are generic, so if  the arrangement
of atoms are duplicated the adjectives are duplicated too; in other words
the machine duplicates the structure and ALL the perspectives also, first
second and third.

If you want to argue against my ideas then say no machine can duplicate the
immortal soul, I think such an argument is wrong but at least it's
coherent, but please don't tell me that although I'm a grown man and I'm
smart enough to tie my shoes all by myself I have never before noticed that
there is a difference between the first person and the third person point
of view.

> > From their first person point of view, the 2^10 - 1 others knows you
> were wrong
>

No they do not, not if they're logical; they know that they are not the
only Mr. You around and that although they personally may have seen only
Moscow and not Washington the Helsinki man has seen both. But then again I
was sick at home on the day my first grade English teacher explained the
difference between the first person and the third so no doubt I'm confused
about that.

> > correct for the 3-view on the 1-views, but false for the 1-views as see
> from that 1-view.
>

It is not false if the duplicating machine duplicates EVERYTHING including
duplicating the points views, and the views of the views, and the views of
the views of the views, and the ...All you need to do to win this
argument is

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?



On 28 May 2014, at 04:36, LizR wrote:


On 28 May 2014 14:12,  wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to  
segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to  
show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...


I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't  
gone down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did  
try to drop it. I shall probably try again.


Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to  
follow the arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very  
much. I know Bruno has said he does have a theory of everything,  
which is subject to falsification... which it seems to me is an  
awful lot to derive from the idea that consciousness arises from  
computation ...



Just to make this more precise, the starting idea is not really that  
consciousness arises from a computation, but more that consciousness  
is invariant for the change of universal machines below its local  
machine substitution level.






but I guess some relatively simple idea can sometimes lead to a huge  
theory ...


Yes.




maybe when (or if) I get to grips with the MGA and the logic  
involved in deriving some features of physics from comp, I might  
have something more sensible to say on the matter,


Do you understand that the reversal occurs at step seven, if you  
accept the protocol?


In step seven, we have already the basic shape of the physical laws:  
they have to be a statistic (a mean of quantifying uncertainty) on all  
computations going through "your state" (defined indexically with  
Gödel's/Kleene's method, cf Dx =: 'xx' => DD =: 'DD').


Of course, a physicalist can still save the identity mind-brain link  
by making the physical universe "small" (= without concrete UD running  
in it forever).


But already at this stage, the move seems to be motivated only by  
avoiding looking at a possible (and testable) explanation of the  
origin of the physical laws, and such a move does not solve neither  
the problem of consciousness, nor the problem of matter. So step 8,  
despite its intrinsic interest, is used in the UDA only for the  
nitpicking mind who believe such move can make sense "rationally";  
Step 8 shows that it endows the primitive matter with magical  
properties, whose role in both matter and consciousness has to be made  
magical on purpose. It makes primitive matter isomorphic to a god-of- 
the-gap, and here it is made to avoid a problem whose testable  
solution would solve the mind-body problem, or refute comp (assuming  
we are not dreaming or in an emulation).


Bruno







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

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


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: Is Consciousness Computable?



On 29 May 2014, at 00:17, LizR wrote:


On 28 May 2014 19:46, meekerdb  wrote:
On 5/28/2014 12:35 AM, LizR wrote:

On 28 May 2014 16:20, meekerdb  wrote:
I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and  
therefore consciousness) can exist without physics.  That physical  
instantiation is dispensable.


Yes indeed. I would say that for comp to be meaningful, it's  
necessary to show that information is a real (and fundamental)  
thing, rather than something that only has relevance / meaning to  
us - I suppose deriving the entropy of a black hole, the  
Beckenstein bound and the holographic principle all hint that this  
is the case. (Maybe QM unitarity and the black hole information  
paradox too?)


I'm not sure how secure a footing any of these items put the  
"reification of information" it on, though.
As Bruno has noted, we live on border between order and chaos -  
neither maximum nor minimum information/entropy but something like  
"complexity".  Here's recent survey of ways to quantify it by Scott  
Aaronso, Sean Carroll and Lauren Ouellette. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1818


As usual I don't have time to read that paper, at least not  
immediately. However I see that defining complexity appear to  
require coarse graining. If so, I would take this to mean that there  
isn't anything fundamental being defined - or at least that we're in  
a grey area where nothing is known to be fundamental. On the other  
hand, entropy used to require coarse graining but as I mentioned  
above has now been defined for black holes, so assuming BHs really  
exist (and the things we think are BHs aren't some other type of  
massive object of an undefined nature) that would at least suggest  
that fundamental physics involves entropy, and hence information.


Is there any complexity measure that doesn;t involve CG and hence  
isn't just (imho) "in the eye of the beholder" ?


Computer science provides a lot of definition for complexity, below  
the computable, like SPACE or TIME needed, related to tractability  
issues and above the computable, like the degree of unsolvability  
shown to exists by using machine + oracles (for example).


Those notion are typically not in the eye of the beholder, as they are  
the same for all universal numbers. Computer scientist says that they  
are machine-independent notion. They remain invariant for the change  
of the base of the phi_i.


With comp, what i showed is that we have indeed to extract the law of  
the qubits ("quantum logic") from the laws of the bits (the laws of  
Boole, + Boolos). IMO, Everett + decoherence already shows the road  
qubits to bits. But comp provides a double (by G/G*) reverse of that  
road, which separates quanta and qualia (normally, although quanta  
must be a first person plural).


Bruno









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

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


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: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

2014-06-25 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:13 PM, LizR  wrote:

> > the cost of solar panels is still in free fall
>

Even if the cost of solar cells fell to zero it wouldn't be enough to
replace fossil fuels even at today's levels much less provide enough energy
to enable developing countries (the vast majority of the world) to equal or
even approach the living standards found in North America and Western
Europe. Even if solar cells were free you'd still need to buy lots and lots
and lots of land to put those solar cells on and thousands of miles of high
voltage transmission lines to take the energy from the vacant land where
the solar cells are to the cities where the people live. And you'd still
need expensive DC to AC converters. And you'd still need hugely expansive
energy storage devices for nighttime and cloudy days.

Even the government which encourages solar energy with enormous subsidies
doesn't really think the cost of solar cells are important, politicians may
say so in speeches but their actions say otherwise. Recently the USA
complained that China was selling solar cells too cheaply so they imposed
huge tariffs on them. Can you imagine the USA complaining to Saudi Arabia
that they're selling oil to them too cheaply and demanding to pay more?! Of
course not because the cost of oil is important but the cost of solar cells
is not.

> I believe, and new ways to collect solar energy are being invented all
> the time.
>

Why is it that the same people who believe that solar energy will get a lot
better in the future also believe that the nuclear reactors with 1960's
technology that we all use today are as good as nuclear reactors will ever
get?

  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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician, 
Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get into the 
Evo-Devo view? 

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 10:36 am
Subject: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, 
non-digital, computer architecture

On 27 May 2014, at 01:37, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
 Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR  wrote:

On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to 
have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish 
and slugs than we are to aliens...

Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions of 
years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off the 
same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life. A 
plausible hypothesis – actually saw it a few nights ago on the Cosmos reboot is 
that when stars transit through interstellar gas clouds (the nurseries of new 
stars and planets) their attendant comet clouds become gravitationally 
perturbed, initiating an era of cometary bombardment. 

I think they're doing a fine job with that reboot, although probably not up to 
Bruno's standards, lol. 

Recently found a video where the host chats for 3 minutes on his take regarding 
"atheism and agnosticism": 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Very nice. I am not astonished that Tyson is systematically renamed "atheist" 
on the wiki page on him (that he did not create, but try to correct, 
unsuccessfully!). 

In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this can only 
create a confusion.

Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to 
"Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic  (~[] g) and 
atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is 
useful if only to explain that difference.

Bruno

PGC

If a planet orbiting a star that is transiting one of these immense clouds get 
a good whack some of its life bearing rock can be hurled from the system and 
every once in a great while find its way to another water bearing planet 
orbiting some other star. This actually sounds plausible to me… that 
interstellar nurseries are also the cosmic engines for spreading advanced 
microbial life forms from planets of one star to other planets orbiting other 
stars…. Over the eons. Perhaps star systems have been exchanging DNA and 
microbial life since life first began somewhere in our galaxy and that this 
kind of emergent process is occurring in every galaxy in every universe with 
laws consonant with stable wet organic chemistry.

Chris

Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at 
this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically 
evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that 
something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely 
solution.

Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We 
aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species that 
evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for example, 
we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them.

Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were talking 
about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So functional 
similarity might be enough, as alluded in "sheep are nervous". :)

Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or an 
alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items, 
depending on your tastes (See "A melon for ecstasy" and "The unrepentant 
necrophile" for some suggestions for things one can "have sex with" in this 
sense, should one be so inclined).

However your original reply (in blue above) certainly appeared to be talking 
about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are "the only viable 
solution for fetishists who happen to get their kicks from anally probing 
members of other species" ?)

But anyway  OK, aliens may want to have sex with humans, just as a human 
may want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they won't, because sexual 
attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by evolution

Re: American Intelligence

Richard, that's a one to many situation you have dug up. The audits by IRS 
against conservatives are deliberate and politically motivated. Your side is 
out to defeat it's political enemies, just as Nixon tried to so many years ago.


http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/irs-tea-party-conservative-groups-scandal-now-center-19182163
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/


The FBI used by BHO and company-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/doj-fox-news-james-rosen_n_3307422.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0520/Obama-administration-targets-Fox-News-reporter-in-chilling-echo-of-AP-probe-video


NSA Spying on everyone, especially Americans-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/30/no-more-nsa-spying-obama-not-true


https://www.aclu.org/secure/sem-reclaim-your-privacy-stand-aclu-today?s_src=UNW140001SEM&ms=gad_SEM_Google_Search-VerizonNSA_na_national%20security%20agency%20spying_b_42474621982


Militarizing of US Federal Agencies? Why does EPA or USDA need a SWAT team? Who 
are these teams and weapons and ammo being saved for, a Bolivian invasion? 


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments#
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-21/why-is-the-post-office-buying-bullets


My comments were cause and effect, Richard, and not howling emotions. I used to 
be a Democrat, till I feared for US survival. 


-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:24 am
Subject: Re: American Intelligence


Spud: Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US 
IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of 
the heads of the IRS.


RR: Untrue. As of last year the only org to lose their tax exempt status was a 
liberal org from Maine
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/







On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:11 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence, as 
in ignoring what people say and do and just going with "a feeling." This is 
years of observing the actions of "your" side. It's purely, observing speeches 
and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude Shannon (who worked for the OSS 
from 1942-45) you observe what people say to each other, of their own 
persuasion, and also what they do not say. For example, in my country, there is 
now a big scandal, that the president and his loyal press cannot bury. 
Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US IRS, 
and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of the 
heads of the IRS. Its' the use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a 
"conservative" report for Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its 
spying capabilities, It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal 
press, which gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections, 
the news comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to themselves, 
psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover up, which got 4 
people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved them. Motivations for 
not acting? Military action would weakened support from his fellow, lib voters, 
for the 2012 election, and also, and this is just my guess, he was rocking the 
ganj in the whitehouse with some girfriend. Look to Michelle's quietude, to 
Hillary Clinton's quietude, to Jacqueline Kennedy's quietude on marital 
dalliances, as a solid history. I suppose sex in the whitehouse has some charm 
for some women. My point is BHO didn't want to be bothered, and for months "his 
press" shilled for him. Oh, that's right! Liberals are the good guys, you care 
about people, because you're so willing to use other people's money, so you can 
"feel" better. Yeah. 


 I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of yours 
gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no way of 
knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning. 
Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on people 
who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do you have 
starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.
Chris





-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
  
 



To most "liberals/progressive/Marxists" is a wet dream, a fantasy come true for 
them. The "boi" thing is nice and I wish I thought of it. People are not 
xenophobic, if they actually have world, idiots activ

consciousness and second law (was: TRONNIES - SPACE

Sorry for bumping an old post. I comment both Brent and Liz. It is an  
interesting subject, and those post here are crucial (for the  
undersatnding of the comp mind-body problem).


On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:07, LizR wrote:


On 10 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb  wrote:

Yeah that's pretty close, although I'd say consciousness just occurs  
at a different level of description and is equally "real" at that  
level.  The second law of thermodynamics is "real" at the level of  
thermodynamics, even though it can be seen as implied by statistical  
mechanics.  It is more general than any specific statistical  
mechanics.  I don't think p-zombies are possible, so consciousness  
is a necessary aspect of some kinds of physical processes.


Very plausibly. But also a necessary aspect of some computations or  
set of computations (with comp). The problem will be to relate all  
this in a mathematically valid way, taking computer science and the  
FPI into account.








So I guess that you think that consciousness is as real as the  
second law, which is (as far as I know) an emergent property of the  
universe having been arranged in a special way in the past (plus the  
laws of physics, although I imagine most varieties of physics would  
give a version of the 2nd law, given a special arrangement of the  
constituents of a universe).


So it isn't really, really, really real <363.gif>  but it is a  
good high level approximation for -- er -- something. <35F.gif>



But here, if consciousness was explainable in the way of the second  
law, that would still not solve the hard part, nor the comp measure  
problem part.


It is easier to accept some semi-axiomatic of consciousness (like true  
but non justifiable and still knowable + invariant for the universal  
number change below the subst level), and reason, and show the  
problems we (the numbers) are confronted with.


Comp seems obvious for many scientists, but 'theologically' it is a  
very strong local 3p self-finiteness assumption.


Bruno






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

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


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: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's
analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as
usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms
(instead of probability units as I have proposed).

/Computational solution to quantum foundational problems//
//Arkady Bolotin//
//(Submitted on 30 Mar 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Jun 2014 (this version, v6))//
//
//This paper argues that the requirement of applicableness of quantum linearity to any
physical level from molecules and atoms to the level of macroscopic extensional world,
which leads to a main foundational problem in quantum theory referred to as the
"measurement problem", actually has a computational character: It implies that there is a
generic algorithm, which guarantees exact solutions to the Schrodinger equation for every
physical system in a reasonable amount of time regardless of how many constituent
microscopic particles it comprises. From the point of view of computational complexity
theory, this requirement is equivalent to the assumption that the computational complexity
classes P and NP are equal, which is widely believed to be very unlikely. As demonstrated
in the paper, accepting the different computational assumption called the Exponential Time
Hypothesis (that involves P!=NP) would justify the separation between a microscopic
quantum system and a macroscopic apparatus (usually called the Heisenberg cut) since this
hypothesis, if true, would imply that deterministic quantum and classical descriptions are
impossible to overlap in order to obtain a rigorous derivation of complete properties of
macroscopic objects from their microstates.//

//
//Comments: Paper accepted for publication in Physical Science International Journal.
Please refer to this (final) version as a reference//

//Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)//
//Journal reference: Phys. Sci. Int. J. 2014; 4(8): 1145-1157//
//Cite as: arXiv:1403.7686 [quant-ph]//
// (or *arXiv:1403.7686v6 *[quant-ph] for this version)/

Brent

On 6/24/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:

This item in further reading looks interesting too

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a

(Not that I'm not busy here at work... )

On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't
have
access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been
discussed here or not.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From
Nothing

image

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Fo...

Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang
to happen
spontaneously. Now they have a math…

View on medium.com

Preview by Yahoo

--
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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-06-25 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this
> can only create a confusion.
>

Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet
Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Technically I guess I'd have
to say I'm a teapot agnostic but in this case the difference between the 2
words is so small it's not worth talking about. And I found another short
video by Tyson that I like better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8

  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: TRONNIES - SPACE



On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:37, David Nyman wrote:


On 10 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb  wrote:

They're "along for the ride" like temperature is alftr on the  
kinetic energy of molecules.  Before stat mech, heat was regarded as  
an immaterial substance.  It was explained by the motion of  
molecules; something that is 3p observable but the explanation  
didn't make it vanish or make it illusory.


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.


By contrast, there is no need to grant the phenomena of temperature  
or heat any such supernumerary reality. One could indeed argue with  
some force that all such phenomena are themselves, in fine, specific  
artefacts, or useful fictions, of consciousness. That is, they are  
epistemologically or explanatorily, as distinct from ontologically,  
relevant. Primordial matter, as it were, in its doings, need take no  
account of such intermediate levels, which, by assumption, reduce  
without loss to some exhaustive set of primordial entities and  
relations.


This was the entire point of the argument (focused on steps 7 and 8  
of the UDA) that Liz excerpted: that there is a reduction/ 
elimination impasse that needs somehow to be bridged by any theory  
seeking to reconcile consciousness and any primordial substratum  
(or, pace Bruno, hypostase) with which it is supposed to be  
correlated. And hence we have an unavoidable problem, up to this  
point, with theories based on "primordially-explanatory" material  
entities and processes. The problem is that, in the final analysis -  
and it is precisely the *final* analysis that we are considering  
here - such theories need take no account of any intermediate level  
of explanation in order to qualify as "theories of everything",  
since any phenomenon whatsoever, on this species of fundamental  
accounting, can always be reduced without loss to the basic physical  
activity of the system in question.



Ah! I remind you get the point. Still not sure many see it.

Self consciousness can become equivalent with the knowledge of at  
least one non justifiable truth, but the raw consciousness remains  
problematical and it seems I have to attribute it to all universal  
numbers, perhaps in some dissociated state.


Bruno




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.


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: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:

This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.

1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM
from the rest, which could be handy

I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm
gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be
the same.

Brent

2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few
months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a "Level 1" multiverse
which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense.

3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It
explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation
could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything
to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale.

On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 --
don't have
access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already
been
discussed here or not.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously
From
Nothing

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!

2014-06-25 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


On 6/25/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



  What is a crime is often defined by religion


That makes sense in "primitive society", but religion might have nothing to say on the 
terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and the institutionalization of religion.





and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma.


That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a science, we might have 
just forbid the institutionalization of any religion.


Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them


On the contrary, it is you who confuse mysticism with religion.  "Religion" IS by 
definition an institution.  You can't have a religion by yourself.  You can have a 
philosophy and maybe even a theology by yourself - but not a religion.  "Religion" comes 
from a latin root meaning "to bind together".


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: American Intelligence

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 

 

 

 

No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence,
as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with "a feeling." This
is years of observing the actions of "your" side. 

 

Whose side is my side? A-hole you don't know me yet you feel you have some
kind of entitlement to define me. Do you have a God complex perchance?

 

It's purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude
Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say to
each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For
example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the president and
his loyal press cannot bury. Specifically, it's the use of auditing
conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal
groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. 

 

More BS - as others have shown. And as I can see from your strung together
talking points you are parroting the tea party line.. How very original of
you.

Chris

 

 

Its' the use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a "conservative"
report for Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its spying
capabilities, It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal
press, which gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections,
the news comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to
themselves, psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover
up, which got 4 people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved
them. Motivations for not acting? Military action would weakened support
from his fellow, lib voters, for the 2012 election, and also, and this is
just my guess, he was rocking the ganj in the whitehouse with some
girfriend. Look to Michelle's quietude, to Hillary Clinton's quietude, to
Jacqueline Kennedy's quietude on marital dalliances, as a solid history. I
suppose sex in the whitehouse has some charm for some women. My point is BHO
didn't want to be bothered, and for months "his press" shilled for him. Oh,
that's right! Liberals are the good guys, you care about people, because
you're so willing to use other people's money, so you can "feel" better.
Yeah. 

 I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of
yours gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no way
of knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning. 

Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on
people who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do you
have starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?

You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.

Chris





-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

 

 

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

 

To most "liberals/progressive/Marxists" is a wet dream, a fantasy come true
for them. The "boi" thing is nice and I wish I thought of it. People are not
xenophobic, if they actually have world, idiots actively seeing you go bye
bye, Since the baddies have won the last US election, its their world now.
However, I still suspect an X crossing Y point in the US, not went the 53%
get angry, but when the 47% feels they have had enough. As far as who to
like and hate in the world, there's nothing stopping any nationalist from
working together on important trade, and technical pursuits. Race is no big
deal as we are all related, seemingly, but, now, cultures are a wy,
different thing, because it conveys who one identifies with, and what one
values. That's where things are more nuanced. But even here, if the rewards
are great enough, we can have enough incentive, for people to work together.
But not if they're out to cut one's throat. 

Where have I ever said that a destabilized America is to my liking? Never
said anything remotely suggesting that. Does spudboi mean "xenophobic potato
head" perchance?

 

 I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals"  are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of
yours gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no way
of knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning. 

Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on
people who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do you
have starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?

You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.

Chris

 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

 

 

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

 

>>This will lik

Re: American Intelligence --> Thinking about Thinking


On 6/25/2014 2:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:

Muslims accept Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'. They consider that 
Islam is merely the latest edition of the same book or religion.


Not merely the latest but THE LAST.

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: American Intelligence --> Thinking about Thinking

2014-06-25 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 6/25/2014 2:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Muslims accept Christians and Jews as 'people of the book'. They consider 
> that Islam is merely the latest edition of the same book or religion.
>
>
> Not merely the latest but THE LAST.
>

God willing! :)

Telmo.


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

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

Re: Pluto bounces back!


On 6/25/2014 4:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Brent, Jesus people don't become murdering martyr's anymore, 


Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But "lucrative criminal acts" includes a 
lot more than murderous martydom.  The Catholic Church has probably condemned more 
children to starvation by outlawing contraception than the Islamist ever will.


Brent

so let's focus where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and draw 
together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways' one could concede 
your point. Also, I am not a Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya want to beat up JC 
why not this quote, "I come not to bring peace but with a sword." And the Christians 
surely did, right into the 20th century, but no longer.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can 
purchase
goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses religion 
to get
goods, luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and blame 
it all
on some "criminal acts".  What is a crime is often defined by religion and 
it often
includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. So the problem 
is not
just "radical Islam"; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma 
and
requires belief in that dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this 
life or a
putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions.

Brent
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, 
bring
hither, and slay them before me."
   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 





-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!

On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the exploitation 
of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal activities.


This is naive.  Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can purchase 
goods, luxury, women, power.  So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, 
luxury, women, power,..?  You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some 
"criminal acts".  What is a crime is often defined by religion and it often includes 
questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. So the problem is not just "radical 
Islam"; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that 
dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that is 
to say 90% of all religions.


Brent
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, 
and slay them before me."

   --- Jesus, Luke 19:27
--
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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture


On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to "Conscience & 
Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic  (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural 
language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that 
difference.


It's more complicated than that.  It depends on what you mean by "g".  Is it the god of 
theism, who is a person who created the world, answers prayers, and judges humans in an 
afterlife.  Or is it the god of deism who created the world but doesn't act in it.  Or is 
it one of the "gods" of mystics who is a principle or "nature" or an unnameable and 
unknowable something.  Literally "atheist" is one who is not a theist, one who fails to 
believe in the god of theism.   Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist because he believed 
in the god of deism.


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: Solar power's "bright future"

On 6/20/2014 6:10 PM, LizR wrote:
That raptor rocket surely doesn't have /much/ higher delta V than, say, the Saturn 5? No
chemical reaction is going to be that much more efficient, no matter that you turn it
into a superheated flying bomb. Surely for human exploration beyond the Moon you really
need (a) a moon base, (b) and orbital assembly plant supplied from the moon base, and
(c) some form of nuclei/ion propulsion for your long haul space craft (which also need
shielding, of course!)

Or use chemical propellant to rendezvous with one of those asteroids I mentioned, then
sit back and wait out the 9 months or so to Mars. (Preferably installing a permanent
base in the asteroid, which effectively becomes a mars shuttle.)

I wish I could type this without my hands shaking with excitement. We're actually trying
to go to Mars!!

Sending people to Mars would be a huge waste of resources. Any exploration can be done by
robots and remote control. Almost all terra forming would better be done remotely
*before* trying to send people. People are heavy and take lots of support and you *still*
have to send the probes and instruments.

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-06-25 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes > wrote:

Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never
substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
explanations.
Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive
new
identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the
old one.
YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).

If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it
was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based).

Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the
time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the
pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the
brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism
is false.

I don't think it's that simple. Obviously if you substitute atom-for-atom it will be
successful because (according to our best theories) atom are indistinguishable. But
suppose you try to substitute a silicon chip implant for some part of the brain with
identical, functional i/o at all the neuron interfaces it replaced. Would it preserve
your consciousness? I think it would approximately; but there are possible differences.
It wouldn't react the same to EM fields, cosmic rays, potassium radioactive in the
blood,... So it might be a little different. Second, it would have the plasticity of
neurons, the ability to grow and shrink and change in response to 'learning', i.e.
interaction with other parts.

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the point is that
it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction with neurons, but also the
level which captures interaction with 'external' or 'environmental' variables, especially
perceptions. Then we must contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but
simulating some of the external world. So it seems to me there is a tradeoff. If we want
to preserve consciousness unaffected just by replacements in the brain, those replacements
will need to be at a very low level. So low that the quantum non-cloning theorem comes
into play and it can't be done except by chance. On the other hand we can do a
substitution that is behaviorally so similar that the difference will be unnoticable even
by close friends, but which maybe different at the incommunicable consciousness level. Or
a third "possibility" is that we can simulate the consciousness AND it's interaction with
the world so that both the internal functions, plasticity, and external affects are
preserve. But then the penalty is effectively creating another world - which is what
Everettian splitting does.

So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying "yes" to the doctor if you insist on
there being no discontinuity in your consciousness. The Moscow man and the Washington man
will be in different quantum states even before they step out of the teleporter and see
what city they are in. Of course in practice we're not particularly concerned with small
gaps in consciousness. None of this implies some undiscovered physics.

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: Solar power's "bright future"






 From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Solar power's "bright future"
 


On 6/20/2014 6:10 PM, LizR wrote:

That raptor rocket surely doesn't have much higher delta V than, say, the 
Saturn 5? No chemical reaction is going to be that much more efficient, no 
matter that you turn it into a superheated flying bomb. Surely for human 
exploration beyond the Moon you really need (a) a moon base, (b) and orbital 
assembly plant supplied from the moon base, and (c) some form of nuclei/ion 
propulsion for your long haul space craft (which also need shielding, of 
course!) 
>
>
>Or use chemical propellant to rendezvous with one of those asteroids I 
>mentioned, then sit back and wait out the 9 months or so to Mars. (Preferably 
>installing a permanent base in the asteroid, which effectively becomes a mars 
>shuttle.)
>
>
>
>I wish I could type this without my hands shaking with excitement. We're 
>actually trying to go to Mars!!
>
Sending people to Mars would be a huge waste of resources.  Any
exploration can be done by robots and remote control.  Almost all
terra forming would better be done remotely *before* trying to send
people.  People are heavy and take lots of support and you *still*
have to send the probes and instruments.

Sure... and I agree with you, logistically it makes no sense. However where's 
the fun in sending probes... it is hard to get a dream going on the basis of 
sending a probe to Mars colony ships heading off to another world... now 
that is something that can fire the imagination.
Not disputing your observation at all -- and I agree on the level of reason, 
but my gut, my emotion wishes to see our species become an interplanetary space 
faring species inhabiting many moons, asteroids and worlds.
Cheers,
Chris

Brent

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

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

Re: American Intelligence

2014-06-25 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Richard, that's a one to many situation you have dug up. The audits by IRS
> against conservatives are deliberate and politically motivated. Your side
> is out to defeat it's political enemies, just as Nixon tried to so many
> years ago.
>
>
>
Spud,

You do not seem to realize that it is illegal for any group to be tax
exempt if they are political.
Richard

>
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/irs-tea-party-conservative-groups-scandal-now-center-19182163
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/
>
>  The FBI used by BHO and company-
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/doj-fox-news-james-rosen_n_3307422.html
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0520/Obama-administration-targets-Fox-News-reporter-in-chilling-echo-of-AP-probe-video
>
>  NSA Spying on everyone, especially Americans-
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/30/no-more-nsa-spying-obama-not-true
>
>
> https://www.aclu.org/secure/sem-reclaim-your-privacy-stand-aclu-today?s_src=UNW140001SEM&ms=gad_SEM_Google_Search-VerizonNSA_na_national%20security%20agency%20spying_b_42474621982
>
>  Militarizing of US Federal Agencies? Why does EPA or USDA need a SWAT
> team? Who are these teams and weapons and ammo being saved for, a Bolivian
> invasion?
>
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments#
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-21/why-is-the-post-office-buying-bullets
>
>  My comments were cause and effect, Richard, and not howling emotions. I
> used to be a Democrat, till I feared for US survival.
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:24 am
> Subject: Re: American Intelligence
>
>  Spud: Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using
> the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the
> admission of the heads of the IRS.
>
>  RR: Untrue. As of last year the only org to lose their tax exempt status
> was a liberal org from Maine
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:11 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be
>> avoidence, as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with "a
>> feeling." This is years of observing the actions of "your" side. It's
>> purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude
>> Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say
>> to each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For
>> example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the president and
>> his loyal press cannot bury. Specifically, it's the use of auditing
>> conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing
>> liberal groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. Its' the
>> use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a "conservative" report for
>> Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its spying capabilities,
>> It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal press, which
>> gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections, the news
>> comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to themselves,
>> psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover up, which
>> got 4 people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved them.
>> Motivations for not acting? Military action would weakened support from his
>> fellow, lib voters, for the 2012 election, and also, and this is just my
>> guess, he was rocking the ganj in the whitehouse with some girfriend. Look
>> to Michelle's quietude, to Hillary Clinton's quietude, to Jacqueline
>> Kennedy's quietude on marital dalliances, as a solid history. I suppose sex
>> in the whitehouse has some charm for some women. My point is BHO didn't
>> want to be bothered, and for months "his press" shilled for him. Oh, that's
>> right! Liberals are the good guys, you care about people, because you're so
>> willing to use other people's money, so you can "feel" better. Yeah.
>>
>>  I see... you seem to feel that because you "think" most  "liberals" > insert whatever label here> are this way or that that this "gut feeling" of
>> yours gives you the right to make statements about me, which you have no
>> way of knowing the truth of. What a brilliant stretch of reasoning.
>> Seriously do you just pull stuff out of your-you-know-where...pin it on
>> people who do not share your particular world view and call it a day? Do
>> you have starch for brains... are you really that much of a potato head?
>> You force me to admit that maybe Kim was onto something.
>> C

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

2014-06-25 Thread David Nyman

On 25 June 2014 17:26, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> The problem is that, in the final analysis - and it is precisely the
> *final* analysis that we are considering here - such theories need take no
> account of any intermediate level of explanation in order to qualify as
> "theories of everything", since any phenomenon whatsoever, on this species
> of fundamental accounting, can always be reduced without loss to the basic
> physical activity of the system in question.
>
>
>
> Ah! I remind you get the point. Still not sure many see it.
>
> Self consciousness can become equivalent with the knowledge of at least
> one non justifiable truth, but the raw consciousness remains problematical
> and it seems I have to attribute it to all universal numbers, perhaps in
> some dissociated state.
>

In my experience it isn't just that they don't see it, but that something
in them fiercely resists seeing it. And this is, I think, because it
violates an implicit tenet of "physicalism", which is that in the final
analysis there must be an exhaustive accounting of any state of affairs
that makes no fundamental appeal to the first person. From this
perspective, consciousness, in the first-personal sense, is considered, in
the last resort, as dispensable or else as a kind of epiphenomenal rabbit
to be produced at the last moment, by some sleight-of-matter, from the
physicalist hat. The problem, however, is that the process of dispensing
with the first person cannot itself be achieved without recourse to the
"convenient fictions" of that very epiphenomenon, which makes the whole
enterprise self-defeating and, indeed, egregiously question-begging.

It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life
as analogous to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at
best, a half-truth. It is true - or at least plausible - that there might
be some discoverable set of physical processes that could, in principle, be
shown to be correlated with the conscious states of any physical system we
deem to be conscious. But we are also forced to assume - ex hypothesi
physicalism - that all such processes are "fully instantiated" entirely at
the most basic level posited by the physical theory in question. This poses
no problem whatsoever, in principle, for temperature, or life, or any other
of the exhaustively 3p-describable levels "stacked" in a virtual hierarchy
on the foundation of physics. It is of no import that any higher level is
"eliminated" in such a reduction, because it is not, in the end, required
to "do any work"; in fact the very success of the reduction is that such
levels are revealed, in essence, as convenient fictions. It is uniquely in
the case of consciousness that this approach becomes self-defeating, unless
we are willing to allow the "convenient fiction" of consciousness itself to
be eliminated with all the rest. But then, if we do so allow, the very
phenomena on which we have been relying instantly vanish, like the Cheshire
Cat, leaving not so much as a smile behind.

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-06-25 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
>> 'teleportation':
>> It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances
>> never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
>> explanations.
>> Wana play? be my guest.
>> In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to
>> receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory
>> arased of the old one.
>>  YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).
>>
>
>  If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is
> possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the
> reasoning is based).
>
>  Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are
> substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts
> are not important so long as the pattern is preserved.  Further, no known
> laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of
> yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false.
>
>
> I don't think it's that simple.  Obviously if you substitute atom-for-atom
> it will be successful because (according to our best theories) atom are
> indistinguishable.  But suppose you try to substitute a silicon chip
> implant for some part of the brain with identical, functional i/o at all
> the neuron interfaces it replaced.  Would it preserve your consciousness?
> I think it would approximately; but there are possible differences.  It
> wouldn't react the same to EM fields, cosmic rays, potassium radioactive in
> the blood,... So it might be a little different.  Second, it would have the
> plasticity of neurons, the ability to grow and shrink and change in
> response to 'learning', i.e. interaction with other parts.
>

If you assume zombies are not possible, then I think my original statement
holds. Without assuming uncomputable physics plays a necessary role in the
brain, then computationalism is true.

If you believe that consciousness is supported by the brain, and that the
brain is made of atoms, and that atoms obey laws of physics, and that those
laws are computable, then it is possible in theory for a program to
perfectly emulate the behavior and evolution of a brain. Now whether or not
this emulation is consciousness or not is not proved, unless you further
assume zombies are impossible. If they are not possible, then you must
attribute consciousness to this perfect brain emulation.



>
> Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
> point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
> with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with 'external'
> or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must
> contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but simulating some
> of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.
>


This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.


> If we want to preserve consciousness unaffected just by replacements in
> the brain, those replacements will need to be at a very low level.  So low
> that the quantum non-cloning theorem comes into play and it can't be done
> except by chance.  On the other hand we can do a substitution that is
> behaviorally so similar that the difference will be unnoticable even by
> close friends, but which maybe different at the incommunicable
> consciousness level.  Or a third "possibility" is that we can simulate the
> consciousness AND it's interaction with the world so that both the internal
> functions, plasticity, and external affects are preserve.  But then the
> penalty is effectively creating another world - which is what Everettian
> splitting does.
>
> So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying "yes" to the doctor
> if you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.  The
> Moscow man and the Washington man will be in different quantum states even
> before they step out of the teleporter and see what city they are in. Of
> course in practice we're not particularly concerned with small gaps in
> consciousness. None of this implies some undiscovered physics.
>
>
The question of gaps is interesting, especially when when we consider
simulating physical objects as computations can be smeared out across
space-time, and may not be perfectly captured in any particular instant
(space-time slice).

Jason

-- 
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 
t

Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

2014-06-25 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from 
solar (Update)

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:13 PM, LizR  wrote:

> the cost of solar panels is still in free fall

Even if the cost of solar cells fell to zero it wouldn't be enough to replace 
fossil fuels even at today's levels much less provide enough energy to enable 
developing countries (the vast majority of the world) to equal or even approach 
the living standards found in North America and Western Europe. Even if solar 
cells were free you'd still need to buy lots and lots and lots of land to put 
those solar cells on and thousands of miles of high voltage transmission lines 
to take the energy from the vacant land where the solar cells are to the cities 
where the people live. And you'd still need expensive DC to AC converters. And 
you'd still need hugely expansive energy storage devices for nighttime and 
cloudy days. 

Perhaps you have never heard of rooftop solar... Solar PV is well suited for 
the distributed generation model the world is moving to. For example an urban 
area such as LA could easily generate all the power it needs from Solar PV 
within its own metro area footprint.

Even the government which encourages solar energy with enormous subsidies 
doesn't really think the cost of solar cells are important, politicians may say 
so in speeches but their actions say otherwise. Recently the USA complained 
that China was selling solar cells too cheaply so they imposed huge tariffs on 
them. Can you imagine the USA complaining to Saudi Arabia that they're selling 
oil to them too cheaply and demanding to pay more?! Of course not because the 
cost of oil is important but the cost of solar cells is not.

Funny bit of "reasoning" there. The US complains to China about dumping, 
because it is trying to protect its own domestic solar PV manufacturers from 
being driven out of the market by cheap Chinese imports. (And China has been 
practicing dumping in this sector in order to grab global market share) 

> I believe, and new ways to collect solar energy are being invented all the 
> time.
>

Why is it that the same people who believe that solar energy will get a lot 
better in the future also believe that the nuclear reactors with 1960's 
technology that we all use today are as good as nuclear reactors will ever get? 

Simple, because nuclear reactor technology is not advancing at the geometric 
rate that Solar PV development & technological improvement is. It is because 
solar PV HAS gotten a lot better, cheaper and much more widely available.
It is because the nuclear sector has yet to solve the long term waste 
sequestration problem beyond half measures and essentially kicking the can down 
the road hoping for some future technology to clean up the mess.
Maybe some day breeders will be able to burn up all those transuranic actinides 
and reduce the time periods that this stuff will need to be sequestered to a 
few centuries (to give time all the intermediate half life by products to decay 
down to safe levels), but as things stand today the spent rods are sitting in 
tight pack configurations in SFPs all across the world wherever there is a 
operating nuclear reactor -- and in Germany and some other places in dry cask 
storage sites (a smart practice to move the stuff out of the SFPs as soon as 
feasible and in to dry cask sites located away from the plants... IMO)
I do wish however that the US would put some real money into LFTR R&D -- and I 
believe you would agree with me on that.
Chris

  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.

-- 
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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture