date:20140704



On 04 Jul 2014, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/4/2014 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jul 2014, at 18:39, David Nyman wrote:


On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


And perhaps most interestingly,
its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at
the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception  
and
cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena  
attached to
some putative "virtual level" of an exhaustively "material"  
reduction.


The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it  
does use comp,
more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not  
work when put

together with with materialism.


Yes, and I was roused from my customary torpor specifically to have
another stab at a thoroughgoing reductio of this position (or  
else, of

course, learn where I am in error). But, frustratingly, it does seem
to be extraordinarily hard to get across for the first time, because
of the tacit question-begging almost unavoidably consequent on the
difficulty of vacating the very perceptual position whose all too
manifest "entities" are undergoing ontological deconstruction. Once
seen, however, the error may then strike one as having been obvious.

The commonest response, in my experience, after describing the
mind-body problem to someone for the first time, is "I don't see the
problem". On further probing, the default assumptions usually turn  
out

to be either straightforward mind-brain "identity", or "mind =
simulation, brain = computer". If the former, I point, in the first
place, to the completely non-standard and unjustified use of the
identity relation that this entails. If the latter, simple reductive
analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help  
to

convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema
necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites


That's just your definition of eliminates.  Mountains are made of  
rocks, therefore mountains don't exist.



(difficult to see
precisely because *epistemological* composition manifestly remains  
and

the distinction is thereby elusive). Anyway, if the point is grasped
it becomes possible to see the disturbing consequences that such a
reduction has for the standard conjunction of "material computation"
and consciousness.


I think so. Both the MGA and UDA1-7 were developed with the goal to  
explain a *part* of the mind-body problem in a way such a  
rationalist can say "OK, I see a problem".


That worked well, but I did not expect *some* scientists ("diplomed  
such") would ask a Romane-philosopher (branch of literature) to say  
"I am not convinced", justifying a non-dialog, not even a debate.


It is not the whole problem. It is the fact that if we believe in  
consciousness, and if we believe that the brain works like a  
digital machine, eventually, with or without a primitively existing  
physical universe, we have to justify the appearances of matter  
entirely from computer science, indeed from arithmetic (or any  
Turing-complete theory).


As such, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet approached,  
nor used. Even if we eliminate consciousness, matter must be  
explain from a statistics on machine's discourses.
At that point, the mind-body problem is only shown two times more  
difficult than usual, as we have both the hard problem of  
consciousness together with a new, conceptually less hard but  
technically very hard, problem of matter.


Now animals are programmed to take matter for granted, as it is  
easier to eat and avoid being eaten. that's why I think "modern  
science" is really born with the platonists, which is notably  the  
idea that what we see might result from simpler general relation,  
and that may be we might find first principles.


Now, computer science provides the tools, and in some sense, offers  
the solution of the "hard problem" of consciousness on a plate.  
Indeed, it provides the non trivial mathematics of what ideally  
correct machine can prove, bet, infer, conceive, measure, observe  
know, believe about themselves. Accepting definitions on those, in  
the Arithmetical FPI contexts, and translating the definition in  
arithmetic by constraints which *all* makes sense due to the real  
bomb: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, and the fact that  
(Löbian) machines proves their own incompleteness theorem.


Then the solution of the hard problem is given by a disambiguation  
between []p (the 3p virtual body or its "Gödel number", or its  
"Gödel biochemical relation" that's not important) with []p & p,  
which is the knower, the first person, the soul if you want, and  
which is NOT a machine, and no machines can correctly justify a  
"[]" such that []p <-> []p & p, despite we, the theoricians on  
correct machine, know that their G* proves it.


To bet that we are machine, in the "yes doctor" quasi operational  
sense, means that we bet on some identification between []p and []p

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

On 04 Jul 2014, at 19:10, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> god is not quite the same thing than a tea-pot.

Very true, a teapot may not exist in orbit around the planet Uranus  
but at least teapots do exist in other places, but God doesn't exist  
anywhere.

> In science we very often enlarge the sense of a term,

Enlarging the sense of a term is OK until the term becomes so  
enormous that it embraces everything and then it becomes utterly  
useless; contrast is needed for meaning so the term "everything is a  
religion"  is equivalent to "nothing is a religion". In fact  
"everything is X" is equivalent to "nothing is X".

But not everything is a religion, even with the enlarged definition.

> I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you,

Being that you are the only one on the planet who defines theology  
in that way it makes communication difficult;  and that's the  
trouble with inventing your own personal language, just look at all  
the confusion that "comp", "free will", all your silly acronyms and  
"God" has caused.

> You criticize a lot Aristotle, but you seems to behave like if you  
are unable to doubt its theology.

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

> You did not answer my question. What is your 'religion'.

As you would have known if you had been paying attention, I have no  
religion.

> Don't tell in which Gods you don't believe. Tell me the one in  
which you do believe.

I believe in no Gods.

> tell me if you believe in a primitively existing physical reality,  
or if you are open to the possibility that the fundamental reality  
is arithmetic

If I were religious I'd give you an answer to that question because  
religious people think they know the answers to all of life's  
mysteries, but I'm not so I won't.  I don't know if the laws of  
logic demand that the physical world exist, maybe yes maybe no, but  
I do know that if you keep insisting on equating the ASCII sequence  
"God" with the ASCII sequence "Arithmetic" you're never going to be  
able to communicate with your fellow Human beings because people  
will refuse to learn a new language just so they can talk to you.

You just confirm that atheism is unable to conceive a theology  
different from the Christian one, and that atheists defends the same  
Dogma than the Christians.

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

Re: Selecting your future branch

On 04 Jul 2014, at 21:59, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> the H-guy has not vanished.

That depends on what "the H-guy" means.

We have a agree on the definition. I might stop answering as you  
calmly don't fear to contradict yourself opportunistically.

> By comp

I don't give a rat's ass about "comp".

It is the major idea we study on this list since years. It is one of  
the oldest idea conceive by the scientists on this planet.

> he is in both W and M,

So "the H-guy" is in both W and M but "the H-guy" is not in W and  
M.  Are you SURE you're a logician?

Again you abstract from the precision given.
The H-guy is in both W and M, from a 3p perspective, and the H-guy is  
not in both W and M from any of its first person perspective. Weird?  
Perhaps, but consistent and necessary with the definition of the  
digital mechanist hypothesis.

> We have already agreed that the Helsinki guy is the guy who is in  
Helsinki at the beginning of the experience

I thought the Helsinki guy was the guy who remembered being in  
Helsinki, but definitions are arbitrary so fine,

Yes, that one. By comp he survived in both W and M. I think you have  
just cut this precision from the paragrph you quoted, but anyway, we  
know since step zero that the H-guy doesn't die in the duplication.

but then the Helsinki guy no longer exists   at the end of the  
experience

It does. Or you just proved that (~ step 3) implies non comp, and thus  
comp implies step 3.

or even in the middle. And by the time you read this post the  
15517042014 guy (aka John K Clark as he was at 1551 Universal Mean  
Time on July 4 2014) will no longer exists.

> By comp we agree that [...]

We? I agree with nothing concerning "comp" because I believe that  
homemade word is just vague inconsistent mush.

You contradict step 0, 1. That is you contradict yourself.

> I use comp in the sense of computationalism

No you do not, if you did you'd just call it computationalism  
instead of inventing a new word.

comp is just a shorthand.

> that is not what the question was about. It was about which city  
you actually see when

I HATE PRONOUNS!!

That is not an argument.

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

Re: Selecting your future branch

On 04 Jul 2014, at 21:20, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become  
plural ones in the process.

Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one city  
*you* will see. And  things are not made  clear if Bruno adds " from  
*the* 1P " as if there were only one.

Quentin is right. You lie.
I always insist that they are two 1p after the duplication. It follows  
easily from the mechanist hypothesis.

 > Obviously our language isn't designed to cope with this  
possibility, which doesn't happen in real life (yet), hence the  
pronoun confusion.

Exactly, and Bruno lacks the mental self discipline to just refuse  
to use personal pronouns in all thought experiments involving  
duplicating chambers. John Clark admits that not using personal  
pronouns can result in prose that is a bit clunky and lacking in  
poetry, but it's still clear and logical and if Bruno wishes to  
philosophize on these matters it simply must be done.

Actually it's even worse than that, after reading Bruno's last few  
posts John Clark is no longer even sure what Bruno means by "The  
Helsinki Man".

What we have agree on, but you often change the definition, arguing it  
is arbitrary. Once we make the decision, you have to stick on it, even  
if the initial decision was arbitrary.

Bruno

>> Thinking that I'm alive and am John Clark is plenty good enough  
for me! And I would be absolutely delighted to find out that I had  
been murdered yesterday because then that would mean that death is  
not nearly as big a deal as I had thought it was. I can't imagine  
hearing better news!

> Well, perhaps. I'm no so sure I'd be happy that there is a  
duplicate of me

Not even if you were that duplicate?!

How about a duplicate who split off from you a week ago?

A week is far too long for my taste, the thing I don't like about  
death is having a last thought, so I'd only be happy to face death  
if a copy of me was made right now. How long is now? About a second,  
maybe two.

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

Re: What's the answer? What's the question?


On 7/4/2014 6:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:

On 4 July 2014 22:36, meekerdb  wrote:


Do you wish to say that
mountains have *ontological* significance *in addition* to the rocks
that comprise them?

Yes.  There could be rocks without there being mountains.

If rocks and their relations are primitive in this analogy, what is
the independent *ontological* relevance of a mountain *in addition* to
the rocks that comprise it? What, given ideal knowledge of the
disposition of rocks, would I fail to account for in terms of their
further evolution?


We accept of course that they exist
*epistemologically* (i.e. as objects of knowledge from the point of
view of a knower), but we can't adduce that fact, a posteriori, in
support of their having any *ontological* purchase independent of
their components.

Can you define "ontological purchase"?

I'm merely reiterating that they lack further ontological significance
in addition to that of their ontological primitives. Please understand
that this isn't an attempt on my part to impose my ideas on "reality".
I'm only speaking in terms of the requirements of a theory; and
whatever a reductive theory takes to be its primitive ontology
exhausts *by definition* what is ontologically relevant *in terms of
that theory*. The alternative, I presume, is some form of strong
ontological emergence - i.e. the idea that, at some higher level of
organisation, completely novel features, not reducible to the
basement-level ontology, must be taken into account.


Ok, maybe it's mostly a matter of semantics. I don't exclude things as not existing just 
because they are not part of the primitive ontology.  In physics the stuff that is most 
"primitive" in a model is also stuff who's existence is least certain, e.g. strings, 
super-symmetric particles, space-time quanta,...  While the stuff you would say doesn't 
really exist is the most certain - including the instruments used to infer the primitive 
stuff and records of the data taken.





What then is "physical computation" in this schema? It can only be a
second-order relational concept involving what are already composites
of the physical primitives in which such putative relata are grounded.
Hence, a fortiori, it can have no claim to independent ontological
(i.e. "physical") significance.

Why not.  I think you're relying on loaded language like "second-order" to
imply your conclusion.  Why are "second order" relations not real?  What are
"first order" relations?

By first-order relations I just mean those defined in the ontology of
the theory. Ex hypothesi, they are assumed to do all the theoretical
work of transitioning from one state to another.  Hence, in terms of
the ontology, it can be assumed that whenever we speak of "higher
levels" of organisation (e.g. mountains rather than rocks) we are
making use of a "manner of speaking". IOW we have moved from ontology
proper to epistemology, since the "higher level" has no independent
ontological relevance. It is assumed to be an aggregation of
first-order relations (e.g. a mountain is just rocks in relation).

By second-order relations, I mean relations that are not simply
hierarchical-reductive (such as mountains and rocks). Secondary
relations such as those of computation can be *attributed* to all
manner of physical systems which are transitioning from state to state
at the level of first-order relations. Hence, they too lack
independent ontological significance; they too are epistemological
constructs, albeit at one level removed from the reductive hierarchy,
as it were.

Note again that I'm not trying to rule on what is "real". I'm wielding
Occam's razor at the theoretical level. It's just *not necessary* (in
fact it's disallowed) to attribute ontological relevance to anything
above the basement in a reductive theory; that's the whole point of
the reductive strategy. Of course, we don't emphasise this distinction
in ordinary talk, or even in most scientific discourse, because in
purely 3p terms it is largely without consequence. But this ceases to
be the case when we propose a second-order relation like computation
as the "physical correlate" of consciousness, precisely because it
vitiates the idea that such relations can be anything other than a
manner of speaking, in terms of the *ontology* of a reductive physical
theory. Hence, to attribute the ability to evoke conscious states to
such imaginary or virtual relations would seem to invoke a sort of
ontological magic.


I don't see it as any more magic than making mountains out of rocks.  You seem to be 
invoking an argument from incredulity: Consciousness just can't be made out of physical 
stuff or processes.





It merely degenerates to the
self-sufficient micro-evolution of some aggregation of physical
primitives; whatever is not entirely "micro-physical" is a further
attribution *from the perspective of some implicit theory of
knowledge*. To put it baldly, computation, in terms of any theory
grounded in physically-primitive rela

Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 7/4/2014 8:01 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well if we're speaking to the money spent by Bush and Cheney. That has now vanished
under tbe Obama quantitative easing,

It vanished into the sands of Iraq, in order to make Iran the dominant mideast power.
Bush signed the TARP, (as well as the agreement to pull out the troops by 2012).

that earmarks his administration. BHO has racked up 12 trillion,on behalf of his
Wallstreet friends in unsecured debt.

It was "racked up" by the Bush tax cuts. Obama has reduced the deficit in
spite of it.

/"Over the first four years of the Obama presidency, the deficit shrunk by a total of $300
billion dollars. That is not the national debt- it is the amount of money we spend each
year relative to the amount we take in. And while this improving deficit picture is not
what those who believe in a balanced budget would be looking for, it is a shrinking
deficit just the same./"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/27/the-best-kept-secret-in-american-politics-federal-budget-deficits-are-actually-shrinking/

That hopy changey guy made Bushies trillions look like chump change. I guess the deal
with Barry and his billionaire cronies is just like Orwells Animal Farm, "all animals
are equal but some are more equal then orhers."

That's pretty funny when Obama was opposed by the likes of Mitt Romney, th Koch brothers,
and Sheldon Adelson. You're just another racist who hates whatever the black guy does,
even though you loved it when the white guy did it.

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: Re: Re: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 7:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

Jesus, Chris, your writing fits the bill. If you're not willing to see the
country defended, because you believe it to be immoral, what else needs to
be said. 

You are full of it and are just a couch potato clown who has never been
close to a war. For what asinine reason exactly do you propose I am not
willing to see our country defended; because I do not agree with your demand
that we go off on another neocon adventure?

YOU're obviously not a pacifist in the true sense of being against all wars,
you just oppose US involvement, in anything, anywhere. You never stated
under what condition you'd support the US military? You write like an
afficianado of agit-prop Michael Moore, Where's My Country Dude? Which I
replied, 90 miles off the Miami shore. Take a stand that is not a mirror
image of Moore, and then you get the street cred you claim you want. 

Street cred? Man are you really that much off your rockers?  Do you think
you are in possession of anything that even remotely smells like street
cred. what street cred can there be in being a couch potato general
demanding all get on board with a blood crusade.. And you talk of street
cred. come on get real, puppy dog. 

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

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 21:06:06 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude
Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and
Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles
upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one
another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously,
do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such
matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the
enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will
they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this
or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be
hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw.

But, if anyone disagrees with your view of what a love of America entails,
you begin claiming that they are America haters; that, quoting your colorful
Trotskyite manner of speech "fellow travelers" of the Jihadists. E.g. in bed
with America's enemies. You don't get to do this; and if you do, you
shouldn't be all that surprised really, when someone calls you a fascist. 

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

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 18:43:53 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

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

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?

My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.

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

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

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

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

Re: RE: American Intelligence

Well if we're speaking to the money spent by Bush and Cheney. That has 
now vanished under tbe Obama quantitative easing, that earmarks his 
administration. BHO has racked up 12 trillion,on behalf of his 
Wallstreet friends in unsecured debt. That hopy changey guy made 
Bushies trillions look like chump change. I guess the deal with Barry 
and his billionaire cronies is just like Orwells Animal Farm, "all 
animals are equal but some are more equal then orhers."



--
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: RE: American Intelligence

Well if we're speaking to the money spent by Bush and Cheney. That has 
now vanished under tbe Obama quantitative easing, that earmarks his 
administration. BHO has racked up 12 trillion,on behalf of his 
Wallstreet friends in unsecured debt. That hopy changey guy made 
Bushies trillions look like chump change. I guess the deal with Barry 
and his billionaire cronies is just like Orwells Animal Farm, "all 
animals are equal but some are more equal then orhers."



--
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: Re: Re: American Intelligence



-- 
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: Re: Re: American Intelligence



-- 
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

2014-07-04 Thread Kim Jones

> On 3 Jul 2014, at 10:49 am, LizR  wrote:
> 
> So I think having convenient shorthands for various stances on these matters 
> is a handy convention, which I would hope everyone who contributes to the 
> forum recognises. (Although personally I'm still not sure who Plotinus was or 
> what he had to say about these matters :(

hH: I already dealt with that. You should be using de Bono's Hats 
systematically in all threads. The idea is that you select which 
neurotransmitter you are going to perform optimally under when you open your 
mouth and that the person listening to you unleashes that same neurotransmitter 
by metaphorically selecting the same-coloured Hat. This is new. There is 
nothing like this in the conventional attack/defence adversarial default mode 
of thinking/listening. Under that system, you seek to hide your self-selecting 
neurotransmitters under rhetoric and fact and colourful use of language. 
Sophistry IOW. That someone knows in advance that they will look for the 
benefits in your idea or will try to use your idea as a stepping stone to a 
better idea are aspects of Parallel Thinking. This is the first truly creative 
updating of our thinking system since Socrates Plato and Aristotle. 

You say in advance what part of your mind you are using and then you confine 
yourself to using only that part of your mnd. If you are like Clark and only 
have one part to your mind then practising the Hats will grow new neural 
pathways literally in terms of axions and dendrites as the brain is a machine 
that physically adapts to the challenges of survival. 

I reiterate that there is no inbuilt 'humility' or 'modesty' lever available to 
thinking without the necessary level of honesty that imposing a 'thinking 
framework' such as the Six Thinking Hats provides. People would post less and 
each post would be of a higher quality and consistently on topic yet 
remorselessly exploratory in all aspects of the thinking. Ad hominem is only 
ever an amusing trantrum someone throws because they are bad at one or a couple 
of the 6 modes of thinking.

Trouble is you cannot teach a bunch of old dogs some new tricks. I think we 
have a people problem here.

K

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

RE: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



-- 
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

2014-07-04 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 3:02 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 7/4/2014 5:40 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>
>> I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude
>> Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and
>> Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles
>> upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one
>> another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously,
>> do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such
>> matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the
>> enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will
>> they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this
>> or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be
>> hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw.
>>
>
> That's the kind of talk that gets us into wars we don't need to be in. "A
> glass jaw"?  OMIGOD those jihadists may sneak a punch that knocks the U.S.
> out!  We'd better defend ourselves mucking about in the middle east or
> they'll be ISIS tanks on the streets of New York!  This is exactly the same
> kind of fear mongering that Bush did about weapons of mass delusion, and
> LBJ did about the domino theory.  The point is not that we can't be hurt.
>  Killing some people in a nation of 350 million isn't hard (we do it all
> the time).  But it doesn't do anything to destroy or even diminish the
> nation, unless we succumb to fearful responses like war and a police state.
>
> Brent
> Osama bin Laden and George W Bush are twin sides of the same war on Terra,
> which is really a revolt against the Enlightenment and modernism.
> --- Anne O'Reilly

That main point is so simple, yet all the rhetoric on political stage
constantly evades. And I don't see a solution with our current political
paradigm. As was even fictionally stated in 1907 "The Secret Agent" by
Joseph Conrad: monopoly of security and violent force by the state entails
constant cash flow and legitimacy of budget for security. With advent of
increasingly destructive weaponry and sophisticated technology; this
tendency multiplies on all fronts. The Chickenhawks, and I speak with the
authority of being a general for a week now...we need a string of larger
and larger threats, and need increasingly larger monsters for larger
budgets.

Nobody tallies the threats that turned out bullshit in media for obvious
reason.

Unfortunately the conspiracy idea: for security/militarized interest, to
effectively supply (directly or indirectly matters less than effectively
doing so) the monster faction with weaponry is logical, and highly
lucrative. With this setup, the only thing to expect is more senseless
violence and more cash flowing. The more senseless the better, as it makes
the monster more insane, unpredictable, and dangerous. The more it sparks
hawk rhetoric the better for Monster and government.

Not verbatim, but the reasoning in the book was "Not just political
offices, but public, seemingly unpolitical places, unknown enemies and
capabilities, so that everybody feels like a potential target and the
appropriate rhetoric can spread to our advantage. Maximum terror at lowest
cost."

Military/security complex budget => more weapons flood market (they get
cheaper/more easily acquired on black market) => terrorist act by monster
or attack by monster state => rise in legitimacy for security
rhetoric/lobbying => need for more budget fulfilled, we need new monster.
How you supposed to break such vicious spiral, with so much cash and
industrial dependencies hanging? 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.
>

-- 
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: - Renewable energy records set in California and Texas

Significant market penetration is being achieved by the solar/wind sectors,
even in the US. Expect to see this penetration of the electric generation
markets by solar/wind renewables to grow deeper and wider until within a few
decades these become the dominant suppliers to an evolved grid with
distributed storage capacity built into it.

Chris

 

Renewable energy records set in California and Texas
 

Solar power in California sets new one-day record of 4.76 GW in June as
Texas joins the ranks of the renewables big league, powered largely by wind.

Figures from the California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) revealed
this week show that the Golden State broke its own one-day record
  for solar PV generation on
June 1 when 4767 MW of utility scale solar energy was fed into the grid.

The record smashed California's previous one-day best of 4100 MW in March,
which also stood as the highest one-day figure for the whole of the U.S.

California's solar footprint is growing bigger with each passing day, week
and month, with May recording three times as much solar generation as
recorded during the same month in 2013. In total, solar PV powered 6% of Cal
ISO's total electric load in May, rising to 14% during peak hours, according
to data gathered by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). In
2013, California added 2145 MW of utility scale solar.

In Texas, wind power accounted for 30% of the state's electric load on March
26, generating 10.2 GW of electricity according to the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT). Regulators in Texas expect that record to be
outstripped again shortly as the state's wind capacity rises above 12 GW.

Last year was a record 12 months for renewable energy generation in the U.S.
The solar sector grew by 41% in 2013, with California responsible for more
than half of new PV capacity. For the remainder of 2014, the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) expects California to add an additional
1728 MW of utility scale solar before the year is out.



Read more:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/renewable-energy-records-set
-in-california-and-texas_100015571/#ixzz36YVWiE1I

-- 
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

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 6:06 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

On 7/4/2014 5:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> Chris, nobody in power shares my love for global war, as you put it, 
> but I am very logical in noting the decline of American effectiveness, 
> and prowess. The world is soon becoming, a No Country for Old Men sort 
> of place, thats less free and more dangerous. A weakend US now invites
attack, but theres nothing to be done, as individuals but wait.
> Americans are used to stumbling along until something happens, and 
> this is the period we're now in. Supporting the policies and attitude 
> of an insousuant, presidency, is not the way to go now, but you've
expressed otherwise.

And you'd like to bring back Shrub and the neo-cons because their show of
American strength in Afghanistan and Iraq did so much to strengthen the U.S.
Just like Viet Nam did a generation earlier.

When one considers the lost opportunity cost of the trillions of dollars of
indebtedness and loss of treasure that the two neocon imperial follies will
cost the US over the last and the next few decades it is staggering. A
staggering sum.  If that sum had been spent on instead, modernizing (and
safe proofing) the US grid and building out a US domestic solar/wind
generation infrastructure, this country would have been far stronger and
better future proofed than we currently are. Almost any expenditure of that
money would have been better than, burning it up in the neocons delusional
"they will welcome us with flowers" wars.
And as you mentioned in Vietnam a generation earlier.
Chris

PS Naturally for some special interests war is exceedingly profitable; hence
the historical appetite for war.

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: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-04 Thread David Nyman

On 4 July 2014 22:36, meekerdb  wrote:

>> Do you wish to say that
>> mountains have *ontological* significance *in addition* to the rocks
>> that comprise them?
>
> Yes.  There could be rocks without there being mountains.

If rocks and their relations are primitive in this analogy, what is
the independent *ontological* relevance of a mountain *in addition* to
the rocks that comprise it? What, given ideal knowledge of the
disposition of rocks, would I fail to account for in terms of their
further evolution?

>> We accept of course that they exist
>> *epistemologically* (i.e. as objects of knowledge from the point of
>> view of a knower), but we can't adduce that fact, a posteriori, in
>> support of their having any *ontological* purchase independent of
>> their components.
>
> Can you define "ontological purchase"?

I'm merely reiterating that they lack further ontological significance
in addition to that of their ontological primitives. Please understand
that this isn't an attempt on my part to impose my ideas on "reality".
I'm only speaking in terms of the requirements of a theory; and
whatever a reductive theory takes to be its primitive ontology
exhausts *by definition* what is ontologically relevant *in terms of
that theory*. The alternative, I presume, is some form of strong
ontological emergence - i.e. the idea that, at some higher level of
organisation, completely novel features, not reducible to the
basement-level ontology, must be taken into account.

>> What then is "physical computation" in this schema? It can only be a
>> second-order relational concept involving what are already composites
>> of the physical primitives in which such putative relata are grounded.
>> Hence, a fortiori, it can have no claim to independent ontological
>> (i.e. "physical") significance.
>
> Why not.  I think you're relying on loaded language like "second-order" to
> imply your conclusion.  Why are "second order" relations not real?  What are
> "first order" relations?

By first-order relations I just mean those defined in the ontology of
the theory. Ex hypothesi, they are assumed to do all the theoretical
work of transitioning from one state to another.  Hence, in terms of
the ontology, it can be assumed that whenever we speak of "higher
levels" of organisation (e.g. mountains rather than rocks) we are
making use of a "manner of speaking". IOW we have moved from ontology
proper to epistemology, since the "higher level" has no independent
ontological relevance. It is assumed to be an aggregation of
first-order relations (e.g. a mountain is just rocks in relation).

By second-order relations, I mean relations that are not simply
hierarchical-reductive (such as mountains and rocks). Secondary
relations such as those of computation can be *attributed* to all
manner of physical systems which are transitioning from state to state
at the level of first-order relations. Hence, they too lack
independent ontological significance; they too are epistemological
constructs, albeit at one level removed from the reductive hierarchy,
as it were.

Note again that I'm not trying to rule on what is "real". I'm wielding
Occam's razor at the theoretical level. It's just *not necessary* (in
fact it's disallowed) to attribute ontological relevance to anything
above the basement in a reductive theory; that's the whole point of
the reductive strategy. Of course, we don't emphasise this distinction
in ordinary talk, or even in most scientific discourse, because in
purely 3p terms it is largely without consequence. But this ceases to
be the case when we propose a second-order relation like computation
as the "physical correlate" of consciousness, precisely because it
vitiates the idea that such relations can be anything other than a
manner of speaking, in terms of the *ontology* of a reductive physical
theory. Hence, to attribute the ability to evoke conscious states to
such imaginary or virtual relations would seem to invoke a sort of
ontological magic.

>> It merely degenerates to the
>> self-sufficient micro-evolution of some aggregation of physical
>> primitives; whatever is not entirely "micro-physical" is a further
>> attribution *from the perspective of some implicit theory of
>> knowledge*. To put it baldly, computation, in terms of any theory
>> grounded in physically-primitive relations, isn't a "further physical
>> fact"; it just *looks* as if it is. Consequently it can hardly be a
>> viable candidate for a "physical correlate" of consciousness, since
>> such correlation can be defined only in terms of what is to be
>> explained.
>
> But you can say exactly the same about numbers and arithmetical relations,
> or for that matter souls and spirits.

What do you mean, "but"? You seem to be arguing both ends here. You
can't consistently reject my argument on the one hand, whilst at the
same time use it as a weapon against alternative ontologies. Anyway,
since I'm not an apologist for souls and spirits, I won't comment. But
I've alrea

RE: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 6:02 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

On 7/4/2014 5:40 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old 
> Claude Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin 
> Arabic and Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime 
> that Allah smiles upon their holy war. In their messages to each other
they encourage one another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans.
> Can they seriously, do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader 
> is experienced in such matters. If they possess active new "toys" that 
> they can heap upon the enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, 
> but how much lead time will they need to act, and upon which target is 
> unknown. I wouldn't ignore this or be content by telling ourselves we 
> are so big and bad, we can never be hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as
a giant with a glass jaw.

That's the kind of talk that gets us into wars we don't need to be in. "A
glass jaw"?  
OMIGOD those jihadists may sneak a punch that knocks the U.S. out!  We'd
better defend ourselves mucking about in the middle east or they'll be ISIS
tanks on the streets of New York!  This is exactly the same kind of fear
mongering that Bush did about weapons of mass delusion, and LBJ did about
the domino theory.  The point is not that we can't be hurt.  
Killing some people in a nation of 350 million isn't hard (we do it all the
time).  But it doesn't do anything to destroy or even diminish the nation,
unless we succumb to fearful responses like war and a police state.

I don't think spudboy, quite yet, grasps the concept of strategic depth.
Chris

Brent
Osama bin Laden and George W Bush are twin sides of the same war on Terra,
which is really a revolt against the Enlightenment and modernism.
 --- Anne O'Reilly

--
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: Re: Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:40 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude
Shannon method based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and
Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles
upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one
another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously,
do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such
matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the
enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will
they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this
or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be
hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw.

But, if anyone disagrees with your view of what a love of America entails,
you begin claiming that they are America haters; that, quoting your colorful
Trotskyite manner of speech "fellow travelers" of the Jihadists. E.g. in bed
with America's enemies. You don't get to do this; and if you do, you
shouldn't be all that surprised really, when someone calls you a fascist. 

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

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 18:43:53 +
Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

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

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?

My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.

-- 
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: American Intelligence


On 7/4/2014 5:52 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Chris, nobody in power shares my love for global war, as you put it, but I am very 
logical in noting the decline of American effectiveness, and prowess. The world is soon 
becoming, a No Country for Old Men sort of place, thats less free and more dangerous. A 
weakend US now invites attack, but theres nothing to be done, as individuals but wait. 
Americans are used to stumbling along until something happens, and this is the period 
we're now in. Supporting the policies and attitude of an insousuant, presidency, is not 
the way to go now, but you've expressed otherwise.


And you'd like to bring back Shrub and the neo-cons because their show of American 
strength in Afghanistan and Iraq did so much to strengthen the U.S.  Just like Viet Nam 
did a generation earlier.


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


On 7/4/2014 5:40 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude Shannon method 
based on what the "faithful" te each other,nin Arabic and Farsi, that they view the 
unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles upon their holy war. In their messages 
to each other they encourage one another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. 
Can they seriously, do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in 
such matters. If they possess active new "toys" that they can heap upon the enemies of 
Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will they need to act, and 
upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this or be content by telling ourselves 
we are so big and bad, we can never be hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant 
with a glass jaw.


That's the kind of talk that gets us into wars we don't need to be in. "A glass jaw"?  
OMIGOD those jihadists may sneak a punch that knocks the U.S. out!  We'd better defend 
ourselves mucking about in the middle east or they'll be ISIS tanks on the streets of New 
York!  This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering that Bush did about weapons of mass 
delusion, and LBJ did about the domino theory.  The point is not that we can't be hurt.  
Killing some people in a nation of 350 million isn't hard (we do it all the time).  But it 
doesn't do anything to destroy or even diminish the nation, unless we succumb to fearful 
responses like war and a police state.


Brent
Osama bin Laden and George W Bush are twin sides of the same war on Terra, which is really 
a revolt against the Enlightenment and modernism.

--- Anne O'Reilly

--
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: RE: Re: American Intelligence

Chris, nobody in power shares my love for global war, as you put it, 
but I am very logical in noting the decline of American effectiveness, 
and prowess. The world is soon becoming, a No Country for Old Men sort 
of place, thats less free and more dangerous. A weakend US now invites 
attack, but theres nothing to be done, as individuals but wait. 
Americans are used to stumbling along until something happens, and this 
is the period we're now in. Supporting the policies and attitude of an 
insousuant, presidency, is not the way to go now, but you've expressed 
otherwise.







--
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: Re: Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



-- 
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: Re: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 3:35 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: American Intelligence

Look, I can only judge you by what you write. You have presented yourself as
the classic (since the 60s) Marxist, anti-war Left.

No, I haven't, but you - for the purpose of your own argument - insist on
defining me this way. You don't get to pigeon hole those who do not share
your own extreme desire for global war as hating their country or being
"fellow travelers" (what are you a Maoist now?) with the Salafist mmedieval
minded bigots.

If you feel this is inaccurate, then tell why this is not true. 

I don't owe you anything spudboy. You are nothing to me; certainly not
someone who gets to demand an explanation from me.

Secondly, that strain of reviling this nation state, in common within the
left, liberal, establishment for a long time. During, the crisis caused by a
South Korean plane straying into Soviet territory, which the Soviets chose
to shoot down, Ted Kennedy attempted unasked for, private, diplomacy with
Brezhnev, in his fear of old, man, Reagan, starting a nuclear war. Kennedy's
blunder added to the confusion, historians learned later. 

What does this tidbit of old history have to do with anything? It feels like
you are insisting we all take a voyage into the bizarre inner workings of
your paranoid mind. Why inflict this form of torture on us? You have
paranoid delusions of a monolithic Jihadist Caliphate delivering some
hypothetical knockout blow to the US (as if world affairs were an MMA
match). I feel for you; living in your head must be hellish indeed.

But please try not to vomit your delusions all over the place; it is getting
a little bit unseemly really; get a grip man.

With the American Left, the primo target is never, ever, overseas, its
always the evil, fascist, conservatives, white people, with green teeth,
shotguns, and pickup trucks, ever the eternal, enemy, dragging the world
into war, ruining racial harmony, holding back the future, with our
mysterious powers. Yet it's not the world.as it exists, but instead it's how
your ideology filters it. 

Are you really so sure it is not you who is wearing the blinders?

Happy 4rth of July

Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List

To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Jul-2014 16:29:15 +
Subject: Re: Re: American Intelligence

-- Original message--

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

Date: Fri, 7/4/2014 1:19 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com;

Subject:Re: American Intelligence

I too, sometimes use the psychological approach. The convinced/manicheanism
thing, is probably inaccurate, as at heart, I am a pragmatist, and want this
nation state to survive and thrive. I want other separate nation states to
do this also, but this one is mine, and charity begins at home. Nothing
wrong with doing a solid multi-national approach, once we have some sense
that our goal is doable. What I have zero tolerance for, is the lies, and
mafia-like, behavior of the political left, of which I was once a member. I
know the game, and have played at the 13 commandments of Sol Alinsky's Rules
for Radicals. Its better then anything you could find in Macchiaveli's The
Prince. 

I don't know about how others feel, but its you, who have responded to my
posts, and find them especially annoying, because it goes against your
ideology. All I indicated, originally, is that against a fanatical enemy,
the sort of half-measured war seems guaranteed to fail. So considering
extreme measures like mass carpet bombing campaigns might be the best thing
to keep their jihad, continually off-balance. Its better then doing wars
like we've been doing them with such poor results. Can we do other things,
less violent, non-violent first? Sure, its worth a try. 

>From my pov, your own views are off the map, and and vilify the US on
purpose,using a mask of indignation, and superiority, that someone dare
divert from your need to see the US as anything else but evil. This is the
mentality of the "New Left" from the 60's and explains much of what you have
stated.  

You don't have the right to define those who disagree with your extreme
views as being people who hate their country. Your doing so defines you as
operating from a fascist mindset.  

I oppose you out of love for my country, to prevent it from being taken over
by the demented ideology you espouse. Happy 4rth of July, that flag belongs
to me as much as it does to you! 

You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own
righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep
you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off
a new crusade; after a point your "crusade" becomes merely annoying.

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

To: every

RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



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

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as
a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?

My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is.

-- 
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: Re: Re: American Intelligence

Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi 
terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue?



--
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: Re: American Intelligence



-- 
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: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-04 Thread 'cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List

On 7/4/2014 2:05 PM, David Nyman wrote:

On 4 July 2014 19:21, meekerdb wrote:

If the latter, simple reductive
analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help to
convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema
necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites

That's just your definition of eliminates. Mountains are made of rocks,
therefore mountains don't exist.

I can't help feeling that you're leaning rather too heavily on "just"
here. A contradiction is not an argument (at least according to Monty
Python). However, you've said nothing so far to make me relinquish
this definition, in the *ontological* sense. For some reason you
ignore the distinction I've repeatedly drawn between the ontological
and epistemological aspects of a theory. Do you wish to say that
mountains have *ontological* significance *in addition* to the rocks
that comprise them?

Yes. There could be rocks without there being mountains.

We accept of course that they exist
*epistemologically* (i.e. as objects of knowledge from the point of
view of a knower), but we can't adduce that fact, a posteriori, in
support of their having any *ontological* purchase independent of
their components.

Can you define "ontological purchase"?

To remind you why I suppose this to be of interest, what is true for
mountains must hold for any other derivative of "physically-primitive"
entities and relations. Hence it must hold for any physical
"computer", whether that be a PC or (putatively) a brain. On this
analysis, a PC or a brain are *ontologically* (i.e. in terms of the
target theory) nothing more than physically-primitive entities in
primary relation. We have already agreed that, ex hypothesi, nothing
further is required (or could be allowed) in accounting for their
physical evolution. Physical systems of any description are
hypothesised to transition from state to state entirely in terms of
the relations of their physical primitives.

What then is "physical computation" in this schema? It can only be a
second-order relational concept involving what are already composites
of the physical primitives in which such putative relata are grounded.
Hence, a fortiori, it can have no claim to independent ontological
(i.e. "physical") significance.

Why not. I think you're relying on loaded language like "second-order" to imply your
conclusion. Why are "second order" relations not real? What are "first order" relations?

It merely degenerates to the
self-sufficient micro-evolution of some aggregation of physical
primitives; whatever is not entirely "micro-physical" is a further
attribution *from the perspective of some implicit theory of
knowledge*. To put it baldly, computation, in terms of any theory
grounded in physically-primitive relations, isn't a "further physical
fact"; it just *looks* as if it is. Consequently it can hardly be a
viable candidate for a "physical correlate" of consciousness, since
such correlation can be defined only in terms of what is to be
explained.

But you can say exactly the same about numbers and arithmetical relations, or for that
matter souls and spirits. It seems to me you have taken consciousness to be fundamental -
except where you choose not to. Either consciousness can be explained in terms of
something that is not consciousness or it's fundamental. To a large degree this depends
on what you mean by "explain". I think being able to engineer intelligent, conscious-like
behavior is a good empirical standard of "explain". What would you count as an explanation?

And isn't that just a confirmation of my point that engineering
consciousness is possible, but the "hard problem" is asking a question such
that the asker will never be satisfied with any answer.

You were responding to Bruno rather than me here, but I must say I
can't see that you've really said anything to justify this assertion.
ISTM at least as much a case of your own distaste for certain kinds of
question.

Whenever I consider a question I ask myself what would an answer look like?

Brent

Re: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-04 Thread David Nyman

On 4 July 2014 19:21, meekerdb  wrote:

>>> If the latter, simple reductive
>>> analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help to
>>> convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema
>>> necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites
>
> That's just your definition of eliminates.  Mountains are made of rocks,
> therefore mountains don't exist.

I can't help feeling that you're leaning rather too heavily on "just"
here. A contradiction is not an argument (at least according to Monty
Python). However, you've said nothing so far to make me relinquish
this definition, in the *ontological* sense. For some reason you
ignore the distinction I've repeatedly drawn between the ontological
and epistemological aspects of a theory. Do you wish to say that
mountains have *ontological* significance *in addition* to the rocks
that comprise them? We accept of course that they exist
*epistemologically* (i.e. as objects of knowledge from the point of
view of a knower), but we can't adduce that fact, a posteriori, in
support of their having any *ontological* purchase independent of
their components.

To remind you why I suppose this to be of interest, what is true for
mountains must hold for any other derivative of "physically-primitive"
entities and relations. Hence it must hold for any physical
"computer", whether that be a PC or (putatively) a brain. On this
analysis, a PC or a brain are *ontologically* (i.e. in terms of the
target theory) nothing more than physically-primitive entities in
primary relation. We have already agreed that, ex hypothesi, nothing
further is required (or could be allowed) in accounting for their
physical evolution. Physical systems of any description are
hypothesised to transition from state to state entirely in terms of
the relations of their physical primitives.

What then is "physical computation" in this schema? It can only be a
second-order relational concept involving what are already composites
of the physical primitives in which such putative relata are grounded.
Hence, a fortiori, it can have no claim to independent ontological
(i.e. "physical") significance. It merely degenerates to the
self-sufficient micro-evolution of some aggregation of physical
primitives; whatever is not entirely "micro-physical" is a further
attribution *from the perspective of some implicit theory of
knowledge*. To put it baldly, computation, in terms of any theory
grounded in physically-primitive relations, isn't a "further physical
fact"; it just *looks* as if it is. Consequently it can hardly be a
viable candidate for a "physical correlate" of consciousness, since
such correlation can be defined only in terms of what is to be
explained.

> And isn't that just a confirmation of my point that engineering
> consciousness is possible, but the "hard problem" is asking a question such
> that the asker will never be satisfied with any answer.

You were responding to Bruno rather than me here, but I must say I
can't see that you've really said anything to justify this assertion.
ISTM at least as much a case of your own distaste for certain kinds of
question.

David

> On 7/4/2014 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03 Jul 2014, at 18:39, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
 And perhaps most interestingly,
 its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at
 the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and
 cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena attached to
 some putative "virtual level" of an exhaustively "material" reduction.

 The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it does use
 comp,
 more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not work when
 put
 together with with materialism.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and I was roused from my customary torpor specifically to have
>>> another stab at a thoroughgoing reductio of this position (or else, of
>>> course, learn where I am in error). But, frustratingly, it does seem
>>> to be extraordinarily hard to get across for the first time, because
>>> of the tacit question-begging almost unavoidably consequent on the
>>> difficulty of vacating the very perceptual position whose all too
>>> manifest "entities" are undergoing ontological deconstruction. Once
>>> seen, however, the error may then strike one as having been obvious.
>>>
>>> The commonest response, in my experience, after describing the
>>> mind-body problem to someone for the first time, is "I don't see the
>>> problem". On further probing, the default assumptions usually turn out
>>> to be either straightforward mind-brain "identity", or "mind =
>>> simulation, brain = computer". If the former, I point, in the first
>>> place, to the completely non-standard and unjustified use of the
>>> identity relation that this entails. If the latter, simple reductive
>>> analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can s

Re: Re: American Intelligence

 -- Original message-- From: spudboy100 via Everything List Date: Fri, 7/4/2014 1:27 PMTo: everything-list@googlegroups.com;Subject:Re: American Intelligence Its a real threat, and its something that you don't wish to hear about. The flow of power in the US, may indeed go solidly in favor of Mama Clinton as Prez. I am not quite such an optimist as to think otherwise. However, with time and effects, things can turn around for the US. Because of the weakness, a deliberate weakness by your guy, Barry, I suspect some sort of super-attack to happen before 2016, simply based on what went on before. From such an event, I would expect that even your class-compatriots, who take SNAP cards, and super-extended unemployment checks, to have their shit messed with. We shall see if and when this spasm occurs, if at all? If you're so happy with the jihad lands, why not go live there? 


 


You seem not much more substantial than a string of worn out cliches strung together into a stream of unending vitriol.  


 Sometimes I suspect you just might be a bot.





You seem pathologically unable to let go of this neocon inseminated notion that has become rooted in your brain that we are facing an imminent existential threat from a monolithic Islamist unified command – this “Caliphate” you love to bandy about.



 





 





 





-Original Message-

From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 

To: everything-list 

Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 1:14 pm

Subject: RE: American Intelligence















 



 



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

Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 9:37 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: American Intelligence



 



I just recognize and sort of respect that other people think differently, then myself. Sometimes, we are offered Manichean choices, rather than indicate that its a personal, American flaw. Its not always an American flaw based on a corrupt, vile, greedy, capitalist system, though in some cases, such as slavery, the war against native Americans, our bigotries, it surely was this. Like, the late George Carlin once said, "The founders signed the Constitution, and then went home and f***ed their slaves." Agreed, yet, only if one is an ideologist, can one blame the US as eviler then normal, then the massacres done by Native Americans against each other, the South Asians, the East Asians, the Europeans, and Africans. Researchers have forensic science applied to archeology to uncover who died and then why? The US has done evil, but then so has everyone else. Leftists today ignore when Muslims massacre each other, because that distracts from the real narrative; the Americans, the Europeans, who are the "true enemy!" Of course 911 was an evil Bushie plot! Because, to say otherwise also detracts from the 'social narrative." Thus, the Islamists become friends, and fellow travelers. 



 



You seem pathologically unable to let go of this neocon inseminated notion that has become rooted in your brain that we are facing an imminent existential threat from a monolithic Islamist unified command – this “Caliphate” you love to bandy about.



The world is far more nuanced and complex than the Manichean rendition that exists in your brain. When others do not fall into line with your own peculiar ill-informed views you brand them as enemies of America. I would not much care about your disease where it not for how much this unintelligent world view has already cost this country and the countries we trashed in the grips of this particular madness – half a million or more dead Iraqis, thousands of Americans killed (and hundreds of thousands with their lives ruined – by blast wounds -- who will continue to cost our country a river of dollars, in long term medical and social expenditures). An insane neocon sickness that has already burned through a few trillions of dollars that could have been much more wisely invested in more fruitful areas that would have actually made America stronger and more prosperous – and much better prepared to face the future – than it is now.



The only reason I care about your mental affliction is because you suffer from a disease that has already demonstrated how virulent and dangerous it can be. Because of the sickness you suffer this country has been significantly weakened.



It is my patriotic duty (today is the 4rth after all) to see that insane nuts like you are kept from getting back into the corridors of power…. Neocon chickenhawks, sharing your same sick world view have already weakened America far more than any Islamist could have ever dreamed of doing. I – and millions of other Americans – stand in your way… we will not let cowards like you send others off to die.



Go do the dying yourself crusader. No one is stopping you.



Chris



 



 







Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides doesn’t mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental h

Re: Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread 'cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List

 -- Original message-- From: spudboy100 via Everything List Date: Fri, 7/4/2014 1:19 PMTo: everything-list@googlegroups.com;Subject:Re: American Intelligence I too, sometimes use the psychological approach. The convinced/manicheanism thing, is probably inaccurate, as at heart, I am a pragmatist, and want this nation state to survive and thrive. I want other separate nation states to do this also, but this one is mine, and charity begins at home. Nothing wrong with doing a solid multi-national approach, once we have some sense that our goal is doable. What I have zero tolerance for, is the lies, and mafia-like, behavior of the political left, of which I was once a member. I know the game, and have played at the 13 commandments of Sol Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Its better then anything you could find in Macchiaveli's The Prince. 

I don't know about how others feel, but its you, who have responded to my posts, and find them especially annoying, because it goes against your ideology. All I indicated, originally, is that against a fanatical enemy, the sort of half-measured war seems guaranteed to fail. So considering extreme measures like mass carpet bombing campaigns might be the best thing to keep their jihad, continually off-balance. Its better then doing wars like we've been doing them with such poor results. Can we do other things, less violent, non-violent first? Sure, its worth a try. 

>From my pov, your own views are off the map, and and vilify the US on purpose,using a mask of indignation, and superiority, that someone dare divert from your need to see the US as anything else but evil. This is the mentality of the "New Left" from the 60's and explains much of what you have stated.  


 


You don't have the right to define those who disagree with your extreme views as being people who hate their country. Your doing so defines you as operating from a fascist mindset. 


I oppose you out of love for my country, to prevent it from being taken over by the demented ideology you espouse. Happy 4rth of July, that flag belongs to me as much as it does to you! 



 





You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off a new crusade; after a point your “crusade” becomes merely annoying.



 





 





 





-Original Message-

From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 

To: everything-list 

Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 12:14 pm

Subject: RE: American Intelligence















 



 



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

Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 3:53 AM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: American Intelligence



 





Truth hurts, huh? The fascist economic system where billionaires fund both parties, and decide which bills get promoted into laws is what the truth is, and an interesting topic. Which plutocrat do you favor? The Kochs, or George Soros and Tom Steyer? Never the less, its not a matter of being reluctant for wars, it concerns itself with always siding with the opponents view, no matter what the circumstances. This, then, is a mind ruled by ideology, rather then pertinent facts. If your main, enemy nation is always, America, of course you find any military action it uses, as repellent. 







 







An example of Left ideology changing its tune, literally, was when singer, Pete Seeger, who in 1938, wrote an anti-Hitler tune for one of his records, after the Pact of Steel, between Stalin and Hitler, wrote to his purchasers, asking for the record back in exchange for a refund. Then when the Naz-Sov love affair fell apart in May 1941, it was back to seeing the Nazis for what they truly are. Take a poke at the Islamists once in a while. They're the most violent faith on earth, (for now) and want atheism eliminated. Unless, and I have suspected this of Leftists, want the Jihad to land a knock-out punch, specifically against the US, to make the rise of Progressivism, all the easier. The German and Russian Communists, had such an opinion of the Nazis, in the early 30's. They'd take over, and screw things up so badly, that the German people would revolt en mass, and install a brother Soviet system in Germany. This, did not happen. Same with the Lefts support of the radicals. Buh Bye.



 



You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off a new crusade; after a point your “crusade” becomes merely annoying.



 



 







Asshole fascists accuse those who are not sufficiently enthusiastic for war as being traitors of the motherland... this couldn't be describing you by any chance?







 







 







 







-Original Message-

From: 'Chris de Morsella' via

Re: American Intelligence

Its a real threat, and its something that you don't wish to hear about. The 
flow of power in the US, may indeed go solidly in favor of Mama Clinton as 
Prez. I am not quite such an optimist as to think otherwise. However, with time 
and effects, things can turn around for the US. Because of the weakness, a 
deliberate weakness by your guy, Barry, I suspect some sort of super-attack to 
happen before 2016, simply based on what went on before. From such an event, I 
would expect that even your class-compatriots, who take SNAP cards, and 
super-extended unemployment checks, to have their shit messed with. We shall 
see if and when this spasm occurs, if at all? If you're so happy with the jihad 
lands, why not go live there? 
 


You seem pathologically unable to let go of this neocon inseminated notion that 
has become rooted in your brain that we are facing an imminent existential 
threat from a monolithic Islamist unified command – this “Caliphate” you love 
to bandy about.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 1:14 pm
Subject: RE: American Intelligence



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 9:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
 
I just recognize and sort of respect that other people think differently, then 
myself. Sometimes, we are offered Manichean choices, rather than indicate that 
its a personal, American flaw. Its not always an American flaw based on a 
corrupt, vile, greedy, capitalist system, though in some cases, such as 
slavery, the war against native Americans, our bigotries, it surely was this. 
Like, the late George Carlin once said, "The founders signed the Constitution, 
and then went home and f***ed their slaves." Agreed, yet, only if one is an 
ideologist, can one blame the US as eviler then normal, then the massacres done 
by Native Americans against each other, the South Asians, the East Asians, the 
Europeans, and Africans. Researchers have forensic science applied to 
archeology to uncover who died and then why? The US has done evil, but then so 
has everyone else. Leftists today ignore when Muslims massacre each other, 
because that distracts from the real narrative; the Americans, the Europeans, 
who are the "true enemy!" Of course 911 was an evil Bushie plot! Because, to 
say otherwise also detracts from the 'social narrative." Thus, the Islamists 
become friends, and fellow travelers. 
 
You seem pathologically unable to let go of this neocon inseminated notion that 
has become rooted in your brain that we are facing an imminent existential 
threat from a monolithic Islamist unified command – this “Caliphate” you love 
to bandy about.
The world is far more nuanced and complex than the Manichean rendition that 
exists in your brain. When others do not fall into line with your own peculiar 
ill-informed views you brand them as enemies of America. I would not much care 
about your disease where it not for how much this unintelligent world view has 
already cost this country and the countries we trashed in the grips of this 
particular madness – half a million or more dead Iraqis, thousands of Americans 
killed (and hundreds of thousands with their lives ruined – by blast wounds -- 
who will continue to cost our country a river of dollars, in long term medical 
and social expenditures). An insane neocon sickness that has already burned 
through a few trillions of dollars that could have been much more wisely 
invested in more fruitful areas that would have actually made America stronger 
and more prosperous – and much better prepared to face the future – than it is 
now.
The only reason I care about your mental affliction is because you suffer from 
a disease that has already demonstrated how virulent and dangerous it can be. 
Because of the sickness you suffer this country has been significantly weakened.
It is my patriotic duty (today is the 4rth after all) to see that insane nuts 
like you are kept from getting back into the corridors of power…. Neocon 
chickenhawks, sharing your same sick world view have already weakened America 
far more than any Islamist could have ever dreamed of doing. I – and millions 
of other Americans – stand in your way… we will not let cowards like you send 
others off to die.
Go do the dying yourself crusader. No one is stopping you.
Chris
 
 


Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides 
doesn’t mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental handicap; I do not 
share your Manichean disease; heal thyself.

Chris






-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 12:04 pm
Subject: RE: American Intelligence


 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 4:07 AM
To:

Re: American Intelligence

I too, sometimes use the psychological approach. The convinced/manicheanism 
thing, is probably inaccurate, as at heart, I am a pragmatist, and want this 
nation state to survive and thrive. I want other separate nation states to do 
this also, but this one is mine, and charity begins at home. Nothing wrong with 
doing a solid multi-national approach, once we have some sense that our goal is 
doable. What I have zero tolerance for, is the lies, and mafia-like, behavior 
of the political left, of which I was once a member. I know the game, and have 
played at the 13 commandments of Sol Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Its better 
then anything you could find in Macchiaveli's The Prince. 

I don't know about how others feel, but its you, who have responded to my 
posts, and find them especially annoying, because it goes against your 
ideology. All I indicated, originally, is that against a fanatical enemy, the 
sort of half-measured war seems guaranteed to fail. So considering extreme 
measures like mass carpet bombing campaigns might be the best thing to keep 
their jihad, continually off-balance. Its better then doing wars like we've 
been doing them with such poor results. Can we do other things, less violent, 
non-violent first? Sure, its worth a try. 

>From my pov, your own views are off the map, and and vilify the US on 
>purpose,using a mask of indignation, and superiority, that someone dare divert 
>from your need to see the US as anything else but evil. This is the mentality 
>of the "New Left" from the 60's and explains much of what you have stated.  

 


You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own 
righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep 
you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off a 
new crusade; after a point your “crusade” becomes merely annoying.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 12:14 pm
Subject: RE: American Intelligence



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 3:53 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
 

Truth hurts, huh? The fascist economic system where billionaires fund both 
parties, and decide which bills get promoted into laws is what the truth is, 
and an interesting topic. Which plutocrat do you favor? The Kochs, or George 
Soros and Tom Steyer? Never the less, its not a matter of being reluctant for 
wars, it concerns itself with always siding with the opponents view, no matter 
what the circumstances. This, then, is a mind ruled by ideology, rather then 
pertinent facts. If your main, enemy nation is always, America, of course you 
find any military action it uses, as repellent. 

 

An example of Left ideology changing its tune, literally, was when singer, Pete 
Seeger, who in 1938, wrote an anti-Hitler tune for one of his records, after 
the Pact of Steel, between Stalin and Hitler, wrote to his purchasers, asking 
for the record back in exchange for a refund. Then when the Naz-Sov love affair 
fell apart in May 1941, it was back to seeing the Nazis for what they truly 
are. Take a poke at the Islamists once in a while. They're the most violent 
faith on earth, (for now) and want atheism eliminated. Unless, and I have 
suspected this of Leftists, want the Jihad to land a knock-out punch, 
specifically against the US, to make the rise of Progressivism, all the easier. 
The German and Russian Communists, had such an opinion of the Nazis, in the 
early 30's. They'd take over, and screw things up so badly, that the German 
people would revolt en mass, and install a brother Soviet system in Germany. 
This, did not happen. Same with the Lefts support of the radicals. Buh Bye.
 
You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own 
righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep 
you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off a 
new crusade; after a point your “crusade” becomes merely annoying.
 
 


Asshole fascists accuse those who are not sufficiently enthusiastic for war as 
being traitors of the motherland... this couldn't be describing you by any 
chance?


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence


 

 




From: spudboy100 via Everything List 


Nixon, still hooked into it like a opiate. The khmer joined in 
incursions as they were called back then, and joined in cross border 
attacks on US troops into Vietnam. The end game was Sihanouk, but they 
were id'd as Players. The funny thing is, it was the NVA who toppled 
the Khmer Rogue, years later, after the
Hypocrite antiwar Left ignored the massacres. Typical. Anti-war, No, 
anti-american, Yes. Its not peace they were after, bu

Re: Selecting your future branch

2014-07-04 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> > the H-guy has not vanished.
>

That depends on what "the H-guy" means.

> By comp
>

I don't give a rat's ass about "comp".

> he is in both W and M,
>

So "the H-guy" is in both W and M but "the H-guy" is not in W and M.  Are
you SURE you're a logician?

> We have already agreed that the Helsinki guy is the guy who is in
> Helsinki at the beginning of the experience
>

I thought the Helsinki guy was the guy who remembered being in Helsinki,
but definitions are arbitrary so fine, but then the Helsinki guy no longer
exists   at the end of the experience or even in the middle. And by the
time you read this post the 15517042014 guy (aka John K Clark as he was at
1551 Universal Mean Time on July 4 2014) will no longer exists.

> By comp we agree that [...]
>

We? I agree with nothing concerning "comp" because I believe that homemade
word is just vague inconsistent mush.

> I use comp in the sense of computationalism
>

No you do not, if you did you'd just call it computationalism instead of
inventing a new word.

> that is not what the question was about. It was about which city you
> actually see when
>

I HATE PRONOUNS!!

  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: Selecting your future branch

2014-07-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:31 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Obviously if duplication is possible then singular pronouns become plural
> ones in the process.
>

Yes, and yet Bruno still demands to know what one and only one city *you*
will see. And  things are not made  clear if Bruno adds " from *the* 1P "
as if there were only one.

 > Obviously our language isn't designed to cope with this possibility,
> which doesn't happen in real life (yet), hence the pronoun confusion.
>

Exactly, and Bruno lacks the mental self discipline to just refuse to use
personal pronouns in all thought experiments involving duplicating
chambers. John Clark admits that not using personal pronouns can result in
prose that is a bit clunky and lacking in poetry, but it's still clear and
logical and if Bruno wishes to philosophize on these matters it simply must
be done.

Actually it's even worse than that, after reading Bruno's last few posts
John Clark is no longer even sure what Bruno means by "The Helsinki Man".

>> Thinking that I'm alive and am John Clark is plenty good enough for me!
>> And I would be absolutely delighted to find out that I had been murdered
>> yesterday because then that would mean that death is not nearly as big a
>> deal as I had thought it was. I can't imagine hearing better news!
>>
>
> > Well, perhaps. I'm no so sure I'd be happy that there is a duplicate of
> me
>

Not even if you were that duplicate?!

> How about a duplicate who split off from you a week ago?
>

A week is far too long for my taste, the thing I don't like about death is
having a last thought, so I'd only be happy to face death if a copy of me
was made right now. How long is now? About a second, maybe two.

  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

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


On 7/4/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might still have important 
relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even with the notion of arithmetical truth as 
pointed too by a machine. 


Which agrees with my point that the truth of arithmetical relations doesn't imply that the 
ontology of arithmetic exists.


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

 

 

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

 

 

On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:





On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb  wrote:



This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing god
doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does exist.  But it is still
ambiguous because it assumes that "God(s)" is definite.  I don't believe
that personal agent type gods exist; but I'm on the fence about some
creative principle or unnamable truths  that some people would like to call
"God". I believe that theist (e.g. Abrahamic) gods do not exist.

 

I comment Brent first, here.

 

OK. fair enough, but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he might
still have important relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or even with the
notion of arithmetical truth as pointed too by a machine. 

 

But doesn't "God" imply an Identity, which cannot by its very nature be all
things, because Identity always is - and must be - defined in terms of a
larger set; i.e. good is defined in terms of evil both within some larger
set that encompasses both. The ineffable, indescribable essence is without
Identity.

Chris

 

In all texts, I take what is convincing, and let what I don't understand for
further reflexion.

 

 

And here I comment Liz:





 

OK. Although string theory almost certainly predicts that they exist
somewhere (but not in our corner of the multiverse).

 

Really? I doubt this. Daemon capable of imitating God might be prove to
exist, in both some QM-GR theory, and in arithmetic, but for God itself, I
am afraid it is more transcendent than any seemingly being in any realm. In
the terrestrial (effective) realm, you can't distinguish God from the Devil.
The most which can make (G*- non communicable) sense is that you eventually
remember who you are, being God, or the Devil. It is the only way you might
be able to differentiate them.

 

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.

-- 
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 7/4/2014 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you, if you want. Science 
is the subpart concerned with what is 3p communicable, or relatively communicable, and 
the proper theology contains also the true statements, but that you cannot justify 
rationally.


This should not offend nobody.


It offends people who are fighting against what everyone but Bruno Marchal calls theology, 
the doctrines of theistic religions which are used to oppress women, denigrate learning, 
and politically control large populations.


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: What's the answer? What's the question?

On 7/4/2014 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have put any threat on
the non literal reading of any "sacred texts".

Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is? I think what you mean is that
there is always some non-literal reading that is not threatened by science...or by
logic, or by empathy, or by anything else you care to name, because "non-literal" is
just "not what it says". "Mein Kampf" is also consistent with good race relations, on
a non-literal reading.

'Mein Kampf' contains hate. Hate is always literal,

Is that from the Marchal dictionary of the Engligh language?

or you are in a Charlie Chaplin
movie.

Or in the Christian bible:

Proverbs 6:16, 19 These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh
lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

With sufficient non-literalism these become "God is love".

You can study the deep non literal meaning in a book like Aldous Huxley "philosophia
perennis". You can sum it by "Plato might be right", or "the laws of physics might have
a deeper reason, perhaps even a purpose".

When the meaning is "deeply non-literal" isn't is likely that it's your own ideas you are
imposing on the book.

The institutionalist religions are as far of religion than the today politics of health
is from health. For basically the same reason (stealing people's money).

A scientist interested in religion will always read a "sacred text" with the same
equanimity than reading a "salvia divinorum" report.

Equanamity is not the same thing as giving it a non-literal meaning.

Religion, like nationalities, have also social identity role, indeed very often
perverted, and we (the scientists) have to keep calm and try hard to not throw the
unsolved questions when abstracting from the fairy tales and legends associated with
some plausible, or not, contact between humans beliefs and truth.

And to be careful not to insert our hopes and wishes in place of the fairy
tales.

Brent

Re: What's the answer? What's the question?

On 7/4/2014 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 18:39, David Nyman wrote:

On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And perhaps most interestingly,
its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at
the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and
cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena attached to
some putative "virtual level" of an exhaustively "material" reduction.

The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it does use comp,
more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not work when put
together with with materialism.

Yes, and I was roused from my customary torpor specifically to have
another stab at a thoroughgoing reductio of this position (or else, of
course, learn where I am in error). But, frustratingly, it does seem
to be extraordinarily hard to get across for the first time, because
of the tacit question-begging almost unavoidably consequent on the
difficulty of vacating the very perceptual position whose all too
manifest "entities" are undergoing ontological deconstruction. Once
seen, however, the error may then strike one as having been obvious.

The commonest response, in my experience, after describing the
mind-body problem to someone for the first time, is "I don't see the
problem". On further probing, the default assumptions usually turn out
to be either straightforward mind-brain "identity", or "mind =
simulation, brain = computer". If the former, I point, in the first
place, to the completely non-standard and unjustified use of the
identity relation that this entails. If the latter, simple reductive
analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help to
convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema
necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites

That's just your definition of eliminates. Mountains are made of rocks, therefore
mountains don't exist.

(difficult to see
precisely because *epistemological* composition manifestly remains and
the distinction is thereby elusive). Anyway, if the point is grasped
it becomes possible to see the disturbing consequences that such a
reduction has for the standard conjunction of "material computation"
and consciousness.

I think so. Both the MGA and UDA1-7 were developed with the goal to explain a *part* of
the mind-body problem in a way such a rationalist can say "OK, I see a problem".

That worked well, but I did not expect *some* scientists ("diplomed such") would ask a
Romane-philosopher (branch of literature) to say "I am not convinced", justifying a
non-dialog, not even a debate.

It is not the whole problem. It is the fact that if we believe in consciousness, and if
we believe that the brain works like a digital machine, eventually, with or without a
primitively existing physical universe, we have to justify the appearances of matter
entirely from computer science, indeed from arithmetic (or any Turing-complete theory).

As such, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet approached, nor used. Even if we
eliminate consciousness, matter must be explain from a statistics on machine's discourses.
At that point, the mind-body problem is only shown two times more difficult than usual,
as we have both the hard problem of consciousness together with a new, conceptually less
hard but technically very hard, problem of matter.

Now animals are programmed to take matter for granted, as it is easier to eat and avoid
being eaten. that's why I think "modern science" is really born with the platonists,
which is notably the idea that what we see might result from simpler general relation,
and that may be we might find first principles.

Now, computer science provides the tools, and in some sense, offers the solution of the
"hard problem" of consciousness on a plate. Indeed, it provides the non trivial
mathematics of what ideally correct machine can prove, bet, infer, conceive, measure,
observe know, believe about themselves. Accepting definitions on those, in the
Arithmetical FPI contexts, and translating the definition in arithmetic by constraints
which *all* makes sense due to the real bomb: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, and
the fact that (Löbian) machines proves their own incompleteness theorem.

Then the solution of the hard problem is given by a disambiguation between []p (the 3p
virtual body or its "Gödel number", or its "Gödel biochemical relation" that's not
important) with []p & p, which is the knower, the first person, the soul if you want,
and which is NOT a machine, and no machines can correctly justify a "[]" such that []p
<-> []p & p, despite we, the theoricians on correct machine, know that their G* proves it.

To bet that we are machine, in the "yes doctor" quasi operational sense, means that we
bet on some identification between []p and []p & p at some level (defining the "[]"),
but only "a God" (here the arithmetical Noůs G* of that "[]p") can know t

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



On 04 Jul 2014, at 10:36, LizR wrote:


On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb  wrote:
This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing  
believing god doesn't exist from failing to believe that god does  
exist.  But it is still ambiguous because it assumes that "God(s)"  
is definite.  I don't believe that personal agent type gods exist;  
but I'm on the fence about some creative principle or unnamable  
truths  that some people would like to call "God". I believe that  
theist (e.g. Abrahamic) gods do not exist.


I comment Brent first, here.

OK. fair enough, but even if the God of the theists does not exist, he  
might still have important relationships with the Plotinus ONE, or  
even with the notion of arithmetical truth as pointed too by a machine.


In all texts, I take what is convincing, and let what I don't  
understand for further reflexion.



And here I comment Liz:



OK. Although string theory almost certainly predicts that they exist  
somewhere (but not in our corner of the multiverse).


Really? I doubt this. Daemon capable of imitating God might be prove  
to exist, in both some QM-GR theory, and in arithmetic, but for God  
itself, I am afraid it is more transcendent than any seemingly being  
in any realm. In the terrestrial (effective) realm, you can't  
distinguish God from the Devil. The most which can make (G*- non  
communicable) sense is that you eventually remember who you are, being  
God, or the Devil. It is the only way you might be able to  
differentiate them.


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


On 7/4/2014 1:36 AM, LizR wrote:

On 4 July 2014 18:16, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

This kind of classification is fine as far as distinguishing believing god 
doesn't
exist from failing to believe that god does exist.  But it is still 
ambiguous
because it assumes that "God(s)" is definite.  I don't believe that 
personal agent
type gods exist; but I'm on the fence about some creative principle or 
unnamable
truths  that some people would like to call "God". I believe that theist 
(e.g.
Abrahamic) gods do not exist.


OK. Although string theory almost certainly predicts that they exist somewhere (but not 
in our corner of the multiverse).


Define "they".  Is it "a person who created our universe"?  I don't think string theory 
predicts that.


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

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 04 Jul 2014, at 04:35, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/3/2014 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 July 2014 05:16, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 01 Jul 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:

On 7/1/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you don't have to prove something doesn't exist to  
reasonably fail to believe that it does.  I don't have proof  
that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, but that doesn't make  
me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't believe  
there is one.


Careful as "I don't believe there is a teapot" is different from  
"I believe there is no teapot".


Personally, I don't believe that there is teapot orbiting  
Jupiter, but why would I believe that there is no teapot? I have  
no real evidences for that too. I have only a speculation  
extrapolated from my limited knowledge of teapot and Jupiter.


 I might *bet* that there is no teapot, but then I can easily  
conceive losing the bet, by the usual "bad luck".


How you would bet and at what odds is the real measure of belief.   
I think you believe there is no teapot.


I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible. But  
I can't be sure.


I think the presence of my own teapot at home is highly plausible,  
but I can't be completely sure about that either.


For all we know the solar system may be littered with teapots left  
by visiting aliens. I wouldn't give the idea house room if  
designing the shielding on a space craft, and if pressed I would  
work out the chances of it being true using the Drake equation  
(with the Arthur Dent modification) and no doubt end up with the  
probability being exceedingly low.


But I don't believe "there is no teapot". I do believe it is highly  
unlikely that there is one (or more).




I was careful.  I wrote, "I don't believe there is one."  In exactly  
the same sense, I don't believe there is a theist god and hence am  
an a-theist.


Then you are agnostic in the common sense of the word.

I know that atheists dispute on this.

That is why, respecting that fuzziness, I use the mabel "strong  
atheists" for those who vindicate the strong sense of believing that  
the theist God does not exist. But even the Theist god is a quite  
fuzzy notion, and I prefer to start from a problem, like the mind-body  
problem, and then choose name for concepts by name which fits the best  
literature.


I think that scientist should be agnostic on everything, and just make  
their theories and deduce in them. Even theologians.


Bruno





Brent


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

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


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

RE: Just A Few Minutes Of Meditation May Reduce Stress, Study Finds

Interesting validation of what has been my own anecdotal experience.

Just A Few Minutes Of Meditation May Reduce Stress, Study
  Finds

 

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

Re: Selecting your future branch



On 04 Jul 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote (to John Calrk)

Well, perhaps. I'm no so sure I'd be happy that there is a duplicate  
of me who's OK if I'm facing death. How about a duplicate who split  
off from you a week ago? Would you be happy to be murdered knowing  
that he was alive and well, and thinks he's you?


What if the duplicate split off millions years ago?  Biological  
evolution implements our duplication since the beginning, arguably so.


John seems to have difficulties to complete the thought experience. He  
sees from outside that he is in both city, but fail to see that in  
both city the copies write "I see only one city", and that they are  
different, and that they could not have predicted it.


In fact, if you agree (with me and John (!)), that indeed our 1p are  
instantiated in both place (W and M), then you can understand that we  
are already the same person in that sense; we are the amoeba who  
became every plant and animals. But this will appears as a theological  
non justifiable truth, and also, it is not usable in physics/ 
prediction, which ask for precise prediction of experiment, like  
pushing a button, opening a door, and noting a place.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 04 Jul 2014, at 02:15, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Bruno,

  Is the measure idempotent?

How could a measure function be idempotent? It is a function from some  
algebra of sets into some order or number structure. You cannot apply  
the measure a second times on its result, as it will not have the  
right type.

Well, with enough imagination, I can object to myself, by "confusing"  
the measure result, and the measure tool. If you measure the hight of  
man with a meter, and find 1m80, then if you remeasure the meter  
itself up to the 1m80 point, you will find the same result, and may be  
you meant only the following question:

Is it true that in comp, if we make quickly a measurement two times we  
will find the same results. That is an open question of course, but  
thanks to the p -> []<>p, we have what is needed to expect that this  
is possible. With some chance we might get the quantum Zeno freezing  
effect (discovered by Turing): if we look seriously very often to a  
particle state, we project it on the same state, and it freezes.

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
 and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like  
square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space  
(like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals  
is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the  
relative states. It is really a measure on the transition .  
In quantum mechanics it is given by []^2, but with comp this  
must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a  
mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of  
observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of  
universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them  
belonging to a computation).

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular  
case. The first person histories with computable sequence like  
"WW...", or "WMWMWMWMWM... ", becomes the white rabbits event,  
and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of  
randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the "logical" structure of the sigma_1  
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random  
oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a "non-machine"  
for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from  
the machine view, by simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure  
calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus  
lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which  
the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints)  should be  
derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming  
things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish > wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish >

> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this  
example. We
> > > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where  
does that

> > > come from?
> > >
> >
> > The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation  
that we
> > expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have  
the same
> > measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a  
reasonable

> > default assumption for most purposes.
>
>
> The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form  
is close to

> the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
> In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas  
the measure

> of the reals is invariant.
> Richard
>

What do you mean? What is this "quantum measure"?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For

RE: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 9:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

I just recognize and sort of respect that other people think differently, then 
myself. Sometimes, we are offered Manichean choices, rather than indicate that 
its a personal, American flaw. Its not always an American flaw based on a 
corrupt, vile, greedy, capitalist system, though in some cases, such as 
slavery, the war against native Americans, our bigotries, it surely was this. 
Like, the late George Carlin once said, "The founders signed the Constitution, 
and then went home and f***ed their slaves." Agreed, yet, only if one is an 
ideologist, can one blame the US as eviler then normal, then the massacres done 
by Native Americans against each other, the South Asians, the East Asians, the 
Europeans, and Africans. Researchers have forensic science applied to 
archeology to uncover who died and then why? The US has done evil, but then so 
has everyone else. Leftists today ignore when Muslims massacre each other, 
because that distracts from the real narrative; the Americans, the Europeans, 
who are the "true enemy!" Of course 911 was an evil Bushie plot! Because, to 
say otherwise also detracts from the 'social narrative." Thus, the Islamists 
become friends, and fellow travelers. 

You seem pathologically unable to let go of this neocon inseminated notion that 
has become rooted in your brain that we are facing an imminent existential 
threat from a monolithic Islamist unified command – this “Caliphate” you love 
to bandy about.

The world is far more nuanced and complex than the Manichean rendition that 
exists in your brain. When others do not fall into line with your own peculiar 
ill-informed views you brand them as enemies of America. I would not much care 
about your disease where it not for how much this unintelligent world view has 
already cost this country and the countries we trashed in the grips of this 
particular madness – half a million or more dead Iraqis, thousands of Americans 
killed (and hundreds of thousands with their lives ruined – by blast wounds -- 
who will continue to cost our country a river of dollars, in long term medical 
and social expenditures). An insane neocon sickness that has already burned 
through a few trillions of dollars that could have been much more wisely 
invested in more fruitful areas that would have actually made America stronger 
and more prosperous – and much better prepared to face the future – than it is 
now.

The only reason I care about your mental affliction is because you suffer from 
a disease that has already demonstrated how virulent and dangerous it can be. 
Because of the sickness you suffer this country has been significantly weakened.

It is my patriotic duty (today is the 4rth after all) to see that insane nuts 
like you are kept from getting back into the corridors of power…. Neocon 
chickenhawks, sharing your same sick world view have already weakened America 
far more than any Islamist could have ever dreamed of doing. I – and millions 
of other Americans – stand in your way… we will not let cowards like you send 
others off to die.

Go do the dying yourself crusader. No one is stopping you.

Chris

Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides 
doesn’t mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental handicap; I do not 
share your Manichean disease; heal thyself.

Chris

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 12:04 pm
Subject: RE: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 4:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

Your heart beats true, but not for the red white and blue (happy 4th!) and a 
crusader program (I am non-religious!) is basically developing our own fuel 
sources, like your solar guys, and use shale gas, and push biofuel development, 
so as to cut off endless cash supplies to fund the great Jihad. This would also 
include the Canadian tar sands oil pipeline. No blood for oil as you were wont 
to yell, under Bushie43, well, this is a way out. Nobody dies, at least from a 
7.62mm round. Then, it takes containment, using the ancient George Kenan 
policy. The Mullahs fire something up, we shoot it down, or catch it in the 
smuggle if they do that. Even your buddy, Kerry might go for this. If this 
fails, then we start saying ok, no more nice guy, This is where I do the 
bloody-minded thing. This is what you object to (as well as everything else 
apparently), and even Kennedy considered the Cuban 62 conflict, where he 
considered full invasion of Cuba, at first. His better option was blockade. The 
agreement for the removal o

Re: Selecting your future branch

On 03 Jul 2014, at 21:51, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
>> I predict that the H-guy will see Helsinki, unless you destroy  
him immediately after duplication

> That is indeed the case in the step 3 protocol.

Fine, then currently nobody is seeing Helsinki.

Sure, after the duplication. But the H-guy has not vanished. By comp  
he is in both W and M, although that for his (many now) points of  
view, he is in one city.

>> in which case the H-guy will see absolutely nothing.

> Then the H-person dies already at step 1 and 0.

It's just a matter of arbitrary definitions.

But once chosen, we have to stick on the one chosen. Arbitrariness is  
not a problem, if we stay coherent in the reasoning.

Is the H-person the guy currently seeing Helsinki or is he not?

Why adding  "currently"? We have already agreed that the Helsinki guy  
is the guy who is in Helsinki at the beginning of the experience, and  
we ask him to predict what he expect to see when later he will be  
pushing on the button and open the door.

Then the Helsinki guy is in both cities, he multiplies. But not from  
his first person point of view where he is always entire and unique in  
inly once city, each time he does that experiment.

If he is and nobody is currently seeing Helsinki then the Helsinki  
Man no longer exists

You are changing the definition. By comp we agree that someone survive  
with an artficial guy, even if the original guy has vanished. The H- 
guy survives, indeed, in both W and M. But only in once of them, from  
each copies points of view.

and the correct prediction of what the Helsinki man would see would  
be oblivion. However if the Helsinki man is anybody who remembers  
being the Helsinki Man

Yes, that was the definition on which we agreed and is forced by comp.

(a more useful definition in my opinion)

In mine too. Since 40 years, and used all along UDA and AUDA.

then BOTH the Moscow Man and the Washington Man are the Helsinki Man

Right.

and therefore the correct prediction about what the Helsinki Man  
would see would have been Moscow AND Washington.

Right for the 3p description of the outcome. But that is not what the  
question was about. It was about which city you actually see when  
opening the door.

As in Helsinki you know that in the 3p you will be both, but that in  
BOTH city, you will feel seeing only once city, you know in advance  
that you will see only one city, and that predicting it makes no  
sense, as it will be refuted by one copy on two in all cases.

So here again, you don't answer to the question asked. You never do  
the thought experience. Once you are duplicated, you go out of your  
body, and see the two reconstitutions, and never put your shoes in any  
of them, when you have to do that for all of them, or at least some  
honest sample of them.

You have come back to your favorite error. The 1-3 confusion about the  
question asked.

> Incidentally, this contradicts the fact that you have already  
agreed that both the W-person and the M-person are genuinely the H- 
person.

As I say it all depends on what  definition "H-person" has.

The one you like above, which I have always used.

> You assume comp

I don't assume it, I can't assume what I don't understand and your  
little homemade term "comp" is nonstandard and is used on this list  
and nowhere else.

That is not an argument. I use comp in the sense of computationalism,  
and you have to find a flaw in the reasoning to criticize it, but you  
just stuck yourself in a deny about the difference between 1p and 3p  
in the question asked.

You deny that if the H-guy, still in hlesinki, predict "W and M", it  
is refuted in both W and M, given that they will write each W (and not  
M), or M (and not W).

Like Kim said, 8th grade understand that. I discovered that about at  
that age. I have have never had any problem to explain this to  
reasonable people.

But the time someone not completely stupid like you might explain the  
time needed for the mainstream to accept this. I don't insist, I have  
never submitted a publication. Just accepting command when people  
insist. On this list, I just have fun to chat with friends interested  
in the fundamental question and everything.

I know what "computationalism" means but "comp" remains as big a  
mystery as all those vague personal pronouns, shifting definitions  
and peepee floating around.

Then ask precise question about anything unclear. Except possible new  
bees no one has any problem with any this. Step 7 and step 8 are a bit  
more subtle.

Calling the 1p-3p difference peepee will not help you and provides  
only information on your state of mind and attitude here.

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

2014-07-04 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> god is not quite the same thing than a tea-pot.
>

Very true, a teapot may not exist in orbit around the planet Uranus but at
least teapots do exist in other places, but God doesn't exist anywhere.

> In science we very often enlarge the sense of a term,
>

Enlarging the sense of a term is OK until the term becomes so enormous that
it embraces everything and then it becomes utterly useless; contrast is
needed for meaning so the term "everything is a religion"  is equivalent to
"nothing is a religion". In fact "everything is X" is equivalent to
"nothing is X".

> I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you,
>

Being that you are the only one on the planet who defines theology in that
way it makes communication difficult;  and that's the trouble with
inventing your own personal language, just look at all the confusion that
"comp", "free will", all your silly acronyms and "God" has caused.

> You criticize a lot Aristotle, but you seems to behave like if you are
> unable to doubt its theology.
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

> You did not answer my question. What is your 'religion'.
>

As you would have known if you had been paying attention, I have no
religion.

> Don't tell in which Gods you don't believe. Tell me the one in which you
> do believe.
>

I believe in no Gods.

> tell me if you believe in a primitively existing physical reality, or if
> you are open to the possibility that the fundamental reality is arithmetic
>

If I were religious I'd give you an answer to that question because
religious people think they know the answers to all of life's mysteries,
but I'm not so I won't.  I don't know if the laws of logic demand that the
physical world exist, maybe yes maybe no, but I do know that if you keep
insisting on equating the ASCII sequence "God" with the ASCII sequence
"Arithmetic" you're never going to be able to communicate with your fellow
Human beings because people will refuse to learn a new language just so
they can talk to you.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Selecting your future branch

On 03 Jul 2014, at 21:10, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM, LizR  wrote:

> The "yes doctor" thing says that if H-guy is destroyed in the  
process of being scanned prior to transmission, then he will see

Then who will see?

> M or W (or both, depending on how you want to look at it. I don't  
want to get into pronouns at this point).

There is no choice, you just used a personal pronoun at a crucial  
point so we HAVE to go into it. For the moment forget what your  
third grade English teacher may have said and answer the following  
question: in the above thought experiment is the pronoun "he"  
singular or plural? Bruno can never give a straight answer to that  
and that is why I flat out refuse to use the silly little provincial  
homemade term "comp";  it's claimed to just mean "yes doctor" but  
then Bruno's next utterance is "according to comp *he* will see this  
but *he* will never see that" and Bruno never even give a hint about  
who the hell is "he" is supposed to be.

Wrong. It is you who keep ignoring that the W and the M guy are the  
same H-guy, and that both agree that they were not able to predict the  
actual lived fact of being in this (resp that) city.

I am saying the factual 3p verifiable thing that almost all H-guys  
after surviving an iterated WM-duplication, never find an algorithm  
capable of predicting what they lived, other than random white noise.

No pronouns are used in an ambiguous way, and in the duplicating case,  
I make clear if we talk on the 1p or 3p, as here things are quite  
different (for the 3p "I", you are in both city, for the 1p "I", you  
are always in only once city).

You keep saying that you see an ambiguity, but you keep making it  
yourself by confusing the 1p and the 3p self notion, despite the  
simple 3p definition defined in the UDA.

> Dr McCoy worries that every time someone goes through the  
transporter, he's being murdered and a clone created which only  
thinks it's the same person.

Thinking that I'm alive and am John Clark is plenty good enough for  
me! And I would be absolutely delighted to find out that I had been  
murdered yesterday because then that would mean that death is not  
nearly as big a deal as I had thought it was. I can't imagine  
hearing better news!

What if you learn that he has ben tortured, and that he was  
reconstituted from some pirating the tele-transport channel. Will you  
still use the same channel?

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

Re: American Intelligence

I just recognize and sort of respect that other people think differently, then 
myself. Sometimes, we are offered Manichean choices, rather than indicate that 
its a personal, American flaw. Its not always an American flaw based on a 
corrupt, vile, greedy, capitalist system, though in some cases, such as 
slavery, the war against native Americans, our bigotries, it surely was this. 
Like, the late George Carlin once said, "The founders signed the Constitution, 
and then went home and f***ed their slaves." Agreed, yet, only if one is an 
ideologist, can one blame the US as eviler then normal, then the massacres done 
by Native Americans against each other, the South Asians, the East Asians, the 
Europeans, and Africans. Researchers have forensic science applied to 
archeology to uncover who died and then why? The US has done evil, but then so 
has everyone else. Leftists today ignore when Muslims massacre each other, 
because that distracts from the real narrative; the Americans, the Europeans, 
who are the "true enemy!" Of course 911 was an evil Bushie plot! Because, to 
say otherwise also detracts from the 'social narrative." Thus, the Islamists 
become friends, and fellow travelers. 


Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides 
doesn’t mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental handicap; I do not 
share your Manichean disease; heal thyself.
Chris





-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 12:04 pm
Subject: RE: American Intelligence



 
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 4:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence
 

Your heart beats true, but not for the red white and blue (happy 4th!) and a 
crusader program (I am non-religious!) is basically developing our own fuel 
sources, like your solar guys, and use shale gas, and push biofuel development, 
so as to cut off endless cash supplies to fund the great Jihad. This would also 
include the Canadian tar sands oil pipeline. No blood for oil as you were wont 
to yell, under Bushie43, well, this is a way out. Nobody dies, at least from a 
7.62mm round. Then, it takes containment, using the ancient George Kenan 
policy. The Mullahs fire something up, we shoot it down, or catch it in the 
smuggle if they do that. Even your buddy, Kerry might go for this. If this 
fails, then we start saying ok, no more nice guy, This is where I do the 
bloody-minded thing. This is what you object to (as well as everything else 
apparently), and even Kennedy considered the Cuban 62 conflict, where he 
considered full invasion of Cuba, at first. His better option was blockade. The 
agreement for the removal of soviet missiles from Cuber, as Kennedy, pronounced 
it, All it cost the US was the removal of 3 Jupiter short range missiles from 
Turkey. Not bad. 

 

So as the old Union song went Chris, "Which side are you on, boy, which side 
are you on?"
 
Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides 
doesn’t mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental handicap; I do not 
share your Manichean disease; heal thyself.
Chris
 
 


Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are 
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence


 

 




From: spudboy100 via Everything List 


Sound good, I will go look for a brain, and you can begin your search 
for a heart, Mr. Tin man.

 

Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are 
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.

 

 



-- 
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 thi

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 03 Jul 2014, at 20:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
 and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like  
square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space  
(like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals  
is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the  
relative states. It is really a measure on the transition .  
In quantum mechanics it is given by []^2, but with comp this  
must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a  
mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of  
observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of  
universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them  
belonging to a computation).

It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and  
the comp measure are three different things.

Yes. They can be related though. For example you need a Lebesgue  
measure on the real or complex to have nice measure on the square  
normed functions, which in classical quantum theory can be related to  
the position or impulsion bases. Math are quickly delicate, like with  
the need of distributions instead of functions, due to that damned  
Dirac "functions".

With comp, I handle the measure problem by isolating the possible  
logic and semantics associated with the different machine's view (the  
'arithmetical hypostases p, []p, []p & p, etc.), with p arithmetical  
sigma_1 sentences.

Bruno

Richard

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular  
case. The first person histories with computable sequence like  
"WW...", or "WMWMWMWMWM... ", becomes the white rabbits event,  
and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of  
randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the "logical" structure of the sigma_1  
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random  
oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a "non-machine"  
for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from  
the machine view, by simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure  
calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus  
lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which  
the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints)  should be  
derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming  
things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish > wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish >

> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

> > > Hi Russell,
> > >
> > > Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this  
example. We
> > > had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where  
does that

> > > come from?
> > >
> >
> > The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation  
that we
> > expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have  
the same
> > measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a  
reasonable

> > default assumption for most purposes.
>
>
> The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form  
is close to

> the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
> In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas  
the measure

> of the reals is invariant.
> Richard
>

What do you mean? What is this "quantum measure"?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

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

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

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

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 03 Jul 2014, at 20:05, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> I think that the presence of such teapot is highly implausible.  
But I can't be sure.

I don't believe that for one second, I think you are sure there is  
not a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus;

That is your problem, if you think for other people.

although please note that being sure is not the same thing as having  
a proof, nor is being sure the same thing as being correct.

Ad then god is not quite the same thing than a tea-pot. So this is  
just distracting.

In science we very often enlarge the sense of a term, to allow a more  
homogenous  treatment.

I define theology by the study of the truth about you and not-you, if  
you want. Science is the subpart concerned with what is 3p  
communicable, or relatively communicable, and the proper theology  
contains also the true statements, but that you cannot justify  
rationally.

This should not offend nobody. Fundamental theories asserting that  
there is only a physical world, become theologies, and so we can  
reason in comp in a neutral way with respect to Plato and Aristotle  
since the start. Plato adopts that neutrality in his dialogs.

You criticize a lot Aristotle, but you seems to behave like if you are  
unable to doubt its theology.

>>> "omnipotence" is self-contradictory.

>>I know, but a little thing like being self-contradictory would  
never stop a good theologian

> Lol. Good humor.

I wish it were a joke, just last month in a HBO documentary Pastor  
Peter LaRuffa educated the world with these words of wisdom:

 "If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said  
2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I  
would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it  
out and understand it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysecinv367w

You cannot infer from "a theologian says bs" to theology is bs.

> You really talk like a priest, unable to doubt its religious belief

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

You did not answer my question. What is your 'religion'. Don't tell in  
which Gods you don't believe. Tell me the one in which you do believe.  
Tell me if you believe in a primitively existing physical reality, or  
if you are open to the possibility that the fundamental reality is  
arithmetic (there are reason independent of comp to believe this).

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

RE: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 3:53 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

Truth hurts, huh? The fascist economic system where billionaires fund both
parties, and decide which bills get promoted into laws is what the truth is,
and an interesting topic. Which plutocrat do you favor? The Kochs, or George
Soros and Tom Steyer? Never the less, its not a matter of being reluctant
for wars, it concerns itself with always siding with the opponents view, no
matter what the circumstances. This, then, is a mind ruled by ideology,
rather then pertinent facts. If your main, enemy nation is always, America,
of course you find any military action it uses, as repellent. 

An example of Left ideology changing its tune, literally, was when singer,
Pete Seeger, who in 1938, wrote an anti-Hitler tune for one of his records,
after the Pact of Steel, between Stalin and Hitler, wrote to his purchasers,
asking for the record back in exchange for a refund. Then when the Naz-Sov
love affair fell apart in May 1941, it was back to seeing the Nazis for what
they truly are. Take a poke at the Islamists once in a while. They're the
most violent faith on earth, (for now) and want atheism eliminated. Unless,
and I have suspected this of Leftists, want the Jihad to land a knock-out
punch, specifically against the US, to make the rise of Progressivism, all
the easier. The German and Russian Communists, had such an opinion of the
Nazis, in the early 30's. They'd take over, and screw things up so badly,
that the German people would revolt en mass, and install a brother Soviet
system in Germany. This, did not happen. Same with the Lefts support of the
radicals. Buh Bye.

You seem like such a bitter person, impossibly convinced of your own
righteousness and seeing the world go wrong; it must wound you deep. So deep
you feel the need to continuously spam this list with your calls to kick off
a new crusade; after a point your "crusade" becomes merely annoying.

Asshole fascists accuse those who are not sufficiently enthusiastic for war
as being traitors of the motherland... this couldn't be describing you by
any chance?

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

To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

Nixon, still hooked into it like a opiate. The khmer joined in 
incursions as they were called back then, and joined in cross border 
attacks on US troops into Vietnam. The end game was Sihanouk, but they 
were id'd as Players. The funny thing is, it was the NVA who toppled 
the Khmer Rogue, years later, after the
Hypocrite antiwar Left ignored the massacres. Typical. Anti-war, No, 
anti-american, Yes. Its not peace they were after, but Wins for the 
soviets. Now they're fellow travellers with the Jihadists, now that 
Putin has replaced the USSR.  Antiwar protests were a means, asuuredly 
not and end.

Asshole fascists accuse those who are not sufficiently enthusiastic for war
as being traitors of the motherland... this couldn't be describing you by
any chance?

-- 
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: What's the answer? What's the question?

2014-07-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 03 Jul 2014, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 7/3/2014 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only a pseudo-scientist would say that the science progresses have  
put any threat on the non literal reading of any "sacred texts".


Wouldn't that depend on what the non-literal reading is?  I think  
what you mean is that there is always some non-literal reading that  
is not threatened by science...or by logic, or by empathy, or by  
anything else you care to name, because "non-literal" is just "not  
what it says".  "Mein Kampf" is also consistent with good race  
relations, on a non-literal reading.


'Mein Kampf' contains hate. Hate is always literal, or you are in a  
Charlie Chaplin movie.


You can study the deep non literal meaning in a book like Aldous  
Huxley "philosophia perennis". You can sum it by "Plato might be  
right", or "the laws of physics might have a deeper reason, perhaps  
even a purpose".


The institutionalist religions are as far of religion than the today  
politics of health is from health. For basically the same reason  
(stealing people's money).


A scientist interested in religion will always read a "sacred text"  
with the same equanimity than reading a "salvia divinorum" report.


Religion, like nationalities, have also social identity role, indeed  
very often perverted, and we (the scientists) have to keep calm and  
try hard to not throw the unsolved questions when abstracting from the  
fairy tales and legends associated with some plausible, or not,  
contact between humans beliefs and truth.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

RE: American Intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 4:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: American Intelligence

Your heart beats true, but not for the red white and blue (happy 4th!) and a
crusader program (I am non-religious!) is basically developing our own fuel
sources, like your solar guys, and use shale gas, and push biofuel
development, so as to cut off endless cash supplies to fund the great Jihad.
This would also include the Canadian tar sands oil pipeline. No blood for
oil as you were wont to yell, under Bushie43, well, this is a way out.
Nobody dies, at least from a 7.62mm round. Then, it takes containment, using
the ancient George Kenan policy. The Mullahs fire something up, we shoot it
down, or catch it in the smuggle if they do that. Even your buddy, Kerry
might go for this. If this fails, then we start saying ok, no more nice guy,
This is where I do the bloody-minded thing. This is what you object to (as
well as everything else apparently), and even Kennedy considered the Cuban
62 conflict, where he considered full invasion of Cuba, at first. His better
option was blockade. The agreement for the removal of soviet missiles from
Cuber, as Kennedy, pronounced it, All it cost the US was the removal of 3
Jupiter short range missiles from Turkey. Not bad. 

So as the old Union song went Chris, "Which side are you on, boy, which side
are you on?"

Just because you have a pathological need to divide the world into two sides
doesn't mean that the rest of the world suffers your mental handicap; I do
not share your Manichean disease; heal thyself.

Chris

Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.

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

To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence

  _  

From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

Sound good, I will go look for a brain, and you can begin your search 
for a heart, Mr. Tin man.

Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.

-- 
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: What's the answer? What's the question?



On 03 Jul 2014, at 18:39, David Nyman wrote:


On 3 July 2014 14:22, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


And perhaps most interestingly,
its central motivation originates in, and simultaneously strikes at
the heart of, the tacit assumption of its rivals that perception and
cognition are (somehow) second-order relational phenomena attached to
some putative "virtual level" of an exhaustively "material"  
reduction.


The problem of the exhaustively material reduction is that it does  
use comp,
more or less explicitly, without being aware that it does not work  
when put

together with with materialism.


Yes, and I was roused from my customary torpor specifically to have
another stab at a thoroughgoing reductio of this position (or else, of
course, learn where I am in error). But, frustratingly, it does seem
to be extraordinarily hard to get across for the first time, because
of the tacit question-begging almost unavoidably consequent on the
difficulty of vacating the very perceptual position whose all too
manifest "entities" are undergoing ontological deconstruction. Once
seen, however, the error may then strike one as having been obvious.

The commonest response, in my experience, after describing the
mind-body problem to someone for the first time, is "I don't see the
problem". On further probing, the default assumptions usually turn out
to be either straightforward mind-brain "identity", or "mind =
simulation, brain = computer". If the former, I point, in the first
place, to the completely non-standard and unjustified use of the
identity relation that this entails. If the latter, simple reductive
analogies like house-bricks, or society-people, can sometimes help to
convey the idea that any exhaustively reductive material schema
necessarily *eliminates* its ontological composites (difficult to see
precisely because *epistemological* composition manifestly remains and
the distinction is thereby elusive). Anyway, if the point is grasped
it becomes possible to see the disturbing consequences that such a
reduction has for the standard conjunction of "material computation"
and consciousness.


I think so. Both the MGA and UDA1-7 were developed with the goal to  
explain a *part* of the mind-body problem in a way such a rationalist  
can say "OK, I see a problem".


That worked well, but I did not expect *some* scientists ("diplomed  
such") would ask a Romane-philosopher (branch of literature) to say "I  
am not convinced", justifying a non-dialog, not even a debate.


It is not the whole problem. It is the fact that if we believe in  
consciousness, and if we believe that the brain works like a digital  
machine, eventually, with or without a primitively existing physical  
universe, we have to justify the appearances of matter entirely from  
computer science, indeed from arithmetic (or any Turing-complete  
theory).


As such, the hard problem of consciousness is not yet approached, nor  
used. Even if we eliminate consciousness, matter must be explain from  
a statistics on machine's discourses.
At that point, the mind-body problem is only shown two times more  
difficult than usual, as we have both the hard problem of  
consciousness together with a new, conceptually less hard but  
technically very hard, problem of matter.


Now animals are programmed to take matter for granted, as it is easier  
to eat and avoid being eaten. that's why I think "modern science" is  
really born with the platonists, which is notably  the idea that what  
we see might result from simpler general relation, and that may be we  
might find first principles.


Now, computer science provides the tools, and in some sense, offers  
the solution of the "hard problem" of consciousness on a plate.  
Indeed, it provides the non trivial mathematics of what ideally  
correct machine can prove, bet, infer, conceive, measure, observe  
know, believe about themselves. Accepting definitions on those, in the  
Arithmetical FPI contexts, and translating the definition in  
arithmetic by constraints which *all* makes sense due to the real  
bomb: Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, and the fact that  
(Löbian) machines proves their own incompleteness theorem.


Then the solution of the hard problem is given by a disambiguation  
between []p (the 3p virtual body or its "Gödel number", or its "Gödel  
biochemical relation" that's not important) with []p & p, which is the  
knower, the first person, the soul if you want, and which is NOT a  
machine, and no machines can correctly justify a "[]" such that []p <- 
> []p & p, despite we, the theoricians on correct machine, know that  
their G* proves it.


To bet that we are machine, in the "yes doctor" quasi operational  
sense, means that we bet on some identification between []p and []p &  
p at some level (defining the "[]"), but only "a God" (here the  
arithmetical Noùs G* of that "[]p") can know that "[]" are correct (in  
case it is correct).


Universal machine with tape long enough to comfortab

Re: American Intelligence


That actually seems very wise, since it removes guesswork, prejudice, and fear, 
from policy decisions. Secondly, its an honest approach. One way to have 
limited Putin's behavior, in front of his own electorate, would've have been, 
if a few years ago, Obama, might have mentioned publicly at a G* meeting, 
"What's the matter Vlad? Do you really, expect, for the US and Canada to send 
invading troops over the poll, to raid the Russian Motherland (Rodina)?? What 
would we be seeking, your furs, silver, women???"  It would be doing one of Sol 
Alinsky's 'rules' on Putin, ridicule, based on lack of credulity on his part. 

I like this guy, (Bruce Bueno Di Misquita,  a lot, a political theorist, 
because he says most people are rational actors ( I disagree) but, it does 
provide openings for negotiation based on verifiable facts. Let me know what 
you think about this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEq305SizA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DON-aM2tze4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6NYSJQlu6Q


Interesting Spud,


I learned about anti-war from a Quaker back in 1960 when I was a 1st year grad 
student at Harvard and 
Smith, the Quaker, was an older 1st year student. 


I have looked at every ensuing illegal intervention in foreign nations from 
their perspective even though I was under contract with the CIA and the Air 
Force to communicate with Russian and Eastern European scientists and come to 
an understanding of what motivates Russian scientists; thereby contributing to 
making our interventions more predictable by their silence- least that was what 
I was told...
Richard




 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 7:34 am
Subject: Re: American Intelligence


Interesting Spud,


I learned about anti-war from a Quaker back in 1960 when I was a 1st year grad 
student at Harvard and 
Smith, the Quaker, was an older 1st year student. 


I have looked at every ensuing illegal intervention in foreign nations from 
their perspective even though I was under contract with the CIA and the Air 
Force to communicate with Russian and Eastern European scientists and come to 
an understanding of what motivates Russian scientists; thereby contributing to 
making our interventions more predictable by their silence- least that was what 
I was told...
Richard




On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:22 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

Richard, because it suited the policies of the Politburo back then. There were 
no public protests back then. My point is the antiwar folks were emphatically, 
not, antiwar! Most were not Quakers (American Friends Service Commitee, most 
were not pacifists, most were Leftists/Marxists/Progressives/Liberals and 
opposed any military use by the US. They may not have cared who they were for, 
but they sure cared whom they were against. You may have caught spit from such 
folk, upon returning from duty, and been called "baby killer!" a chant taken up 
by the anti-abortionists in the 70's. They, are ever like this today except the 
assault laws have changed, and with that the inception of camera phones. 
"Officer, here's a video of these protesters spitting on us!" It would nowadays 
head for court, with a fine or a sentence for the "war resisters." 

The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
I was a participant.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence


The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
I was a participant.


Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost, ie.:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/cambodia.khmer.rouge.timeline/


Late 1977: Fighting breaks out between Vietnam and Cambodia
May 25, 1978: Khmer Rouge purges East Zone.
January 7, 1979: The Vietnamese take Phnom Penh, beginning 11 years of 
Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge move west. Some Cambodians celebrate 
January 7 as a liberation day from the Khmer Rouge, while others mark it as the 
start of Vietnamese occupation







On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


Richard, you best rev up your memory. The Khmer Rogue joined in with NVA, in 
their sweeps into Kapuchea. The khmers first order of the day way Sihanouk, or 
course. This goes to my point that the only anti-war aspect your side is 
against, is against US participation. Its not like antiwar schmucks are 
pacifist, its simply that they are progressives against US military use of 
force. Just as the Left was silent when the CCCP went into Poland and 
Afghanistan. Its silent on all other nation states military actions-because 
they really simply want the US and a few other lands gone from the world scene.

-Orig

Re: American Intelligence

2014-07-04 Thread Richard Ruquist

Interesting Spud,

I learned about anti-war from a Quaker back in 1960 when I was a 1st year
grad student at Harvard and
Smith, the Quaker, was an older 1st year student.

I have looked at every ensuing illegal intervention in foreign nations from
their perspective even though I was under contract with the CIA and the Air
Force to communicate with Russian and Eastern European scientists and come
to an understanding of what motivates Russian scientists; thereby
contributing to making our interventions more predictable by their silence-
least that was what I was told...
Richard


On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:22 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Richard, because it suited the policies of the Politburo back then. There
> were no public protests back then. My point is the antiwar folks were
> emphatically, not, antiwar! Most were not Quakers (American Friends Service
> Commitee, most were not pacifists, most were
> Leftists/Marxists/Progressives/Liberals and opposed any military use by the
> US. They may not have cared who they were for, but they sure cared whom
> they were against. You may have caught spit from such folk, upon returning
> from duty, and been called "baby killer!" a chant taken up by the
> anti-abortionists in the 70's. They, are ever like this today except the
> assault laws have changed, and with that the inception of camera phones.
> "Officer, here's a video of these protesters spitting on us!" It would
> nowadays head for court, with a fine or a sentence for the "war resisters."
>
> The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
> The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
> I was a participant.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Ruquist 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 10:03 pm
> Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence
>
>  The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
> The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
> I was a participant.
>
>  Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost,
> ie.:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/cambodia.khmer.rouge.timeline/
>  *Late 1977*: Fighting breaks out between Vietnam and Cambodia
> *May 25, 1978*: Khmer Rouge purges East Zone.
>  *January 7, 1979*: The Vietnamese take Phnom Penh, beginning 11 years of
> Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge move west. Some Cambodians celebrate
> January 7 as a liberation day from the Khmer Rouge, while others mark it as
> the start of Vietnamese occupation
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Richard, you best rev up your memory. The Khmer Rogue joined in with NVA,
>> in their sweeps into Kapuchea. The khmers first order of the day way
>> Sihanouk, or course. This goes to my point that the only anti-war aspect
>> your side is against, is against US participation. Its not like antiwar
>> schmucks are pacifist, its simply that they are progressives against US
>> military use of force. Just as the Left was silent when the CCCP went into
>> Poland and Afghanistan. Its silent on all other nation states military
>> actions-because they really simply want the US and a few other lands gone
>> from the world scene.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Ruquist 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 2:32 pm
>> Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence
>>
>> Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US
>> even though we bombed them.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List &
>> lt;everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like
>> the old war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina,
>> for the so called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non
>> issue. They were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you
>> one of them, besides a 911 truther?
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: American Intelligence


Richard, because it suited the policies of the Politburo back then. There were 
no public protests back then. My point is the antiwar folks were emphatically, 
not, antiwar! Most were not Quakers (American Friends Service Commitee, most 
were not pacifists, most were Leftists/Marxists/Progressives/Liberals and 
opposed any military use by the US. They may not have cared who they were for, 
but they sure cared whom they were against. You may have caught spit from such 
folk, upon returning from duty, and been called "baby killer!" a chant taken up 
by the anti-abortionists in the 70's. They, are ever like this today except the 
assault laws have changed, and with that the inception of camera phones. 
"Officer, here's a video of these protesters spitting on us!" It would nowadays 
head for court, with a fine or a sentence for the "war resisters." 

The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
I was a participant.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence


The Russians were also silent about the US illegal military excursions.
The two nations cooperated at the highest levels and all scientific levels.
I was a participant.


Regarding the Khmer Rouge, they actively fought the Vietnamese and lost, ie.:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/cambodia.khmer.rouge.timeline/


Late 1977: Fighting breaks out between Vietnam and Cambodia
May 25, 1978: Khmer Rouge purges East Zone.
January 7, 1979: The Vietnamese take Phnom Penh, beginning 11 years of 
Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge move west. Some Cambodians celebrate 
January 7 as a liberation day from the Khmer Rouge, while others mark it as the 
start of Vietnamese occupation







On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:49 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


Richard, you best rev up your memory. The Khmer Rogue joined in with NVA, in 
their sweeps into Kapuchea. The khmers first order of the day way Sihanouk, or 
course. This goes to my point that the only anti-war aspect your side is 
against, is against US participation. Its not like antiwar schmucks are 
pacifist, its simply that they are progressives against US military use of 
force. Just as the Left was silent when the CCCP went into Poland and 
Afghanistan. Its silent on all other nation states military actions-because 
they really simply want the US and a few other lands gone from the world scene.

-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence

Spudboy is mixed up. The Khmer were Cambodians and never attacked us/US even 
though we bombed them.


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:
Is there any war you think the US ever should fight? Chris it was like the old 
war resisters back in the day, when the US was out of Indochina, for the so 
called anti-war folks, the genocide by the Khmer rouge was a non issue. They 
were merely against the US military, and nobody else's. Are you one of them, 
besides a 911 truther?


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




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


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




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

-- 
Yo

Re: American Intelligence


Reminds me of the Wizard giving the Tin Man a Diploma at the end of OZ. What 
they do have, my good fellow, is a Diploma!"

I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain...

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 9:37 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence


I have a diploma, which many people think is as good as a brain...




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


Your heart beats true, but not for the red white and blue (happy 4th!) and a 
crusader program (I am non-religious!) is basically developing our own fuel 
sources, like your solar guys, and use shale gas, and push biofuel development, 
so as to cut off endless cash supplies to fund the great Jihad. This would also 
include the Canadian tar sands oil pipeline. No blood for oil as you were wont 
to yell, under Bushie43, well, this is a way out. Nobody dies, at least from a 
7.62mm round. Then, it takes containment, using the ancient George Kenan 
policy. The Mullahs fire something up, we shoot it down, or catch it in the 
smuggle if they do that. Even your buddy, Kerry might go for this. If this 
fails, then we start saying ok, no more nice guy, This is where I do the 
bloody-minded thing. This is what you object to (as well as everything else 
apparently), and even Kennedy considered the Cuban 62 conflict, where he 
considered full invasion of Cuba, at first. His better option was blockade. The 
agreement for the removal of soviet missiles from Cuber, as Kennedy, pronounced 
it, All it cost the US was the removal of 3 Jupiter short range missiles from 
Turkey. Not bad. 

So as the old Union song went Chris, "Which side are you on, boy, which side 
are you on?"

Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are 
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: RE: American Intelligence







  
 
 
 
   From: spudboy100 via Everything List 

Sound good, I will go look for a brain, and you can begin your search 
for a heart, Mr. Tin man.


Oh I have a heart, brainless one... it is you who are heartless and are 
demanding we all get on board with your crusader program.




 
 
  

-- 
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