Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruce Kellett]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 22 December 2014 at 23:04, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 22 Dec 2014, at 06:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2014, Samiya Illias  wrote:

If death leads to oblivion, then there isn't much to worry about.


Atheists worry about death as much as theists.


Atheists might worry about death, but less so than a believer in Hell. Some
atheists believe that death is the end of consciousness and thus of worries,
but if you believe in some after-life, you might fear unknown happenings,
or suffering, etc.


Perhaps, but some may prefer Hell to oblivion, while others try to
kill themselves after a minor setback. It depends on the person.


An odd notion, that: some people might prefer Hell to Oblivion. But that 
aside, you seem to think that it is only fear of death (and/or Hell) 
that keeps people from widespread mayhem and self-destruction. I must 
admit that I have a healthier view of humanity.


Bruce

--
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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[meekerdb]

On 12/22/2014 4:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

consciousness is favored.  Personally, I think "integrated" is a
vague concept and amounts to "and then a miracle happens" without
some further elucidation.

Brent


See arXiv:1405.0126 for a quite explicit quantification of what
"integrated" means.

I haven't yet had a chance to fully digest the paper, or take a
position on it, but it seems the charge of it being a vague concept is
not valid.


It's interesting that they don't want "lossy" information integration:

/"While it seems intuitve for the brain to discard irrelevant details from 
sensory inp//
//ut, it seems undesirable for it to also hemorrhage meaningful content. In particular, 
memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would 
cause them to gradually decay//"/


Yet that is exactly what is observed.  Each time you recall something you modify it, so it 
tends to become a confabulation.


Their concept of "integration" is simply "scrambled together" so what we would intuitively 
call "a piece of information" cannot be physically localized or disentangled.  They 
quantify this by edit distance.  But if I understand it correctly the same "scrambling" 
that makes editing impossible would also make integrating new information impossible.  And 
while information may be difficult to localize, it does get disentangled so that when you 
ask someone a question they can answer that specific question.


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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 22 December 2014 at 23:04, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 06:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 22, 2014, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>
>> If death leads to oblivion, then there isn't much to worry about.
>
>
> Atheists worry about death as much as theists.
>
>
> Atheists might worry about death, but less so than a believer in Hell. Some
> atheists believe that death is the end of consciousness and thus of worries,
> but if you believe in some after-life, you might fear unknown happenings,
> or suffering, etc.

Perhaps, but some may prefer Hell to oblivion, while others try to
kill themselves after a minor setback. It depends on the person.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruce Kellett]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

> wrote:
zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:

Turing Test Fail 


Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death?
Often taken as the true test of manhood!

It wouldn't require courage if death were no big deal. 



The fact that one doesn't fear death does not imply that one would seek 
death, or that one would not seek to avoid danger.


Bruce

--
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Samiya Illias]

> On 23-Dec-2014, at 3:10 am, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1) 
>> 1000,000 $, 2) total amnesia of the torture?
> 
> These artificial situations are hard to evaluate. I would say, however, that 
> people are often prepared to put up with considerable pain and inconvenience 
> if they think the endpoint is of sufficient importance. Amnesia of the pain 
> and suffering is not usually a relevant consideration.
> 
A very real situation of great pain being repeatedly endured because the 
endpoint is of sufficient importance is childbirth that women repeatedly 
endure. I think selective amnesia has a great role to play in this example! 
Samiya 

> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> John Clark wrote:
>>  >
>>  > And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that
>> if you
>>  > learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was
>> going
>>  > to put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the
>> slightest bit
>>  > apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do
>> and sleep
>>  > like a baby without a care in the world?
>>
>> No, I wouldn't fear death even then. I might worry about the
>> possibility
>> of pain. I might worry about the injustice and arbitrariness of it
>> all.
>> But mostly I would be concerned for those who depend on me here and
>> now.
>>   The degree of this concern would depend on my age when this happens,
>> the number of those dependants, and their degree of dependency.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Turing Test Fail
>>
>
> Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death? Often
> taken as the true test of manhood!
>

It wouldn't require courage if death were no big deal.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[meekerdb]

On 12/22/2014 1:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 December 2014 at 09:14, meekerdb > wrote:



Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1) 
1000,000 $, 2)
total amnesia of the torture?

But then I would have forgotten you owed me a $1,000,000.

The stipulation was only that you would forget the torture.


And after I forgot the torture how would I know I had undergone it and that Bruno 
therefore owed me 1M$?


Of course the serious answer is, it depends on how much I value 1M$ vs the experience of 
being tortured.  One hopes to have pleasant experiences and avoid unpleasant ones.


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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 09:39:57PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> consciousness is favored.  Personally, I think "integrated" is a
> vague concept and amounts to "and then a miracle happens" without
> some further elucidation.
> 
> Brent
> 

See arXiv:1405.0126 for a quite explicit quantification of what
"integrated" means.

I haven't yet had a chance to fully digest the paper, or take a
position on it, but it seems the charge of it being a vague concept is
not valid.

Cheers
-- 


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

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


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

Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 2:58:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/21/2014 3:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: everyth...@googlegroups. com [mailto:everyth...@ googlegroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Bruce Kellett
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 3:27 PM
> To: everyth...@googlegroups. com
> Subject: Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen
>
> John Clark wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>    >An instinct for self-preservation is unrelated to whether or not
>> you have a fear of death, or of oblivion
>>
>> Unrelated?? Don't be ridiculous! Why the hell do you imagine Evolution
>> invented the fear of death in the first place?
>>> Evolution did not "invent a fear of death". That is purely cultural, and is 
>>> not even associated with consciousness -- it comes only with self-awareness 
>>> and an inner narrative. Evolution gave living things an instinct for 
>>> self-preservation. But you can have such an instinct operating healthily 
>>> and still not fear death. Fear of death probably comes from a fear of the 
>>> unknown, and is linked to the fear of prolonged suffering. But oblivion is 
>>> oblivion -- it is not something to be feared because no-one has ever 
>>> experienced it, or can ever experience it.
> Fear itself (for species that experience this sensation) can become an 
> evolutionary dead end... a paralyzing negative force that diminishes rather 
> than improves an individual organisms chances for survival. The fear of death 
> is often an example of this kind of paralyzing useless fear, providing no 
> evolutionary advantage. It is unlike say the -- fear/memory -- of something 
> hot, the fear being the useful quick shortcut to the executive mind of the 
> memory of past bad experiences with being burned by hot things. This is a 
> useful rapid shortcut to the forebrain that is clearly useful in evolutionary 
> terms.
> Fear can either help the individual to act quickly or it can paralyze the 
> individual; while a healthy fear can deliver a lightening quick (possibly 
> life-preserving) alert to the conscious mind, paralyzing fear instead, is of 
> no use for an individual's survival, and can often be a distinct evolutionary 
> disadvantage. When someone is paralyzed with fear, they are worse than 
> useless, in a critical life and death situation.

>>I think that's right.  I've never felt fear while in a life-threatening 
>>situation.  I felt 
trepidation before choosing to enter in to the situation.  And I've felt weak 
in the knees 
afterward.  But during I've always felt complete calm. 




That has been my personal experience as well those times in my life when I have 
been faced with this scenario. During the period of intensity -- the mind can 
remain clear, calm and focused and afterwards one can feel weak in the 
knees and even get sick to one's stomach from the emotional aftermath of it 
all. I have only been in this state of mind a few times over the course of my 
life, and I have long pondered and been amazed at just how clear and calm, 
collected and in the present I was during those situations... doing what I 
needed to do; knowing clearly what it was I needed to do and acting to do it. 

I have also thought about the quality of the decision making and the actions I 
took -- with the objective of trying to decide -- post facto -- if what I 
actually did was the best course of action to take. Looking back I have been 
unable to find any fault with the -- super-normal clarity and calm decisiveness 
that drove me to act with urgency and immediacy.

In other words, after thinking about it a lot I have concluded that the 
brain/mind acting in this super-normal processing mode brought about by the 
immediacy and intensity of the situation produced good decisions as well as 
rapid ones.

-Chris





Brent
  

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

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

  From: John Clark 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 11:46 AM
 Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
   


On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:


> When the research arm of an investment house is leading the booster charge – 
> “America the Saudi Arabia of Shale” etc. and is knowingly using these false 
> projections


>>What in the world was false about those projections?
Reserve projections project an estimate for the total recoverable  oil (or gas) 
in a deposit. The EIA reserve numbers for tight oil & gas -- and to an even 
much more extreme degree, the stated reserve numbers produced by organizations 
(that subsequently profited immensely from the resulting investment boom) -- 
are highly inflated. You confuse and conflate a few years of increased 
production with reserves. They are measuring very different things. Reserves 
measure what is ultimately recoverable; production measures the rate at which a 
resource is being produced at. Perhaps this will help you understand the 
difference between the meaning of these two metrics; I was under the mistaken 
impression that you understood what reserves mean, in the context of talking 
about oil or gas reserves.


>> In the USA oil production rose by more than half a million barrels per day 
>> between 2007 and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years, and in that same 
>> year the USA exported more gasoline and diesel than it imported for the 
>> first time since 1949. And in 2012 USA oil production increased by another 
>> 760,000 barrels a day, the largest yearly increase since records about oil 
>> production started in 1859. But incredibly 2013 beat even that record, oil 
>> production in the United States rose by another 992,000 barrels a day! And 
>> in 2014 the USA overtook Saudi Arabia to become the largest producer of oil 
>> on planet Earth, it was already the largest natural gas producer in the 
>> world and has been since 2010.
Yes, so what? How long will this rate of production be sustained? Reserves 
measure what is in the ground that can be recovered. What you fail to 
understand about the tight oil sector is that the current very temporary 
production boom cannot be sustained -- just to maintain current levels of 
production would require a huge numbers of new wells to be drilled and fracked, 
because depletion is so fast. The capital expenditures of drilling then 
fracking a deposit cannot be  justified by the amount of oil & gas that is 
ultimately extracted by expending that capital.You can also make ethanol from 
corn, but at what cost? That you can make it does not mean it is worth it to 
make it. In the case of corn ethanol it actually takes more energy to produce 
it than can be extracted -- as useful work - by burning it; e.g. it has a 
negative EROI. For fracked tight gas & oil it is now being painfully discovered 
that a huge amount of capital has been sunk in theses fracked wells and in 
reality very little return will come from it. Before you go repeat those -- 
very temporary -- rosy production figures you will no doubt site again; 
meditate on how much capital was expended and sunk in order to obtain this 
transient few years of increased production.


> The Saudi’s will cash in

>>Explain to me how the Saudi's will make more cash when oil is selling at $60 
>>a barrel then it did when it was selling at $130 a barrel. Is this some new 
>>form of mathematics?
Are you trying to be ironic or cute? Clearly the Saudi's feel they can endure 
the loss now in order to drive a large portion of the higher cost producers out 
of business. Once they have achieved this goal they can cut back on their 
production and enjoy the much higher prices they will be able to sell their oil 
for -- without the plethora of upstart competitors competing for market share 
(because they have been driven to bankruptcy in the interim)Perhaps this is too 
hard for you to grasp (my turn to be ironic)-Chris
  



  John K Clark



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


  

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

Re: Seeking astrophysicist willing to help an author

[Russell Standish]

Has anyone thought of asking Youness Ayaita? He used to post on this
mailing list, but I suspect he's now more fully engaged in his PhD,
which is in astrophysics.

Cheers


> > On 20 December 2014 at 00:48, Pierz  wrote:So a close 
> > friend of mine is a novelist whose latest book has a supernova in it. It's 
> > not a sci fi novel and the supernova is really quite secondary but provides 
> > a nice backdrop to the literary main fare. I've read the manuscript and 
> > though I'm no astrophysicist I can see his science is full of glaring flaws 
> > - for example the star causes an aurora! And gamma ray headaches... Anyway 
> > he needs an astrophysicist or similar to help him with these details and I 
> > said I'd ask on here if anyone would be prepared to help. He's a full time 
> > author and a serious writer. His last novel has been translated into 
> > several languages and was long listed for Australia's biggest literary 
> > award, the Miles Franklin. So you wouldn't be helping some mug with an 
> > unpublishable manuscript. The book is good.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Everything List" group.
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> > 
> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> > 
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 


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

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


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

Re: Democracy

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 9:03:26 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 23 December 2014 at 00:07, Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
>
> Modern societies provide more potential freedom, for sure. I could 
> theoretically travel to almost any part of the world I desire and be there 
> having breakfast before Christmas.
>
> Do modern societies provide more real freedom? Consider the life of the 
> peasants under european medieval feudalism. The modern view on this part of 
> history is that peasants had much more free time to use as they pleased in 
> comparison to modern middle class workers.
>
>
It was brutal, feudalism, under the Normans. The sea-change came in the 
aftermath of the the Plague, basically because so many people died, there 
weren't enough little people to go around. The elites moved fast clamp 
everything down. But a new force even more powerful dorce - this one of had 
been born Nature. The supply/demand imbalance plague left in its wake had 
invented Market Forces in the modern era. 

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruce Kellett]

zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:

John Clark wrote:
 >
 > And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that
if you
 > learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was
going
 > to put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the
slightest bit
 > apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do
and sleep
 > like a baby without a care in the world?

No, I wouldn't fear death even then. I might worry about the
possibility
of pain. I might worry about the injustice and arbitrariness of it all.
But mostly I would be concerned for those who depend on me here and
now.
  The degree of this concern would depend on my age when this happens,
the number of those dependants, and their degree of dependency.

Bruce


Turing Test Fail  


Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death? Often 
taken as the true test of manhood!


Bruce

--
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[LizR]

One could repeat the question specifying a painless method of execution,
since bullets might hurt. Can't say I'd be too happy myself.

On 23 December 2014 at 11:06, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>> And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you
>> learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going to
>> put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit
>> apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep
>> like a baby without a care in the world?
>>
>
> No, I wouldn't fear death even then. I might worry about the possibility
> of pain. I might worry about the injustice and arbitrariness of it all. But
> mostly I would be concerned for those who depend on me here and now.  The
> degree of this concern would depend on my age when this happens, the number
> of those dependants, and their degree of dependency.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --
> 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:06:21 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> John Clark wrote: 
> > 
> > And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you 
> > learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going 
> > to put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit 
> > apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep 
> > like a baby without a care in the world? 
>
> No, I wouldn't fear death even then. I might worry about the possibility 
> of pain. I might worry about the injustice and arbitrariness of it all. 
> But mostly I would be concerned for those who depend on me here and now. 
>   The degree of this concern would depend on my age when this happens, 
> the number of those dependants, and their degree of dependency. 
>
> Bruce 
>

Turing Test Fail  

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruce Kellett]

Bruno Marchal wrote:


Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1) 
1000,000 $, 2) total amnesia of the torture?


These artificial situations are hard to evaluate. I would say, however, 
that people are often prepared to put up with considerable pain and 
inconvenience if they think the endpoint is of sufficient importance. 
Amnesia of the pain and suffering is not usually a relevant consideration.


Bruce

--
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruce Kellett]

John Clark wrote:


And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you 
learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going 
to put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit 
apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep 
like a baby without a care in the world?


No, I wouldn't fear death even then. I might worry about the possibility 
of pain. I might worry about the injustice and arbitrariness of it all. 
But mostly I would be concerned for those who depend on me here and now. 
 The degree of this concern would depend on my age when this happens, 
the number of those dependants, and their degree of dependency.


Bruce

--
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 9:58:08 PM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 9:21:40 PM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:13:59 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014  Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>>
>>> > No one is denying that death results in oblivion. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Then what are we arguing about?
>>>  
>>>
 > But that is not the point.
>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't?!   
>>>
>>> > My claim was that no one has experienced oblivion. In common parlance, 
 we routinely say that everyone experiences death at the end of their 
 lives. 
 Hence the distinction made between death and oblivion in this context.

>>>
>>> So this entire death vs oblivion debate has nothing to do with the 
>>> nature of reality, it's about grammar and how one particular language out 
>>> of the 7000 in use on this planet happens to use 2 words. 
>>>
>>> And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you 
>>> learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going to 
>>> put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit 
>>> apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep 
>>> like a baby without a care in the world?
>>>
>>>  John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> iou'd have to read his posts rom the start, They exhibit some of th e 
>> stupidest implausible claims a lot of people will ever see.  
>>
>> sorry about thatI fell asleep midsentence. I was going to sum up 
>> Bruce's spread of death depictions as one long basically would fail turning 
>> test. But then Bruce does this runaway paragraph...running away with 
>> himself with creaatve captures of fear. 
>>
>
> So he goes from, max cady to Robert Burns in his ability empathy fear. 
>
> He describes fear very well. but it's not the way I feel fear. People get 
> it differently. One of my old pals...he absolutely fearless climbling, 
> on motorcycles, in a car...but he one explained and anyway  well understood 
> by then, being in a fist fight terrified him...he would beg he would cry. 
> Despite the injuries aren't usually that bad, compared toi some i'd seen my 
> mate  endure. 
>
> In his case he'd learned to bluff real good. Good bluffers normally 
> experience fear the way Brent described. Sounded plausible to me. the 
> bluffer has to deliver his lines or his cold steely gaze as if ompletely 
> calm. The bluffer knows in seconds whether he's puling it off or bas made a 
> mistake. Bluffers have to be good at going into reverse damn quick. The 
> bluff ontineus, but now its about bluffing that he just came in there to 
> say sorry or whatever. 
>
> Which if the bluffer made a mistake, that means the other guy is hardman. 
> Which is the bluffers second blessing  if they reverse quicik enough. A 
> hardman sees both bluffs, sees the fear, and goes from angry to bored. 
> Bluffers aren't interesting people. Unless after all that bluff...there's 
> something special. My pal was speciala decent person. A gentleman. 
>

forgot to run the conclusion about bruce. Yeah, he was obviously describing 
his own fear..that Robert burns piece. It's very common.get bullied a 
lot while kid, and you know you're in yur mid 50's bullshitting about 
fearlessness. Implausibly. I seen that before. 

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 9:21:40 PM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:13:59 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014  Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> > No one is denying that death results in oblivion. 
>>
>>
>> Then what are we arguing about?
>>  
>>
>>> > But that is not the point.
>>
>>
>> It isn't?!   
>>
>> > My claim was that no one has experienced oblivion. In common parlance, 
>>> we routinely say that everyone experiences death at the end of their lives. 
>>> Hence the distinction made between death and oblivion in this context.
>>>
>>
>> So this entire death vs oblivion debate has nothing to do with the nature 
>> of reality, it's about grammar and how one particular language out of the 
>> 7000 in use on this planet happens to use 2 words. 
>>
>> And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you 
>> learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going to 
>> put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit 
>> apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep 
>> like a baby without a care in the world?
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
> iou'd have to read his posts rom the start, They exhibit some of th e 
> stupidest implausible claims a lot of people will ever see.  
>
> sorry about thatI fell asleep midsentence. I was going to sum up 
> Bruce's spread of death depictions as one long basically would fail turning 
> test. But then Bruce does this runaway paragraph...running away with 
> himself with creaatve captures of fear. 
>

So he goes from, max cady to Robert Burns in his ability empathy fear. 

He describes fear very well. but it's not the way I feel fear. People get 
it differently. One of my old pals...he absolutely fearless climbling, 
on motorcycles, in a car...but he one explained and anyway  well understood 
by then, being in a fist fight terrified him...he would beg he would cry. 
Despite the injuries aren't usually that bad, compared toi some i'd seen my 
mate  endure. 

In his case he'd learned to bluff real good. Good bluffers normally 
experience fear the way Brent described. Sounded plausible to me. the 
bluffer has to deliver his lines or his cold steely gaze as if ompletely 
calm. The bluffer knows in seconds whether he's puling it off or bas made a 
mistake. Bluffers have to be good at going into reverse damn quick. The 
bluff ontineus, but now its about bluffing that he just came in there to 
say sorry or whatever. 

Which if the bluffer made a mistake, that means the other guy is hardman. 
Which is the bluffers second blessing  if they reverse quicik enough. A 
hardman sees both bluffs, sees the fear, and goes from angry to bored. 
Bluffers aren't interesting people. Unless after all that bluff...there's 
something special. My pal was speciala decent person. A gentleman. 

-- 
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: Democracy

[LizR]

On 23 December 2014 at 10:03, LizR  wrote:

> On 23 December 2014 at 00:07, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>> Modern societies provide more potential freedom, for sure. I could
>> theoretically travel to almost any part of the world I desire and be there
>> having breakfast before Christmas.
>>
>> Do modern societies provide more real freedom? Consider the life of the
>> peasants under european medieval feudalism. The modern view on this part of
>> history is that peasants had much more free time to use as they pleased in
>> comparison to modern middle class workers.
>>
>> Consider even kids. They are less free than they ever were. These days,
>> their entire lives consist of structured activities (which is necessary to
>> accommodate their parents also highly structured lives).
>>
>
> I absolutely agree with you on this. I always pooh-pooh anyone who harks
> back to some mythical "golden age" of rustic simplicity and new age-ness,
> but I also agree that THIS isn't a golden age either. The awful thing is
> that this actually could be, but of course the system has been hijacked by
> a few ultra rich people ... "because they're worth it" ... while everyone
> else is stuck in the shoulders-to-the-wheel noses-to-the-grindstone to
> support them. So on that basis it's just medievalism wearing suits rather
> than crowns. Why is Apple Inc worth more than Sweden? Because the Swedes
> don't employ enough Third World slavery...
>
> And yet 50 years ago some of us were hoping for a technological utopia.
> Turns out it wasn't for everyone, just the lucky few. The rest of us (the
> "99%") get "bread and circuses".
>

Oh and I just learned (the Qi book of 1411 facts is wonderful!) that
Medieval peasants ate twice as many calories as the average person does
now. I assume that means (being QI) the average persons / peasant in the UK
rather than globally. Still, maybe it was a golden age after all...

-- 
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: Democracy

[LizR]

To be honest I only made it the SI so I could include the Python reference.
In fact everyone ecpected the Spanish Inquisition because they gave 30
days' notice!

On 23 December 2014 at 10:34, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> That was an invention of the Protestant ideological propaganda. The
> catholic/protestant war was the first cold war of the modern history (it
> has little to do with the medieval era, 90% of the deaths of the war of
> religion and religious repression is in the modern era).
>
> Now it is widely known:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc
>
> The black legend about the spanish inquisition is the first one and the
> blueprint for all the modern ideological distortions of history. The next
> waves of revolutionary movements used this distortion as ideological
> warfare: the french revolutionaries rewrote the history for nationalistic
> purposes. Later the Marxist rewrote history by attacking the protestant
> countries as exploitative capitalists. they received their deserved
> payment. All of this are, obviously, lies that serve interests.
>
>
>
> 2014-12-22 22:08 GMT+01:00 LizR :
>
>> Oh and speaking of the new Medievalism, I forgot to add that we even have
>> torture back.
>>
>> I expected the 21st century would involve hoverboards and undersea
>> cities. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqreRufrkxM
>>
>>
>> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27637-focus-prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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: Democracy

[Alberto G. Corona]

That was an invention of the Protestant ideological propaganda. The
catholic/protestant war was the first cold war of the modern history (it
has little to do with the medieval era, 90% of the deaths of the war of
religion and religious repression is in the modern era).

Now it is widely known:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY-pS6iLFuc

The black legend about the spanish inquisition is the first one and the
blueprint for all the modern ideological distortions of history. The next
waves of revolutionary movements used this distortion as ideological
warfare: the french revolutionaries rewrote the history for nationalistic
purposes. Later the Marxist rewrote history by attacking the protestant
countries as exploitative capitalists. they received their deserved
payment. All of this are, obviously, lies that serve interests.



2014-12-22 22:08 GMT+01:00 LizR :

> Oh and speaking of the new Medievalism, I forgot to add that we even have
> torture back.
>
> I expected the 21st century would involve hoverboards and undersea cities.
> I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqreRufrkxM
>
>
> http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27637-focus-prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:13:59 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014  Bruce Kellett 
> > wrote:
>
> > No one is denying that death results in oblivion. 
>
>
> Then what are we arguing about?
>  
>
>> > But that is not the point.
>
>
> It isn't?!   
>
> > My claim was that no one has experienced oblivion. In common parlance, 
>> we routinely say that everyone experiences death at the end of their lives. 
>> Hence the distinction made between death and oblivion in this context.
>>
>
> So this entire death vs oblivion debate has nothing to do with the nature 
> of reality, it's about grammar and how one particular language out of the 
> 7000 in use on this planet happens to use 2 words. 
>
> And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you 
> learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going to 
> put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit 
> apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep 
> like a baby without a care in the world?
>
>  John K Clark
>

iou'd have to read his posts rom the start, They exhibit some of th e 
stupidest implausible claims a lot of people will ever see.  

wasn't goodthe behaviour in the interior of the house was 

> Br 
>

-- 
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[LizR]

On 23 December 2014 at 09:14, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1)
> 1000,000 $, 2) total amnesia of the torture?
>
> But then I would have forgotten you owed me a $1,000,000.
>
> The stipulation was only that you would forget the torture.

-- 
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: Democracy

[LizR]

Oh and speaking of the new Medievalism, I forgot to add that we even have
torture back.

I expected the 21st century would involve hoverboards and undersea cities.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

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

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/27637-focus-prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses

-- 
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: Democracy

[LizR]

On 23 December 2014 at 00:07, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Modern societies provide more potential freedom, for sure. I could
> theoretically travel to almost any part of the world I desire and be there
> having breakfast before Christmas.
>
> Do modern societies provide more real freedom? Consider the life of the
> peasants under european medieval feudalism. The modern view on this part of
> history is that peasants had much more free time to use as they pleased in
> comparison to modern middle class workers.
>
> Consider even kids. They are less free than they ever were. These days,
> their entire lives consist of structured activities (which is necessary to
> accommodate their parents also highly structured lives).
>

I absolutely agree with you on this. I always pooh-pooh anyone who harks
back to some mythical "golden age" of rustic simplicity and new age-ness,
but I also agree that THIS isn't a golden age either. The awful thing is
that this actually could be, but of course the system has been hijacked by
a few ultra rich people ... "because they're worth it" ... while everyone
else is stuck in the shoulders-to-the-wheel noses-to-the-grindstone to
support them. So on that basis it's just medievalism wearing suits rather
than crowns. Why is Apple Inc worth more than Sweden? Because the Swedes
don't employ enough Third World slavery...

And yet 50 years ago some of us were hoping for a technological utopia.
Turns out it wasn't for everyone, just the lucky few. The rest of us (the
"99%") get "bread and circuses".

-- 
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: Democracy

[LizR]

Speaking of personal freedom, Americans work, on average, one month more
per year now than they did in 1976. No doubt other First World countries
are similar. No wonder the rich-poor gap has widened so much, with everyone
working that much more for roughly the same income to enrich a few CEOs and
their shareholders. Nice little rich boys' club on top of the anthill, as I
said the US (and most of the West) is Communist sharing of resources for
the rich, and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the toiling masses.

I guess over roughly the same period workers' rights have been eroded, and
safety nets (such as ever existed) removed - and the popuation taught that
this is all part of their "freedom" and "individuality".

Can anyone guess what causes 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the US?

-- 
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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[meekerdb]

On 12/22/2014 11:14 AM, LizR wrote:
Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However using Bruno's 
distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed etc) but competent 
behaviour isn't.


So we have 3 classes of being

1 conscious
2 intelligent
3 competent

2 inplies 1 but 1 doesn't imply 2 so 1 is wider than 2. 3 isexclusive from 1 
and 2.

But how then to distinguish competence from intelligence?


One way is to equate intelligence with an ability to learn, to expand the field of 
competence.  So Deep Blue is competent at chess but not very intelligent.


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: Democracy

[meekerdb]

On 12/22/2014 3:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


So there is a trade-off between having rules of social interaction which 
support
cooperation and limiting the rules so as to allow individuality.


Ok, but this assumes that rules are the only way to promote cooperation. I don't think 
they are the only way at all. I think that trade is a better way (at least in many cases).


Rules are necessary for trade to exist beyond immediate acquaintances.  There need to be 
laws defining ownership, forbidding coercion and fraud and ways of enforcing the laws.  
Democracy is just a way of arriving at and adjusting those laws.


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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[meekerdb]

On 12/22/2014 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Dec 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/20/2014 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Most legal systems punish murder more than any other crime, and those that have the 
death penalty reserve it for the worst offenders. Most criminals know that if they 
threaten a person with death they are more likely to comply than with other threats. 
Most religions, in the absence of any evidence, promise an afterlife. I think this 
all supports the fact that it is a common human trait to fear oblivion, even if as 
John says it's just a matter of taste.


Stathis Papaioannou


It might be a common human trait to fear oblivion, but it is even more irrational than 
belief in an afterlife.


Bruce 



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


Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1) 1000,000 $, 2) 
total amnesia of the torture?


But then I would have forgotten you owed me a $1,000,000.



If no, the Mark Twain argument is less convincing.

Note that Mark twain provides here an argument for after-life. If I could come from 
nowhere, why would that not be possible again? is it not the case all the time? Who are 
we, really?


Indeed.  As far as I know Twain may have thought another life was possible.  He only 
satirized the Abrahamic idea of an after-life in heaven or hell.  But why would it be HIS 
after-life if he didn't remember his prior life?


Brent
"Now then in Earth these people cannot stand much church - an
hour and a quarter is the limit and they draw the line at once a
week.  That is to say, Sunday.  One day in seven; and even then
they do not look forward to it with longing.  And so - consider
what their heaven provides for them: "church" that lasts forever,
and Sabbath that has not end!  They quickly weary of this brief
hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one;
they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they think they
are going to enjoy it - with all their simple hearts they think
they think they are going to be happy in it!
It is because they do not think at all; they only think they
think.
--- Mark Twain, Letters from Earth

--
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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014  LizR  wrote:

>
> > So we have 3 classes of being
>  1 conscious
>  2 intelligent
>  3 competent
>

And what is the difference between intelligent and competent? I will tell
you. If a computer does it then it's just competent, but if a human does
the exact same thing then it's intelligent.

 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 2:58:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/21/2014 3:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett 
> > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 3:27 PM 
> > To: everyth...@googlegroups.com  
> > Subject: Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen 
> > 
> > John Clark wrote: 
> >> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >>>An instinct for self-preservation is unrelated to whether or not 
> >> you have a fear of death, or of oblivion 
> >> 
> >> Unrelated?? Don't be ridiculous! Why the hell do you imagine Evolution 
> >> invented the fear of death in the first place? 
> >>> Evolution did not "invent a fear of death". That is purely cultural, 
> and is not even associated with consciousness -- it comes only with 
> self-awareness and an inner narrative. Evolution gave living things an 
> instinct for self-preservation. But you can have such an instinct operating 
> healthily and still not fear death. Fear of death probably comes from a 
> fear of the unknown, and is linked to the fear of prolonged suffering. But 
> oblivion is oblivion -- it is not something to be feared because no-one has 
> ever experienced it, or can ever experience it. 
> > Fear itself (for species that experience this sensation) can become an 
> evolutionary dead end... a paralyzing negative force that diminishes rather 
> than improves an individual organisms chances for survival. The fear of 
> death is often an example of this kind of paralyzing useless fear, 
> providing no evolutionary advantage. It is unlike say the -- fear/memory -- 
> of something hot, the fear being the useful quick shortcut to the executive 
> mind of the memory of past bad experiences with being burned by hot things. 
> This is a useful rapid shortcut to the forebrain that is clearly useful in 
> evolutionary terms. 
> > Fear can either help the individual to act quickly or it can paralyze 
> the individual; while a healthy fear can deliver a lightening quick 
> (possibly life-preserving) alert to the conscious mind, paralyzing fear 
> instead, is of no use for an individual's survival, and can often be a 
> distinct evolutionary disadvantage. When someone is paralyzed with fear, 
> they are worse than useless, in a critical life and death situation. 
>
> I think that's right.  I've never felt fear while in a life-threatening 
> situation.  I felt 
> trepidation before choosing to enter in to the situation.  And I've felt 
> weak in the knees 
> afterward.  But during I've always felt complete calm. 
>
> Brent 


Yeah...you're a dark man Brent. That wall of silence thing...do you know 
before this experience with you, I had never imagined someone doing that to 
someone else. It had never occurred to me at all. 

I had it researched It's actually a philia - one of the sadomasochistic 
rarities. It's not known in the slap and ticket end of things. It's about 
taking everything away...leaving worthless. It's actual the psychological 
root of most sadistic serial killers. I want to know more about youyou 
did this to someone on that ship is my hunch. 
end 
I think you are ENJOYING MEyou see my pain and drjnk of it,. And so one 
sees the other, the other may look up telescope the other waty. I Se 
You. Thus is my submission: Get every last kittle drop of pleasure from 
that you can...I implore you. Get the most,. Because I'm a very expensive 
little fuckwhore
 

>
>

-- 
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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:47 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> When the research arm of an investment house is leading the booster
> charge – “America the Saudi Arabia of Shale” etc. and is knowingly using
> these false projections
>

What in the world was false about those projections?  In the USA oil
production rose by more than half a million barrels per day between 2007
and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years, and in that same year the USA
exported more gasoline and diesel than it imported for the first time since
1949. And in 2012 USA oil production increased by another 760,000 barrels a
day, the largest yearly increase since records about oil production started
in 1859. But incredibly 2013 beat even that record, oil production in the
United States rose by another 992,000 barrels a day! And in 2014 the USA
overtook Saudi Arabia to become the largest producer of oil on planet
Earth, it was already the largest natural gas producer in the world and has
been since 2010.

> The Saudi’s will cash in


Explain to me how the Saudi's will make more cash when oil is selling at
$60 a barrel then it did when it was selling at $130 a barrel. Is this some
new form of mathematics?

  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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[LizR]

Sometimes allegedly conscious beings behave very unintelligently. However
using Bruno's distinction intelligent behaviour is conscious (goal directed
etc) but competent behaviour isn't.

So we have 3 classes of being

1 conscious
2 intelligent
3 competent

2 inplies 1 but 1 doesn't imply 2 so 1 is wider than 2. 3 isexclusive from
1 and 2.

But how then to distinguish competence from 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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM,  wrote:

 >> Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's intelligent
>> then it's conscious. Consciousness is easy but intelligence
>>
>
> > John - take the amount new knowledge you assert I just the above
> sentence. From where or what do you acquire this position?
>

I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious but
because it doesn't behave intelligently I (and you too) assume it is not.
And neither of us could function if we thought we were the only conscious
being in the universe so we assume that our fellow human beings are
conscious too, but not all the time, not when they are sleeping or under
anesthesia or dead, in other words when they are not behaving
intelligently.

Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, and lust come from
the oldest parts of our brain that evolved about 500 million years ago.
About 400 million years ago Evolution figured out how to make the spinal
cord, the medulla and the pons, and we still have these brain structures
today just like fish and amphibians do, and they deal in aggressive
behavior, territoriality and social hierarchies. The Limbic System is about
150 million years old and ours is similar to that found in other mammals.
Some think the Limbic system is the source of awe and exhilaration because
it is the active site of many psychotropic drugs, and there's little doubt
that the amygdala, a part of the Limbic system, has much to do with fear.
After some animals developed a Limbic system they started to spend much
more time taking care of their young, so it probably has something to do
with love too.

It is our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so unusual
and so recent, it only started to get large about 3 million years ago and
only started to get ridiculously large less than one million years ago. It
deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and
mathematics; in other words everything that makes humans so very different
from other animals. The only new emotion we got out of it was worry,
probably because the neocortex is also the place where we plan for the
future.

So if nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence only
much much later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our
computers. It's a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but
doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel.

>> I am certain you have met people in your life that you wouldn't hesitate
>> to call brilliant, and you've met people you'd call complete morons, but if
>> you don't examine the same thing that the Turing Test does, behavior, how
>> do you make that determination?
>>
>
> > John, sure I would examine something empirically
>

And that is exactly what the Turing Test does.

> if necessary. It often isn't.
>

It often isn't?!! Then I repeat my question, if you don't use the same
thing that the Turing Test uses, behavior,  how in the world do you tell
the difference between a genius and a moron?

> So it comes down to the logic of the Test. If Turing proposed a test that
> was based on intelligence testing what is his reason for leaving
> intelligence testing, which was highly standardized in his time,
>

Turing didn't need to prove what the best way to test for intelligence is,
he didn't even need to explain what it means; all he was saying is that
whatever intelligence is and whatever method you use to test for it you
should use the same method for both humans and machines.  And the Turing
Test is not perfect even when applied to humans, sometimes a human can
appear to be smarter or dumber than he really is, nevertheless it remains
valuable because despite its flaws it's all we've got.

 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014  Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> No one is denying that death results in oblivion.


Then what are we arguing about?


> > But that is not the point.


It isn't?!

> My claim was that no one has experienced oblivion. In common parlance, we
> routinely say that everyone experiences death at the end of their lives.
> Hence the distinction made between death and oblivion in this context.
>

So this entire death vs oblivion debate has nothing to do with the nature
of reality, it's about grammar and how one particular language out of the
7000 in use on this planet happens to use 2 words.

And as for the fear of death stuff, are we asked to believe that if you
learned right now that tomorrow morning at 9am a firing squad was going to
put several bullets into your brain you wouldn't be the slightest bit
apprehensive and would go to bed tonight just as you always do and sleep
like a baby without a care in the world?

 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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 18:12, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:




On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:38:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:05, John Clark wrote:


On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM,   wrote:

> Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected  
consciousness well it must also detect intelligence.


That's not what I said, you've got it backward. Something can be  
conscious but not intelligent,


We agree on this.

The concurrence is entirely innocent. A virtuous snippet of  
altruistic better nature...it's individuals pushing that, and not  
just humans but way back. Not natural selection. Individuals.  
Critters with Trait. I give thanks for them. For 500 million years  
they knocked at the door with their single message.  Those  special  
critters their message simply "there is another way to be".


Looking what a beautiful thing for a lizard to think. But  the time  
it was inflammatory, threateningit's not that we were  
stupidwe knew what the words meant. But we loved eating each  
other. And those words were threat to our way of life. And they  
still are and that's why I'm going to eat you.


[the above is what I decide to think was true. because why should  
you two have all the fun. oh look there's a squirrel.



So we agree? It is not entirely clear to me.

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: Democracy

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 17:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in  
the German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained  
today by "democracies": populism.


Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was  
constructed until recently.


Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises  
that it can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on  
the idea that people will not act or vote for their inmediate  
interests  but will vote for anything that maintain the common  
good forever.  That is absolutely false. The only thing that  
maintain democracy is not democracy, but the morality of the  
people. That morality is contunuously underminded by democracy  
itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of  
majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible  
political promises for different groups of people. That divides  
and confront ones with others.


It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn  
produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth.


Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not  
believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are  
the worst antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are  
te dumb people that believe  acritically in democracy.



I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote  
for their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented  
reasonably well by opportunist politicians, and if they don't  
succeed people will stop voting against them. (so it is not just  
vote, but a promise that you can vote again if dissatisfied).


Given a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank and  
that is based on some limited resource, why not just implement  
democracy through the free market?


OK, with some regulation, and a way to tackle propaganda, etc.





Everything you pay for is an instant vote.


Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to  
tyranny. Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous,  
democracy can easily be perverted and misused by bandits or  
ideologues. There is nothing we can do about that, except  
investing in means (like education, logic, reasoning, ...) helping  
people to not fall in the trap of the demagogs.


But once the education system is both compulsory and under the  
control of the state, if the state gets corrupted how to spread  
education logic and reasoning and still work within the system?


Well, if the state is corrupted up to the point of teachning 2+2=5,  
it means the democracy does no more exist. In that case you need a  
revolution (non violent if possible).








It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people  
which makes the system bad.


I disagree. Systems can make bad people by learned helplessness.


How?

In my view: by showing you over and over that virtue is not  
rewarded. Brains are adaptive survival machines, very attuned to  
learn what works in their environments.



Virtue is the reward. If someone practice a virtue for a reward,  
then it is not virtue. (Note that this is the basic wrongness of  
religion: it leads to people doing virtue for reward and not doing  
the wrong for fear of punishment, but who can really appreciate  
someone doing the good to you just because it fears a punishment?  
You get the fake virtue.


I agree. It is also true that it is not easy to practice virtue. Or  
it might become easier by learning (how to think and about the  
world), by certain practices, by being mentored by wise and  
benevolent teachers and so on. Our current system produces millions  
of people every year that will not have access to any of these things.


I agree. the point is just that I think there is more hope for  
progress in a democratic regime than with anything else.


I have taught in a school whose founding motto is that the children  
must be listened, but that school was the champion of faking listening  
to the student, making it even harder for student to be listen. I  
think I told you about the student who make a work denunciating this,  
and ... he got a very good note, but nothing changed!


I have been scout, and it was a bit after 1968, so we decide to  
abandon all the scout rules, and it end up into a super leftist group,  
and a friend of mine get threatened of death because he disagrees just  
with the opinion of a minority which get the whole power. I run away,  
and learned to prefer unjust but clear rules instead of "no rules"  
which automatically lead to the ruling of those the most viol

Re: Democracy

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 15:42, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

>Democracy makes it possible to live differently from the  
mainstream. It is >not easy, and democracy is not enough, but it can  
help better than a tyrant >or community enforcing arbitrary rules  
without means of contesting them.


And what differences "Democracy"  from a tirant or community  
enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting them?.


Democracy is a ritualized form of brute force. The root of the  
democratic idea is the sacralization of numeric force.  And the  
legitimation is, consciously or unconsciously, the realization for  
everyone, that the majority would win a bloody confrontation.


That IS the TRUE legitimization of democracy. In the same way that  
two deers will not fight if one show bigger horns, since the result  
of the combat is already know. Each side of a democratic contest  
does not fight for the same reason.


 The difference is that in democracy the force comes from the  
highest pitch for the best short term offer in exchange for the  
longer term disaster. The coalition that accept that mix of offer  
and lies is the Tyrant.



Well, you will not succeed in breaking my pleasure to see democracy  
making progress in East-europa and in the middle-east, where it means  
to just been able to discuss and gossip behind a beer or a coffee  
without fearing delation from some spy hostage of the power. And today  
my pleasure is made great with the election of a laic muslim in Tunisia.


I even consider that Egypt's democracy has win when people elected the  
Muslim Brotherhood, and has still win when the same people re-install  
courageously the military dictatorship once they saw the persecution  
of jews and christian coming back, and when they understood that a  
military dictatorship was the only way to save the possibility of a  
democracy in some middle run, a possibility that the fanatic islamists  
were threatening.


It is easy to criticize democracy in a democacry (even old and sick),  
but most people living in non democratic regime suffer a lot, and have  
no hope---except for the ruling minority which can stand for many  
generations.


Would you prefer to live in North Korea or in South Korea? Honestly.  
Come on.


Democracy is not perfect. A bit like computationalism, it is not the  
solution of the problems, but an efficacious frame making it possible  
to formulate the problems, and listen to different solutions, and keep  
the extremists at bay.


Yes, a democracy can be tyrannic, or lead to a tyranny, but with a  
tyranny, well you are already in the tyranny, and you can fear even  
your friends and brothers and sisters.


Bruno





2014-12-22 13:24 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in  
the German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained  
today by "democracies": populism.


Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was  
constructed until recently.


Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises  
that it can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on  
the idea that people will not act or vote for their inmediate  
interests  but will vote for anything that maintain the common  
good forever.  That is absolutely false. The only thing that  
maintain democracy is not democracy, but the morality of the  
people. That morality is contunuously underminded by democracy  
itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of  
majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible  
political promises for different groups of people. That divides  
and confront ones with others.


It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn  
produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth.


Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not  
believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are  
the worst antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are  
te dumb people that believe  acritically in democracy.



I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote  
for their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented  
reasonably well by opportunist politicians, and if they don't  
succeed people will stop voting against them. (so it is not just  
vote, but a promise that you can vote again if dissatisfied).


Given a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank and  
that is based on some limited resource, why not just implement  
democracy through the free market?


OK, with some regulation, and a way to tackle propaganda, etc.





Everything you pay for is an instant vote.


Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can reg

Re: Intelligence & Consciousness

[zibblequibble]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:38:35 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:05, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM,  > 
> wrote:
>
> > Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected 
>> consciousness well it must also detect intelligence.
>
>
> That's not what I said, you've got it backward. Something can be conscious 
> but not intelligent, 
>
>
> We agree on this.
>

The concurrence is entirely innocent. A virtuous snippet of altruistic 
better nature...it's individuals pushing that, and not just humans but way 
back. Not natural selection. Individuals. Critters with Trait. I give 
thanks for them. For 500 million years they knocked at the door with their 
single message.  Those  special critters their message simply "there is 
another way to be". 

Looking what a beautiful thing for a lizard to think. But  the time it was 
inflammatory, threateningit's not that we were stupidwe knew what 
the words meant. But we loved eating each other. And those words were 
threat to our way of life. And they still are and that's why I'm going to 
eat you. 

[the above is what I decide to think was true. because why should you two 
have all the fun. oh look there's a squirrel.

-- 
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: Democracy

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the
>>> German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today by
>>> "democracies": populism.
>>>
>>> Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was constructed
>>> until recently.
>>>
>>> Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that it
>>> can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the idea that
>>> people will not act or vote for their inmediate interests  but will vote
>>> for anything that maintain the common good forever.  That is absolutely
>>> false. The only thing that maintain democracy is not democracy, but the
>>> morality of the people. That morality is contunuously underminded by
>>> democracy itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of
>>> majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible political
>>> promises for different groups of people. That divides and confront ones
>>> with others.
>>>
>>> It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn
>>> produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth.
>>>
>>> Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not
>>> believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are the worst
>>> antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are te dumb people that
>>> believe  acritically in democracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote for
>>> their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented reasonably well
>>> by opportunist politicians, and if they don't succeed people will stop
>>> voting against them. (so it is not just vote, but a promise that you can
>>> vote again if dissatisfied).
>>>
>>
>> Given a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank and that is
>> based on some limited resource, why not just implement democracy through
>> the free market?
>>
>>
>> OK, with some regulation, and a way to tackle propaganda, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Everything you pay for is an instant vote.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to tyranny.
>>> Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous, democracy can
>>> easily be perverted and misused by bandits or ideologues. There is nothing
>>> we can do about that, except investing in means (like education, logic,
>>> reasoning, ...) helping people to not fall in the trap of the demagogs.
>>>
>>
>> But once the education system is both compulsory and under the control of
>> the state, if the state gets corrupted how to spread education logic and
>> reasoning and still work within the system?
>>
>>
>> Well, if the state is corrupted up to the point of teachning 2+2=5, it
>> means the democracy does no more exist. In that case you need a revolution
>> (non violent if possible).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people which
>>> makes the system bad.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Systems can make bad people by learned helplessness.
>>
>>
>> How?
>>
>
> In my view: by showing you over and over that virtue is not rewarded.
> Brains are adaptive survival machines, very attuned to learn what works in
> their environments.
>
>
>
> Virtue is the reward. If someone practice a virtue for a reward, then it
> is not virtue. (Note that this is the basic wrongness of religion: it leads
> to people doing virtue for reward and not doing the wrong for fear of
> punishment, but who can really appreciate someone doing the good to you
> just because it fears a punishment? You get the fake virtue.
>

I agree. It is also true that it is not easy to practice virtue. Or it
might become easier by learning (how to think and about the world), by
certain practices, by being mentored by wise and benevolent teachers and so
on. Our current system produces millions of people every year that will not
have access to any of these things.


>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> How americans have ever accepted prohibition remains a bit of a mystery
>>> to me. In this context, I am not so much for legalization of drugs than for
>>> penalization of prohibitionists, and education explaining how prohibition
>>> illustrates well a technic to kill democracy and its most important key
>>> features like the separation and independence of the different powers,
>>> including the press.
>>>
>>> But the institutionalization of religion, especially when the state and
>>> the religion are not well separated is a deeper cause of the problem for
>>> democracies. It is that mentality which has made possible prohibition: the
>>> very idea that other people can decide for yo

Re: Democracy

[Alberto G. Corona]

>Democracy makes it possible to live differently from the mainstream. It is
>not easy, and democracy is not enough, but it can help better than a
tyrant >or community enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting
them.

And what differences "Democracy"  from a tirant or community enforcing
arbitrary rules without means of contesting them?.

Democracy is a ritualized form of brute force. The root of the democratic
idea is the sacralization of numeric force.  And the legitimation is,
consciously or unconsciously, the realization for everyone, that the
majority would win a bloody confrontation.

That IS the TRUE legitimization of democracy. In the same way that two
deers will not fight if one show bigger horns, since the result of the
combat is already know. Each side of a democratic contest does not fight
for the same reason.

 The difference is that in democracy the force comes from the highest pitch
for the best short term offer in exchange for the longer term disaster. The
coalition that accept that mix of offer and lies is the Tyrant.

2014-12-22 13:24 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the
>>> German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today by
>>> "democracies": populism.
>>>
>>> Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was constructed
>>> until recently.
>>>
>>> Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that it
>>> can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the idea that
>>> people will not act or vote for their inmediate interests  but will vote
>>> for anything that maintain the common good forever.  That is absolutely
>>> false. The only thing that maintain democracy is not democracy, but the
>>> morality of the people. That morality is contunuously underminded by
>>> democracy itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of
>>> majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible political
>>> promises for different groups of people. That divides and confront ones
>>> with others.
>>>
>>> It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn
>>> produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth.
>>>
>>> Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not
>>> believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are the worst
>>> antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are te dumb people that
>>> believe  acritically in democracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote for
>>> their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented reasonably well
>>> by opportunist politicians, and if they don't succeed people will stop
>>> voting against them. (so it is not just vote, but a promise that you can
>>> vote again if dissatisfied).
>>>
>>
>> Given a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank and that is
>> based on some limited resource, why not just implement democracy through
>> the free market?
>>
>>
>> OK, with some regulation, and a way to tackle propaganda, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Everything you pay for is an instant vote.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to tyranny.
>>> Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous, democracy can
>>> easily be perverted and misused by bandits or ideologues. There is nothing
>>> we can do about that, except investing in means (like education, logic,
>>> reasoning, ...) helping people to not fall in the trap of the demagogs.
>>>
>>
>> But once the education system is both compulsory and under the control of
>> the state, if the state gets corrupted how to spread education logic and
>> reasoning and still work within the system?
>>
>>
>> Well, if the state is corrupted up to the point of teachning 2+2=5, it
>> means the democracy does no more exist. In that case you need a revolution
>> (non violent if possible).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people which
>>> makes the system bad.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree. Systems can make bad people by learned helplessness.
>>
>>
>> How?
>>
>
> In my view: by showing you over and over that virtue is not rewarded.
> Brains are adaptive survival machines, very attuned to learn what works in
> their environments.
>
>
>
> Virtue is the reward. If someone practice a virtue for a reward, then it
> is not virtue. (Note that this is the basic wrongness of religion: it leads
> to people doing virtue for reward and not doing the wrong for fear of
> punishment, but who can really appreciate someone doing the good to you
> just because it fears a punishment? You get the fake virtue.
>
>
>
>

Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Dec 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/20/2014 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Most legal systems punish murder more than any other crime, and  
those that have the death penalty reserve it for the worst  
offenders. Most criminals know that if they threaten a person with  
death they are more likely to comply than with other threats. Most  
religions, in the absence of any evidence, promise an afterlife. I  
think this all supports the fact that it is a common human trait  
to fear oblivion, even if as John says it's just a matter of taste.


Stathis Papaioannou


It might be a common human trait to fear oblivion, but it is even  
more irrational than belief in an afterlife.


Bruce



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


Would do accept to be tortured, here and now, with the promise of 1)  
1000,000 $, 2) total amnesia of the torture?


If no, the Mark Twain argument is less convincing.

Note that Mark twain provides here an argument for after-life. If I  
could come from nowhere, why would that not be possible again? is it  
not the case all the time? Who are we, really?


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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:05, John Clark wrote:


On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM,   wrote:

> Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected  
consciousness well it must also detect intelligence.


That's not what I said, you've got it backward. Something can be  
conscious but not intelligent,


We agree on this.




but if it's intelligent then it's conscious.


OK. Even very good, because that distinguish intellegence from  
competence. A machine can be competent but not intelligent (like an  
expert or a specialist).





Consciousness is easy but intelligence


Consciousness is as much easy than to derive physics from number  
theory. Then it is easy if you accept to define consciousness by the  
the first person knowledge of some truth that we cannot justify nor  
even define to others. In that case computer science gives plenty of  
interesting candidates.


Consciousness is thus easy, but not that easy.

Your argument that consciousness is the way data treatment is felt  
makes possible to attach consciousness to  a machine, but from the  
first person point of view that consciousness will be attached to the  
infinity of instantiation of that data treatment in possible universes  
or in arithmetic, and this leads to the problem of deriving the  
stability of the physical from arithmetic and computer science.


But "intelligence is very simple". it is maximal for universal  
machines, and can only diminish or stay equal when adding information  
or program. "intelligence" is about the same as courage: the courage  
of being wrong. It is more an attitude of courage than anything else.






> The Turing Test does not detect either one


I did not wrote that. I think it is hibbsa or zibblequible. The Turing  
test can give evidence for the presence of some consciousness or  
intelligence, if made long enough. It is just a coefficient of  
plausibility or course, not a definite proof.


Bruno




I am certain you have met people in your life that you wouldn't  
hesitate to call brilliant, and you've met people you'd call  
complete morons, but if you don't examine the same thing that the  
Turing Test does, behavior, how do you make that determination?


 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Alberto G. Corona]

That fear of death is cultural is the most insane thing I ever heard from
the insane theory of cultural determinism

Fear of death permits to do planning in advance to avoid death. Because
planning is something human-specific, fear of death is a human-specific
instinct. For a believer like me,  fear of death is something imprinted in
the human soul by a gradual process of evolution or by a creation process
(For God that lives outside of time, both things are the same) that
appeared as soon as other higher human capacities appeared. A rational mind
can not survive without fear of death.

But like all higher instincts, it is flexible. I can fight to death to
defend others or someone can suicide itself when he feel that it is a
burden for the others.
That may prove that suicide is not only only a personal sin, that denies
that God loves him, but a sin of the others that make someone to feel a
burden.

 That proves the intrinsically social, not individualistic nature of Men:
His own life is not the highest value to defend, and yet It has to defend
his own life, not only for himself but also for the good of others.

2014-12-22 1:47 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett :

> John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014  Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>>  Evolution gave living things an instinct for self-preservation. But you
 can have such an instinct operating healthily and still not fear death.

>>>
>> Unrelated? Bob and Don are crossing a street when a large truck turns
>> a corner and is heading straight for both of them. Bob has a fear of
>> death but Don has a instinct for self preservation, please tell me
>> about the unrelated and very different procedures Bob and Don use to
>> get out of the way.
>>
>
> They should both jump for safety! Don's instinct for self preservation
> makes this jump instinctive -- and successful. Bob's fear of death leads
> him to freeze in his tracks, and he is killed.
>
>
>>  It [death] is not something to be feared because no-one has ever
>>> experienced it
>>>
>>
> Your paraphrase is very telling. I said no-one has ever experienced
> oblivion, not that no-one has died [death]. Plenty of people have died, and
> many have suffered from the experience of dying. But since we all die at
> some point, fearing death is scarcely rational. Fearing suffering is
> rational, however, because we actually experience that and rationally try
> to avoid it.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>  About 57 billion human beings have lived on this planet over the last
>> million years, and although many have made similar sounding greeting
>> card style statements not one of those 57 billion has actually taken
>> that advice to heart and survived. In the last hour of his life I
>> don't think Robin Williams feared death, or at least there were other
>> things that he feared more.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  John Clark wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett  wrote:

   >An instinct for self-preservation is unrelated to whether or not
 you have a fear of death, or of oblivion

 Unrelated?? Don't be ridiculous! Why the hell do you imagine Evolution
 invented the fear of death in the first place?

>>>
>>> Evolution did not "invent a fear of death". That is purely cultural, and
>>> is not even associated with consciousness -- it comes only with
>>> self-awareness and an inner narrative. Evolution gave living things an
>>> instinct for self-preservation. But you can have such an instinct operating
>>> healthily and still not fear death. Fear of death probably comes from a
>>> fear of the unknown, and is linked to the fear of prolonged suffering. But
>>> oblivion is oblivion -- it is not something to be feared because no-one has
>>> ever experienced it, or can ever experience it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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

Re: Democracy

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 00:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:58, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in  
the German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today  
by "democracies": populism.


Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was  
constructed until recently.


Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that  
it can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the  
idea that people will not act or vote for their inmediate  
interests  but will vote for anything that maintain the common  
good forever.  That is absolutely false. The only thing that  
maintain democracy is not democracy, but the morality of the  
people. That morality is contunuously underminded by democracy  
itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of  
majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible  
political promises for different groups of people. That divides  
and confront ones with others.


It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn  
produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth.


Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not  
believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are  
the worst antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are  
te dumb people that believe  acritically in democracy.



I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote  
for their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented  
reasonably well by opportunist politicians, and if they don't  
succeed people will stop voting against them. (so it is not just  
vote, but a promise that you can vote again if dissatisfied).


Given a currency that cannot be manipulated by a central bank and  
that is based on some limited resource, why not just implement  
democracy through the free market?


OK, with some regulation, and a way to tackle propaganda, etc.





Everything you pay for is an instant vote.


Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to  
tyranny. Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous,  
democracy can easily be perverted and misused by bandits or  
ideologues. There is nothing we can do about that, except investing  
in means (like education, logic, reasoning, ...) helping people to  
not fall in the trap of the demagogs.


But once the education system is both compulsory and under the  
control of the state, if the state gets corrupted how to spread  
education logic and reasoning and still work within the system?


Well, if the state is corrupted up to the point of teachning 2+2=5,  
it means the democracy does no more exist. In that case you need a  
revolution (non violent if possible).








It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people which  
makes the system bad.


I disagree. Systems can make bad people by learned helplessness.


How?

In my view: by showing you over and over that virtue is not  
rewarded. Brains are adaptive survival machines, very attuned to  
learn what works in their environments.



Virtue is the reward. If someone practice a virtue for a reward, then  
it is not virtue. (Note that this is the basic wrongness of religion:  
it leads to people doing virtue for reward and not doing the wrong for  
fear of punishment, but who can really appreciate someone doing the  
good to you just because it fears a punishment? You get the fake virtue.











How americans have ever accepted prohibition remains a bit of a  
mystery to me. In this context, I am not so much for legalization  
of drugs than for penalization of prohibitionists, and education  
explaining how prohibition illustrates well a technic to kill  
democracy and its most important key features like the separation  
and independence of the different powers, including the press.


But the institutionalization of religion, especially when the state  
and the religion are not well separated is a deeper cause of the  
problem for democracies. It is that mentality which has made  
possible prohibition: the very idea that other people can decide  
for you between the good and the wrong. That would not have  
happened if the spiritual domain remained what is really: an  
investigation domain like any others, calling for experiments,  
experiences and dialog, and no normative rules ever. Those are  
object of laws, voted by the people or representative delegates of  
the people.


What would you suggest in place of democracy? If a democracy can be  
hijacked, don't you think that anything else couldn't even more  
easily be hijacked?


I still have problems with discussing "democracy" as if it was a  
single, well defined system. If you tell me that a state is a  
democracy, I still want to k

Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 02:09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Monday, December 22, 2014, Bruce Kellett  
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:


John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 , Bruce Kellett >

wrote:

  >An instinct for self-preservation is unrelated to whether  
or not

you have a fear of death, or of oblivion

Unrelated?? Don't be ridiculous! Why the hell do you imagine
Evolution
invented the fear of death in the first place?


Evolution did not "invent a fear of death". That is purely  
cultural,
and is not even associated with consciousness -- it comes only  
with
self-awareness and an inner narrative. Evolution gave living  
things
an instinct for self-preservation. But you can have such an  
instinct
operating healthily and still not fear death. Fear of death  
probably

comes from a fear of the unknown, and is linked to the fear of
prolonged suffering. But oblivion is oblivion -- it is not  
something

to be feared because no-one has ever experienced it, or can ever
experience it.


Following that reasoning, do you believe there is nothing wrong with  
murder?


How on earth did you get that from what I said?

If there's nothing wrong with oblivion, and murder leads to  
oblivion, then there's nothing wrong with murder.


There is nothing wrong with oblivion is compatible with the fact there  
is something wrong with a shortened  life.


People will accept artificial brain, not for avoiding oblivion per se,  
but for seeing the next soccer cup.


Bruno





--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/21/2014 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a difference between fearing oblivion, and fearing having  
a too much short life. That is why we find the death of our parents  
very sad but somehow acceptable, and we find unbearable and  
unconsolable with the death of a child.


That fear is your genes "fear" of not being propagated.


Not necessarily. You can still fear your son or daughter could die,  
despite he/she has already a big family. What is sad with the death of  
young people is that their life is shortened, and you have a feeling  
of unfairness because you fell they could have realize many things.


Bruno

"Life is like this soup. Not only it is distasteful, but there is not  
a lot of it"  (Woody Allen)





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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Dec 2014, at 06:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On Monday, December 22, 2014, Samiya Illias   
wrote:

If death leads to oblivion, then there isn't much to worry about.

Atheists worry about death as much as theists.


Atheists might worry about death, but less so than a believer in Hell.  
Some atheists believe that death is the end of consciousness and thus  
of worries, but if you believe in some after-life, you might fear  
unknown happenings,  or suffering, etc.


Bruno






However, if death doesn't lead to oblivion, but rather to another  
state of being, then there may be plenty to plan about!


None of us remember a life before this life. However, we all entered  
this life! We entered this life in varied circumstances, and we are  
all living this life in very varied circumstances. What if death  
just leads to another life, and what if it depends on what we did  
with this life?


Samiya



On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:47 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 12/21/2014 6:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Who said it was irrational to stop an experience that one finds  
pleasurable? All I am saying is that death comes to us all, and  
that it is irrational to fear death per se, because once you are  
dead you are not around to worry about missing anything.


I might be more accurate to say it is irrational to fear being dead.

Brent
"I'm not afraid of dying. I just don't want to be there when it  
happens."

--- Woody Allen

--
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.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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: Intelligence & Consciousness

[zibblequibble]

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:05:08 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM,  > 
> wrote:
>
> > Yesterday you said you had to conclude if the test detected 
>> consciousness well it must also detect intelligence.
>
>
> That's not what I said, you've got it backward. Something can be conscious 
> but not intelligent, but if it's intelligent then it's conscious. 
> Consciousness is easy but intelligence  
>

John - take the amount new knowledge you assert I just the above 
sentence. From where or what do you acquire this position? 


I mean, I would say that's fundamentalcan you show your workings? What 
due dilligence did y0u perform? it's a must to do itbecause it is very 
easy to assemble some componentssuch as conceptsand feel like 
something was discovered. look again and that assembly was one of hundreds 
of variants. meaning NO VALUE! 

> The Turing Test does not detect either one
>
>
> I am certain you have met people in your life that you wouldn't hesitate 
> to call brilliant, and you've met people you'd call complete morons, but if 
> you don't examine the same thing that the Turing Test does, behavior, how 
> do you make that determination?
>
does
John, sure I would examine something empirically if necessary. It often 
isn't. The way I can know what the Turing test  was set up to do, is 
because it is straightforward to set up the test with all three measures.

* Intelligence*

* the human*

 consciousness.  . Not Direct


   - We can eliminate consciousness as a direct detection because there is 
   no knowledge for that in the Test. 
   - Now we entertain Intelligence. 
   - So it comes down to the logic of the Test. If Turing proposed a test 
   that was based on intelligence testing what is his reason for leaving 
   intelligence testing, which was highly standardized in his time, and 
   eminently automatable/systemisable 
   - There's no evidence Turing was a luddite. He already had incredible 
   automation experience and ability.
   - If it was intelligence testing, I would argue that part of the Test, 
   or at least a large amount of it, would have been automated at that time. 
   No need to wait for A.I, get humans to take the test. Of course al of this 
   completely standard and automated today.
   - In summary, there's no way to make sense of his Test with intelligence 
   testing. 
   - I mean...it's not efficient getting a human to decide the way Turing 
   says. It would work vastly better by double blind testing lots of humans 
   and throwing in the A.I. at multiple places. There are thousands of tests 
   that could be taken. Personality, tricks, lying, deliberately lying,, 
   cohersion, pain
   - The right way to do that would be double scattering the A.I. 
   everywhere, thousands of tests. And then at the end, the human interaction 
   component would be best one of our top boys thinks, without peeping, 
   something in those tests that should be there  for every human interaction, 
   and much less so, gone down and octave, for every interval it's the A.I. 

He makes his prediction, and another team test for it, The analysis is 
normalized and if he's right then the A.I. was detected. If he's wrong,his 
theory and all the tests, and the maths, and checking, is all fed into a 
copy of the A.!. That copy is going to version 2 but it's a long way off. 
The A.I. and its technicians spend a lot of time getting an algorithm to 
absorb that failed theory and so make the A.I. better at this game next 
time. 
Then staying with the version there's a queue outside, a lot of people want 
to take their go. 
Make 30 duplicates of version one, and get 30 at a time defining theory 
theory and getting it tested. 
Open  up new varieties of theory. Now we've computer scientists and 
psychologists coming up with environments involve a lot of time making the 
setup look like it's for one thing, when actually it isn't. It could really 
be for something immensely simple...anything that a human - every human - 
can be spun and kept off balance and suddenly, it happens, the little 
voltage, of the white noise, or perhaps we use one of those tricks that 
harness human visual perception. 

On the other side The A.I. be massing large new knowledge of the sort of 
things humans will try. The A.I. would be duplicated several more times, 
now to be scattered among all 'roles'. Everything would be double blind. 
The A.I. might get ahead and reverse everything out and maybe bring about a 
ridiculous, disturbing and definitely very entertaining, "mirroring out" in 
which, say,  particular theory test, is manipulatd such that the A.I. is 
identified! But it turns out to be the guys sister in law. 

Anyway, one could on. But the illustration point, is that testing for 
intelligence and psychology and s onit could be harnessed if the 
process was more than just  test but also an A.I. evolution density point. 

That's the way I'd do it for intelligence. It'd be a 

Re: Democracy

[Telmo Menezes]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:55 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>  On 12/21/2014 3:36 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> But it's not just the bandits, it's also game theory. Modern democracies
> suffer from a strong tendency to become Keynesian beauty contests. Very
> easily the optimal strategy for the big parties becomes a move to the
> average opinion. Some people say this is a good thing. I think it's a
> dangerous thing because it's self-reinforcing and because consensus and
> truth are very different things.
>
>
> So are truth and personal opinion, especially on questions of value.
>

Indeed. This is why personal freedom is so important.


> There are many advantages to cooperation and community.
>

Of course!


> So there is a trade-off between having rules of social interaction which
> support cooperation and limiting the rules so as to allow individuality.
>

Ok, but this assumes that rules are the only way to promote cooperation. I
don't think they are the only way at all. I think that trade is a better
way (at least in many cases).


> In general I'd say modern societies provide far more individual freedom
> than did the tribal societies in which humans evolved - just as a big city
> provides much more anonymity than a small town.
>

Modern societies provide more potential freedom, for sure. I could
theoretically travel to almost any part of the world I desire and be there
having breakfast before Christmas.

Do modern societies provide more real freedom? Consider the life of the
peasants under european medieval feudalism. The modern view on this part of
history is that peasants had much more free time to use as they pleased in
comparison to modern middle class workers.

Consider even kids. They are less free than they ever were. These days,
their entire lives consist of structured activities (which is necessary to
accommodate their parents also highly structured lives).

Telmo.


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

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