date:20150331

Notice it started to go up around the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the rich
decided they were scared by the freedom of the swinging sixties and that it
was time to return to Victorian values. Which we've practically returned
to, by the looks of that graph.

By the way, SciAm have something possibly even more horrific on the subject
of poverty and the effects you suffer should you happen to have the bad
luck to be born poor...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth1




On 1 April 2015 at 17:26, meekerdb  wrote:

>  The SciAm article doesn't even begin to describe how great the inequality
> is.  Like most statistical presentations it divides the population into
> quintiles.  But that hides the fact that is not the to 20 to 1 percentile
> that hold the wealth, it is the tope 1% and even just the top 0.1%
>
>
>
>
> http://www.voxeu.org/article/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Economic inequality

The SciAm article doesn't even begin to describe how great the inequality is.  Like most 
statistical presentations it divides the population into quintiles.  But that hides the 
fact that is not the to 20 to 1 percentile that hold the wealth, it is the tope 1% and 
even just the top 0.1%





http://www.voxeu.org/article/exploding-wealth-inequality-united-states

Brent



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/



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

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-31 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:28:51AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> > The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical
> > supervenience, not that it is true. In the end by being forced to accept
> > consciousness must supervene on the movie + broken gate... If you believe
> > it,  then you've abandon computationalism as a theory of the mind as the
> > movie+broken gates is not a computation... Or you can keep
> computationalism
> > and abandon physical supervenience QED
> >
>
> I have always disagreed with this. The movie+broken gates is still a
> computation, just a rather simple one. Playing a movie in (eg)
> SMPlayer is still running a computation.
>

And I have never understood how that doesn't void significance of 1p views.
If this is totally tight, correct, mechanistic 3p view, then you get
corresponding complete absence of meaning on 1p level of person/machine's
discourse.

"I played and watched a movie on my phone" becomes senseless as the
person/machine is reduced to mere plaything of their beliefs concerning
reality.

Which is fine for say philosophers that want to eliminate 1p view, or
positivists, but it has always struck me as too fast for anybody that has
actually had the experience of playing that movie on their phone.

It appears, we're left with zombieland and the impossibility of me stating
"I am not a zombie" and this kind of statement not ending up to be
gobbledigook. Sure it's possible, but the artist in me resists: I watched
that movie, and the alternative is kinda ugly.

We loose indexicality, the ability to point towards stuff, which is already
present in hypothetical "yes doctor" statement of 1 person, which we took
as true. Further, a definite substitution level, given the complete
validity of 3p description, has to be accounted for.

Over the years of seeing you post this kind of statement, I have never
learned of your stance towards machine's interview, eloquence through
silence of machines through Church, Loebian machines, indeed the
"self-referential logic and discourse of machines" aspects of Bruno's work.
But that's fine today as it is the fool's day, wherein I happily admit to
being one that is corrected by the list... and *that *doesn't make any
sense via above anyway, so I can't loose face even if I wanted to make a
fool of myself now... :-) PGC

>
> As I see it, the argument still relies on an intuition that the
> movie+broken gates computation cannot support consciousness. It is an
> intuition pump, not a proof, and consequently a weakness of the MGA.
>
> And static vs dynamic is a red herring, because as Bruce quite rightly
> points out, a static block Multiverse contains at least one, and by
> definition all possible conscious entities.
>
> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/bQAAb5nK84w/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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: The MGA revisited


meekerdb wrote:


Bruno's theory may fair better with a Quantum Bayesian interpretation 
than with MWI, since he hopes to take conscious states as more 
fundamental and derive the physics.  It would lead to idealism instead 
of Platonism.


I know the typo was unintentional, but it amuses me to think that 
Bruno's theory may be more comely in Bayesian guise! (Or be more 
amusing, if you think of 'fair' in that sense.)


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: The MGA revisited

On 3/31/2015 6:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:

So I would reject the computationalist program right at the start -- I would not say
"Yes, doctor" to that sort of AI program.

Nor do I.
That is why I say that my definition of computationalism is weaker than most in the
literature.
Computationalism, as I defined it, assumes only the existence of a level of
substitution such that you survive with a digital (Turing emulable) functional
substitution made at that level.

In which case you have physical supervenience, and nothing else. The digital simulation
of brain functions is achieved on a physical computer after all, which is a physical
object itself -- simulating (primitive) physical processes.

In the six first step of the UD argument, I suppose the level high (but still
describing the biology of neurons and glials cells), to make the reasoning more easy.
But the conclusion hold up even for someone who say that to get its relevant actual
state, we need to simulate the while universe, from the big bangs, at the level of
superstring theory, with (10^(10^100)) hexadecimals exact.

Don't count on superstring theory!

This is because that dumb little Robinson Arithmetic emulates that "artificial brains",
infinitely often, and with sometimes *much* bigger number of decimals.

I find it hard to understand what you mean here. RA 'emulates' artificial brains? The
picture that comes to my mind is: if you write out the numerical sequence of digits,
123456789101112.., that sequence contains all possible subsequences. I cannot
remember whether this sequence is actually a normal number or not, but that seems likely.

Within this sequence is the Goedel number for my brain (or for the whole universe). And
it does not matter which encoding I use for Goedel numbers -- the normal number contains
them all. A very simple Turing machine (any modern computer) can churn out this sequence
of digits any time it likes (though it might take a long time to get to me or anyone
else!).

Is this anything like what you have in mind?

If it is, the mere existence of a static sequence does not comprise the dynamical object.

The passage of time is not the sequence of computational steps. I think the idea is that
conscious states can be computed in any order and their time relation is inherent (like
Barbour's time capsules). I see some problems with idea, but not the one you raise.

It is a description, not the reality, and it confuses the map with the territory. If the
description of a brain can be conscious, then the MGA fails.

My other main objection would be the white rabbit issue -- all magical states that are
nearly the same as me are also in the sequence.

Of course, I assume the Church-Turing thesis. This assumes some realism on the possible
digital machines and machineries, equivalent with realism on a tiny fragment on which
intuitionists and classical mathematicians agree. Most physicists used stronger
mathematical theories. And Brent made me realize that RA is even a strct finitisme in
Van Bendeghem sense. RA is consistent with there is a biggest number.QM.

Does this not constitute an (insuperable) problem for the simplest case? If RA is
consistent with a biggest number, then the sequence is not normal, and nothing useful
need be included.

May be comp is false, but that is why I make it precise and look for the consequence.
Without Everett QM I would still be sure it can't be true, but perhaps still study it,
for the beauty of mathematics.

You rely too much on Everettian QM -- which you can't even begin to derive in your
theory. The Everett relative state interpretation is only that, an interpretation of QM.
It is not an established theory, and any other interpretation of QM that gives the same
observational results would do as well. The MWI program based on Everett has many
problems of its own. It is very likely that in the final analysis, the Schroedinger
equation will be seen to be nothing more that a device for calculating probabilities --
it is merely epistemological, not ontological. FPI is then an illusion, and you cannot
use physics to support your theory -- particularly when there is no evidence that your
theory is even consistent with QM, much less physics.

Bruno's theory may fair better with a Quantum Bayesian interpretation than with MWI, since
he hopes to take conscious states as more fundamental and derive the physics. It would
lead to idealism instead of Platonism.

Brent

The irony, of course, is that proponents of the MWI rely on physical realism to justify
their position. Given comp, MWI collapses (pun intended :-) ).

Bruce

Re: The MGA revisited


LizR wrote:

Russell,

I think your argument would be stronger if you said that playing a movie 
through a projector is still a computation, albeit a simple one. 
Obviously playing a movie in a media player on a computer involves 
computation, but I can't see how that's relevant to the MGA - a media 
player clearly isn't necessary to play all types of movie, so as it 
stands you've left a loophole (IMHO).


Also, I can't see how the "block multiverse" comment is relevant. 
Movement is well defined in a block universe (or multiiverse). Assuming 
change is required for a computation to be carried out, the only 
question is whether movement exists from the point of view of creatures 
living inside the universe in question - which, clearly, it does. Hence 
being embedded in a block universe won't stop a computation happening, 
as a sequence of states strung out along the time axis, just as it 
doesn't prevent a car from moving just because the car can be described 
as a worldline from a "god's eye" perspective.


I think Russell is right in that the distinction between static and 
dynamic is a bit of a red herring. We observe the block universe as 
dynamic even though it is static in the bulk because, as you say, we 
have clocks internal to the system. But a clock is just a subsystem that 
can be use to mark off a sequence (of events). The static movie could 
include a picture of a clock in each frame, and that would act in 
exactly the same way. You don't even need a repetitive or cyclical 
process to serve as a clock. See the discussion of Tait's inertial clock 
by Julian Barbour:

http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/barbour1.html

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: The MGA revisited

On 3/31/2015 6:57 PM, LizR wrote:

Russell,

I think your argument would be stronger if you said that playing a movie through a
projector is still a computation, albeit a simple one. Obviously playing a movie in a
media player on a computer involves computation, but I can't see how that's relevant to
the MGA - a media player clearly isn't necessary to play all types of movie, so as it
stands you've left a loophole (IMHO).

Also, I can't see how the "block multiverse" comment is relevant. Movement is well
defined in a block universe (or multiiverse). Assuming change is required for a
computation to be carried out, the only question is whether movement exists from the
point of view of creatures living inside the universe in question - which, clearly, it
does.

That's why I think Bruno's argument is right, but not so radical. I think it only proves
that consciousness will exist in the context of the physics in which the computation
exists. If it is a played back recording then the consciousness will exist relative to
the physics that is also part of the recording. So when Tarzan swings thru the jungle in
the movie there can only be consciousness of the images of vines and trees because those
images are all the context that was captured with the images of Tarzan. This is a
rudimentary consciousness because it isn't counterfactually correct - it's not even
counterfactually defined.

Hence being embedded in a block universe won't stop a computation happening, as a
sequence of states strung out along the time axis, just as it doesn't prevent a car from
moving just because the car can be described as a worldline from a "god's eye" perspective.

That's Russell's point - consciousness exists in the block universe even though, viewed as
a block, it is like a recording.

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.

Economic inequality

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

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

Re: The MGA revisited

Russell,

I think your argument would be stronger if you said that playing a movie
through a projector is still a computation, albeit a simple one. Obviously
playing a movie in a media player on a computer involves computation, but I
can't see how that's relevant to the MGA - a media player clearly isn't
necessary to play all types of movie, so as it stands you've left a
loophole (IMHO).

Also, I can't see how the "block multiverse" comment is relevant. Movement
is well defined in a block universe (or multiiverse). Assuming change is
required for a computation to be carried out, the only question is whether
movement exists from the point of view of creatures living inside the
universe in question - which, clearly, it does. Hence being embedded in a
block universe won't stop a computation happening, as a sequence of states
strung out along the time axis, just as it doesn't prevent a car from
moving just because the car can be described as a worldline from a "god's
eye" perspective.

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

Re: The MGA revisited


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:


So I would reject the computationalist program right at the start -- I 
would not say "Yes, doctor" to that sort of AI program.


Nor do I.
That is why I say that my definition of computationalism is weaker than 
most in the literature.
Computationalism, as I defined it, assumes only the existence of a level 
of substitution such that you survive with a digital (Turing emulable) 
functional substitution made at that level.


In which case you have physical supervenience, and nothing else. The 
digital simulation of brain functions is achieved on a physical computer 
after all, which is a physical object itself -- simulating (primitive) 
physical processes.



In the six first step of the UD argument, I suppose the level high (but 
still describing the biology of neurons and glials cells), to make the 
reasoning more easy. But the conclusion hold up even for someone who say 
that to get its relevant actual state, we need to simulate the while 
universe, from the big bangs, at the level of superstring theory, with 
(10^(10^100)) hexadecimals exact.


Don't count on superstring theory!

This is because that dumb little Robinson Arithmetic emulates that 
"artificial brains", infinitely often, and with sometimes *much* bigger 
number of decimals.


I find it hard to understand what you mean here. RA 'emulates' 
artificial brains? The picture that comes to my mind is: if you write 
out the numerical sequence of digits, 123456789101112.., that 
sequence contains all possible subsequences. I cannot remember whether 
this sequence is actually a normal number or not, but that seems likely.


Within this sequence is the Goedel number for my brain (or for the whole 
universe). And it does not matter which encoding I use for Goedel 
numbers -- the normal number contains them all. A very simple Turing 
machine (any modern computer) can churn out this sequence of digits any 
time it likes (though it might take a long time to get to me or anyone 
else!).


Is this anything like what you have in mind?

If it is, the mere existence of a static sequence does not comprise the 
dynamical object. It is a description, not the reality, and it confuses 
the map with the territory. If the description of a brain can be 
conscious, then the MGA fails.


My other main objection would be the white rabbit issue -- all magical 
states that are nearly the same as me are also in the sequence.



Of course, I assume the Church-Turing thesis. This assumes some realism 
on the possible digital machines and machineries, equivalent with 
realism on a tiny fragment on which intuitionists and classical 
mathematicians agree. Most physicists used stronger mathematical 
theories. And Brent made me realize that RA is even a strct finitisme in 
Van Bendeghem sense. RA is consistent with there is a biggest number.QM.


Does this not constitute an (insuperable) problem for the simplest case? 
If RA is consistent with a biggest number, then the sequence is not 
normal, and nothing useful need be included.



May be comp is false, but that is why I make it precise and look for the 
consequence. Without Everett QM I would still be sure it can't be true, 
but perhaps still study it, for the beauty of mathematics.


You rely too much on Everettian QM -- which you can't even begin to 
derive in your theory. The Everett relative state interpretation is only 
that, an interpretation of QM. It is not an established theory, and any 
other interpretation of QM that gives the same observational results 
would do as well. The MWI program based on Everett has many problems of 
its own. It is very likely that in the final analysis, the Schroedinger 
equation will be seen to be nothing more that a device for calculating 
probabilities -- it is merely epistemological, not ontological. FPI is 
then an illusion, and you cannot use physics to support your theory -- 
particularly when there is no evidence that your theory is even 
consistent with QM, much less physics.


The irony, of course, is that proponents of the MWI rely on physical 
realism to justify their position. Given comp, MWI collapses (pun 
intended :-) ).


Bruce


The big discovery is the discovery of the universal machine, by 
mathematician trying to clarify some paradoxes.


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.

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-31 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:28:51AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 
> The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical
> supervenience, not that it is true. In the end by being forced to accept
> consciousness must supervene on the movie + broken gate... If you believe
> it,  then you've abandon computationalism as a theory of the mind as the
> movie+broken gates is not a computation... Or you can keep computationalism
> and abandon physical supervenience QED
> 

I have always disagreed with this. The movie+broken gates is still a
computation, just a rather simple one. Playing a movie in (eg)
SMPlayer is still running a computation.

As I see it, the argument still relies on an intuition that the
movie+broken gates computation cannot support consciousness. It is an
intuition pump, not a proof, and consequently a weakness of the MGA.

And static vs dynamic is a red herring, because as Bruce quite rightly
points out, a static block Multiverse contains at least one, and by
definition all possible conscious entities.

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: Life in the Islamic State for women

As mentioned in another thread, the media have (as it were) blown the
Islamic threat up out of all proportion. Climate change is a FAR greater
threat to civilisation than ISIS will ever be.

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

Re: The MGA revisited

On 1 April 2015 at 03:58, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Mar 2015, at 02:57, LizR wrote:
>
> On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have not yet
>> seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind.
>
>
> One reason that has been suggested is the "unreasonable effectiveness" of
> maths as a description of physics. This is Max Tegmark's argument for the
> "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". To take this to its logical conclusion,
> if we ever formulate a theory that (as far as we know) describes everything
> that exists - a real live TOE - then, Tegmark would say, what is there that
> distinguishes the universe from the, by hypothesis completely accurate,
> description? His conclusion is nothing, and since the maths description is
> simpler than the observed universe, the scientific conclusion is that what
> we observe is a part of a multiverse containing all outcomes of the TOE
> (this is a bit like Russell's TON, with the equations of the TOE as the
> "almost nothing" that actually exists) - and that assuming the universe is
> anything more than just "What the maths looks like from the inside" is
> unnecessary - and untestable - metaphysical speculation.
>
>
> ?
> On the contary: what arithmetic looks from inside can be made precise when
> the observer is assumed to be Turing emulable. The math is computer
> science, with the mathematical definition of computer.
>
> As we have remarked previously, Max hasn't really dealt with the observer
in his mathematical universe hypothesis. I used the MUH as an example of a
reason to believe that one should perhaps prefer "Platonia" to physicalism
because I feel it's a fairly straightforward example, without any need to
worry about - for example - the nature of consciousness.


> Then the math, to be short, says: it looks like Parmenides, Plotinus, and
> the mystics. It feels like there is:
>
> 1)a big ONE without a name, a part of which is
> 2) the Intelligible part (and that part is actually far bigger or far more
> complex than the big ONE, which is relatively simple), and then there is
> 3) the universal soul, which is the fire in the equation, and actually
> makes a lot of mess in Platonia, but perhaps the worst is to come, as there
> are:
> 4) the intelligible matter (death and taxes), and
> 5) the sensible matter  (which can hurt).
>
> Those are the five hypotheses of Parmenides, and they are recovered with
> the nuances:
>
> p
> []p
> []p & p
> []p & <>t
> []p & <>t & p
>
> That gives eight important distinct modes in which a universal machine can
> see herself and the math which encompass her. (8, not 5, as three modes
> inherit the G/G*split).
>
> However we don't have such a TOE as yet,
>
>
> Hmm... I guess you have lost your notes diary again.
>

With computationalism, it is a fair simplification to say that each
> universal machine is a TOE. Any first order specification of any one among
> them would do the same job, and lead to the same mind-body problem, and the
> same mind and body solution, but I have chosen "elementary arithmetic" and
> "SK-combinators" to fix the things.
>

Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the physical
universe yet. String theory and comp are both attempts at this (from very
different starting points) but I don't believe either has reached the point
where they can say (for example) "the universe should appear to conserve
energy, be Lorentz invariant, exhibit a fundamental uncertainty of various
quantities, etc".

>
> An excellent introduction to the SK-combinators is the book "How to mock a
> mockingbird?" by Raymond Smullyan.
>

I have that book - and every other book he's written, I think. My son has
worn some of them out, actually, but then he understands logic and maths
about a million times better than me.

>
> I could have chosen any UTM, including you or Winston Churchill, any one
> would do. Well, better to use a TOE which is simple, so that we can trust
> that its elementary assumption/belief make sense.
>
> Bruno
>
> The governement: We have to cut the budget of education to pay the
> soldiers.
> Churchill: Then tell me what the soldiers are supposed to fight for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> so it's possible it will turn out to be non-mathematical, in which case
> Max's argument will sink without trace.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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 gr

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

I hope that isn't an April Fool!

Well, this isn't rocket science...

In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a
> terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon
> bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.


Because all those guns make you safer...

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

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:

In a phrase I have used before, It did not spring forth fully armed, 
like Athena from Zeus's brow. Numbers were a hard-won abstraction from 
everyday physical reality. They do not have any independent existence.

In which theory? What has independent existence?

The external objective universe, of which we are part.

As someone has said, you do not come across a number "5" running wild 
in the undergrowth.

I am not sure, when I run I might not count them, but five incarnate in 
my feet and hands all the time, and even if I did not have legs, like a 
snake, 5 would still be prime, independently of me thinking about it or 
not.

You are running into the old problem of universals. You take the 
approach of Plato -- the universals are needed to explain the 
commonality between all sets of five things (like toes, finger,...), but 
even so, you don't see the "universal 5" running in the wild -- you see 
only five toes, or deer, or .. It is equally open to anyone to take 
Aristotle's line and hold that five exists only in sets of five things 
-- the modern nominalist position.

Two thousand five hundred years of philosophical argument have not 
settled this issue, so no-one need accept your enthusiastic embrace of 
Plato's account. Other accounts are just as good (in many ways preferable).

...

But I think we need to distinguish two senses in which something can 
be said to exist. There is mathematical existence, Exist_{math}, and 
physical existence, Exist_{phys}.

I agree. And those are quite different mode of existence.

I am glad we can agree on something.

Exist_{math} is the set of all implications of a set of axioms and 
some rules of inference.

Not at all. That would give only a tiny sigma_1 set. Even arithmetic is 
larger than that, and non unifiable in any effective theory.

I think you underestimate the power of an axiomatic theory.

.

Exist_{phys} is the hardware of the universe.

OK. But then comp is false, there are zombies, etc.

Why do you think that is a problem? They exist only if you create them.

You point and say "That is a rock, cat, or whatever." In more 
sophisticated laboratory settings, you construct models to explain 
atomic spectra, tracks in bubble chambers, and so on. The scientific 
realist would claim that the theoretical entities entailed by his most 
mature and well-tested scientific theories "exist_{phys}", and form 
part of the furniture of the external objective physical world.

>
> No, that's when he get wrong, with respect of the computationalist
> hypothesis.

You equivocate on this point at different times. I said previously that, 
by definition, computationalism is inconsistent with physicalism. You 
denied this. But what you say here is exactly this.

...

>> So there is a very clear difference between the mathematical and
>> physical worlds.
>
> Yes, but science has not yet decided which is the most fundamental.

You agree, then, that computationalism is just a hypothesis and you 
reject physicalism, or the independent existence of an external physical 
world, simply because that disagrees with computationalism.

I don't think that your arguments that consciousness cannot be 
understood in terms of physical supervenience are very convincing. At 
all the crucial points you simply appeal to the computationalist 
hypothesis -- your argument is, at heart, circular.

..

>> So prime numbers might exist_{math}, but they do not exist_{phys}.
>
> Sure. I have not verified, but I do think the universal machine would
> say the same. Physical is a sophisticated internal view of arithmetic/
> There still might be too much much white rabbits, but prime numbers
> are not of the type "observable" there.

I think this claim needs some backing up. You have to actually derive at 
least some basic physical laws from your UD. Pointing to prime numbers 
is not enough. I think that the white rabbits will be your undoing.

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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

From: John Clark
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

> “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many
> times have you heard that one?

Once.

> Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

We do. Religion poisons everything.
No argument form me on that point. However a really surprising quantity of
terrorist acts (at least in Europe) are from one of the many separatist
militant groups operating in that continent, in such places such as Corsica,
the Basque regions etc. Places that have become folded into one nation state or
another with which they do not much get along.Chris
John K Clark

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-03-31 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' wrote:



>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
>


> “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How
> many times have you heard that one?


Once.

 > Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?


We do. Religion poisons everything.

  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.

Geenralised game playing

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

I hadn't come across this before. Another step towards AIhood...

General game players are computer systems able to play strategy games based
> solely on formal game descriptions supplied at "runtime".  (In other words,
> they don't know the rules until the game starts.)  Unlike specialized game
> players, such as Deep Blue, general game players cannot rely on algorithms
> designed in advance for specific games; they must discover such algorithms
> themselves.  General game playing expertise depends on intelligence on the
> part of the game player and not just intelligence of the programmer of the
> game player.


www.coursera.org/course/ggp

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

2015-03-31 Thread John Mikes

Friends,
 you ALL are bugged down into 2nd rate argumentation. Russell had the only
straight thought in his 2nd post so far (But his ideas come from Down
Under...).
We are in a fatal struggle facing every advancement (??) we made (and I
speak in the name of the so called 'western civilisation') over the past -
say - millennium to a brutal and ignorant force recognising only that 1500
y.o. script (lately barely understandable for recent readers) - and working
to behead all 'infidels'.
The so callable 'Islamist' dilemma centered on a Sunni - Shia divide, (not
really!) after AlQuaeda attacked the USA, then pro-activated African
countries in their behalf, the IS emerged as a forceful variant of it
against the Iraqi and Syrian Shia regimes - now combining with AlQuaeda
descendants (and many further variations) into ONE extremist front, which,
however, appears differently in various countries.
The USA (and several parts of Europe) (almost?) fight it, but also fights
their AND  it's own enemies: the Shiite Persians. Saudiland seems to use
Yemen as a springboard to lead the efforts, yet only against Shias, but
that may change soon.
The US-cooperation is well 'oiled' for those, who direct the policies
(including the highly profitable weapons industry and the destruction of
many Americans forced into far countries for such profits).
Is IS enough to win, or will they combine forces with the Saudis etc.,
maybe with the Shiites as well against the western world? And don't believe
Down Under is exempt from the catastroph.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:07 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:16 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
>
>
>
> Quentin, sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment. For
> example, during the Vietnam conflict, there were mass demonstrations
> against the war. The leaders of the antiwar movement were never pacifists,
> but sided with the communists, and especially what the soviets wanted. They
> never protested against the Soviets hold in eastern europe or soviet
> funding wars in the middle east, North Korea, or, especially the communist
> Khmer Rogue in Kapuchea, where a million were massacred, Stalin Style, Mao
> style. Silent, like the lambs, to paraphrase Hannibal Lecter. These
> anti-war types, because of their being not pacifists, but communist, in
> their ideology, remained silent, Similarly, the anti-war peeps of today
> support the Islamists. For personal example (a minor one) when I perused
> the IEET site, where in one professor of anthropology, wrote an article on
> that website, stating that the Hamas war against Israel was a Transhumanist
> cause. I challenged the fellow on this and pondered what Transhumanists can
> have in common with Hamas who believes in and enforces Shariah Law (and all
> that implies). Let us say the examples I raised met with objections there,
> where John Hughes likes things hard left. I ended up contacting a former
> manager of that site who confirmed my view (his moderate
> liberal-libertarian).
>
>
>
> You have a strange distorted understanding of history as it becomes when
> squeezed through the toothpaste tube of your ideological optic. You are
> living proof of the dangers of subjectivism, of how the act of wearing
> ideological blinders distorts reality into the weird paranoid production
> your mind perceives. You take partial facts, half-truths, fantastic
> interpretation and cook up a grand conspiracy in the feverish recesses of
> your mental reification of reality – as it becomes perceived through your
> distorted optic. Reality only seems this way to you because this is what
> your mind’s eye demands it should be.
>
> I love my country enough to criticize it; do you?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Now you may ask why would leftists who call themselves now, progressives,
> side with the Islamists? An incomplete explanation is the progressives hope
> the Islamists knock the crap out of the West, thus, leaving themselves as
> the beneficiaries of such a civilizational failure. Maybe its a knee-jerk
> reaction? I don't care anymore, I just view who sides with whom. For
> instance, there has never been a proposed boycott out of academia against
> Saudi, Qatar, Iran, Iraq (under Saddam) North Korea, etc. I am not trying
> to convince you (an impossible task) simply trying to point out the logical
> incongruity of being good with Islamist totalitarianism. I am surprised
> that our civilization has not erupted in massive violence, and right now
> the streets are quiet?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Quentin Anciaux 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 9:35 am
> Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-03-31 12:11 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


  From: spudboy100 via Everything List 
It's simple if you won't accept the perfidies of the Islamist nations/regions 
and their shariah laws, while viewing the US as the height of evil deeds in the 
world, there is no bridging this. I don't make up the verifiable truth and 
really that's all folks, as Porky would frequently say. So now what? Now, we 
live our lives and wait. Wait for what? For the coming big nasty that's likely 
going to interfere with our lives. It's like that dumb Leonard Cohen song, "We 
all Know.."  

I actually can't even parse what you are trying to say here, with your twisted 
syntax. Let me make it very clear to you Mitch -- I do not in any way shape or 
form support, sympathize or in any manner condone the actions of psychopath 
monsters who use Islam as a cover and justification for committing their crimes 
against humanity. 
It is both wearisome and insulting that you repeatedly continue attempt to 
insinuate and suggest that -- *somehow* I must be a sympathizer or supporter of 
the kind of religious fundamentalism -- that as a non-believer -- it would 
never even cross my mind to support.
Kindly cease and desist with your attempts to spread calumnious lies and 
falsehoods about me. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 1:26 pm
Subject: RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

#yiv3718273722 #yiv3718273722AOLMsgPart_2_e23c673a-0e91-471c-b68d-63f8dfcb3d5f 
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv3718273722 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 
2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3718273722 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 
3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3718273722 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 
2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
p.yiv3718273722MsoNormal, #yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
li.yiv3718273722MsoNormal, #yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
div.yiv3718273722MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody a:link, #yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody span.yiv3718273722MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody a:visited, #yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody span.yiv3718273722MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody pre 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody tt {}#yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
p.yiv3718273722MsoAcetate, #yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
li.yiv3718273722MsoAcetate, #yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
div.yiv3718273722MsoAcetate 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody span.yiv3718273722HTMLPreformattedChar 
{font-family:Consolas;}#yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody 
span.yiv3718273722EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody span.yiv3718273722BalloonTextChar 
{}#yiv3718273722 .yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody .yiv3718273722MsoChpDefault {} 
_filtered #yiv3718273722 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3718273722 
.yiv3718273722aolReplacedBody div.yiv3718273722WordSection1 {}      From: 
everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women   I feel you are too harsh on 
your own homeland, Chris, and Israel for that matter. You see our flaws and 
evils quite profoundly, but are lenient upon the varieties of jihadists abroad 
in the world today.  Excuse me! Show me this alleged “lenience” of mine… show 
me a single instance where I have been “lenient” (whatever that means) towards 
the this alleged Islamic menace you keep going on and on about. You are a 
polemicist Mitch, and you make up stuff about other people; a very bad habit of 
yours that you should really get a handle on.  Can I convince you of this, no, 
I positively suck as a salesman, an agitprop, a peddler. You may be correct 
about the horribleness of war, but there are worse things then merely war, and 
that is war combined with massacre, and massacre caused by religious 
fanaticism. To the left-mind, the most hideous thing is Christian intolerance 
and fundamentalism, and misbehaviors of the Islamists, is an understandable 
evil. To this point, we now have nation now polarized thoroughly. The Left has 
always (for 40 years) viewed the conservatives as their primary enemy, and 
behaved as such. Now, the Right has selected BHO as the primary enemy, 
according to a recent poll. You can never relent on your opinion, and neither 
will I. That's is likely something for an anthropologist to study. 

  -Original Message-
From: 'Chris

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


On 3/31/2015 3:55 AM, LizR wrote:
On 31 March 2015 at 23:31, Telmo Menezes > wrote:


Hi Liz,

You may be right. I am surely not going to debate that there are a lot of 
people who
were lucky enough to have been born in optimal conditions and feel superior 
to
people who were just less lucky. For this reason, they will support ideas 
that are
just self-serving rationalizations.

The problem with left/right polarization, in my opinion, is that it kills 
critical
thought.

It is possible to agree with everything you said, but also believe that the
strategies traditionally proposed by the left do not work. There are many
interesting ideas that are not taken seriously because they fall outside of 
this
dichotomy, for example:

- Guaranteed flat income for everyone, no exceptions, no special rules;
- A return to a resource-based currency and the end of central banks, thus
preventing they highly leveraged investments that generate economical 
crises and
only widen the gap between the rich and the poor;
- Deregulation of medicine, recongnizing that there is a trade-off between 
the
protections provided by regulation and the pricing-out of people out of 
medical care
due to barriers to competition introduced by said regulation;
- Confronting the lobbies that prevent modern technology from being used to 
create
dirt-cheap, comfortable housing.


I agree with you. I'm very sympathetic to anarchist views, which some of the 
above-mentioned are (more than left wing). I was only arguing for simple empathy for 
others, which right wingers seem to have deliberately cut themselves off from - to their 
own detriment as well as others'. I wasn't particularly actually /being/ a leftie, but I 
often get called one for espousing such ideas. But of course real lefties see me as to 
their right. (I have a similar problem with feminists...)


The "right-wing" in the U.S. seems to be a syncretic alliance of conservative 
authoritarians whose main purpose is maintain and even reenforce all existing hierarchies 
(rich over poor, white over black, men over women,...) and the libertarian individualists 
who just oppose government as a intrusion on freedom.  They became allied because FDR's 
New Deal and LBJ's Civil Rights act were both attempts by the federal government to upset 
hierarchies and restrict the freedom of the haves to keep the have-nots down.  The 
economic conservatives hated them because it threatened the power of the capitalist to 
exploit labor.  The social conservatives hated them because it threatened their superior 
social status relative to blacks, browns, jews, atheists,...  The libertarians hated them 
because they were coercive government actions that restricted freedom - even if it was 
freedom to be assholes.


Brent

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: Life in the Islamic State for women

It's simple if you won't accept the perfidies of the Islamist nations/regions 
and their shariah laws, while viewing the US as the height of evil deeds in the 
world, there is no bridging this. I don't make up the verifiable truth and 
really that's all folks, as Porky would frequently say. So now what? Now, we 
live our lives and wait. Wait for what? For the coming big nasty that's likely 
going to interfere with our lives. It's like that dumb Leonard Cohen song, "We 
all Know.."  

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 1:26 pm
Subject: RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

I feel you are too harsh on your own homeland, Chris, and Israel for that 
matter. You see our flaws and evils quite profoundly, but are lenient upon the 
varieties of jihadists abroad in the world today. 

Excuse me! Show me this alleged “lenience” of mine… show me a single instance 
where I have been “lenient” (whatever that means) towards the this alleged 
Islamic menace you keep going on and on about. You are a polemicist Mitch, and 
you make up stuff about other people; a very bad habit of yours that you should 
really get a handle on. 

Can I convince you of this, no, I positively suck as a salesman, an agitprop, a 
peddler. You may be correct about the horribleness of war, but there are worse 
things then merely war, and that is war combined with massacre, and massacre 
caused by religious fanaticism. To the left-mind, the most hideous thing is 
Christian intolerance and fundamentalism, and misbehaviors of the Islamists, is 
an understandable evil. To this point, we now have nation now polarized 
thoroughly. The Left has always (for 40 years) viewed the conservatives as 
their primary enemy, and behaved as such. Now, the Right has selected BHO as 
the primary enemy, according to a recent poll. You can never relent on your 
opinion, and neither will I. That's is likely something for an anthropologist 
to study. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 12:07 pm
Subject: RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

-Original Message-

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com

[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish

Sent:

Monday, March 30, 2015 9:23 PM

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject:

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM

-0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

> Well, its not the new jihadists

I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have

long, empowered, and made excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that

they see the jihadists worldwide as being able to topple their shared

"capitalist enemies."  Why else would somebody make excuses, constantly, for

jihadists, islamists, and their antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so

forth? The left in all lands serve as the Islamist enablers, and some are

billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I know this is divisive, but it's sadly,

accurate. Maybe, you left voters could start to vote for nationalist politicians

in your countries as a push-back against the jihadist-catering pols, academics,

and newsies? You could still be for social justice and spend for it, but

coddling the islamists by word and deed would need to be suppressed. They do

like modern weaponry, delivered into their hands by allah, to use against the

Qufars (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons. 

>>In which country are

the lefties apologists for jihadists and islamists? Not in mine. Almost

everybody I know is a "leftie", coz nobody here likes our current "rightie" PM,

but none of them support the IS.

In my opinion the only people who support

the IS are the fundamentalist psychopaths who have become drawn to it in the

first place and the war mongers -- especially in the US and Israel, who are

working in one capacity or another, for the war sector, for the MIC, which views

the IS as a nice PR entity to notch up support for another ten years of a

perpetual state of war -- and hence lock in future revenue streams for this

highly privileged sector of our highly distorted and definitely NOT free

market economy.

Chris

--

Prof

Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)

Principal, High

Performance Coders

Visiting Professor of Mathemati

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


On 3/31/2015 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi Liz,

You may be right. I am surely not going to debate that there are a lot of people who 
were lucky enough to have been born in optimal conditions and feel superior to people 
who were just less lucky. For this reason, they will support ideas that are just 
self-serving rationalizations.


The problem with left/right polarization, in my opinion, is that it kills 
critical thought.

It is possible to agree with everything you said, but also believe that the strategies 
traditionally proposed by the left do not work. There are many interesting ideas that 
are not taken seriously because they fall outside of this dichotomy, for example:


- Guaranteed flat income for everyone, no exceptions, no special rules;


I like that's well within the left camp.

- A return to a resource-based currency and the end of central banks, thus preventing 
they highly leveraged investments that generate economical crises and only widen the gap 
between the rich and the poor;


Leverage investments (essentially creating money) does a lot to stimulate economic and 
technical development too.


- Deregulation of medicine, recongnizing that there is a trade-off between the 
protections provided by regulation and the pricing-out of people out of medical care due 
to barriers to competition introduced by said regulation;


The barriers are to competition in production, i.e. patents. Without those barriers there 
would be much less incentive for development and research - which is wide open for 
competition, but very expensive.


- Confronting the lobbies that prevent modern technology from being used to create 
dirt-cheap, comfortable housing.


Moderns technology already has created dirt-cheap, comfortable housing - it's called a 
mobile home (or house trailer).  The problem with dirt-cheap is that dirt isn't cheap.  A 
home lot in Santa Monica, with a falling down house on it, goes for about 750K$.




I'm not sure if these ideas work in practice, but I am sure that they are not given 
serious consideration because of the traditional left/right lock-in on critical thought.


I'm not so sure that it's a lock on critical thought rather than a lock on political 
campaign funding.


Brent

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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:42, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Mar 2015, at 10:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:


OK. If all the connections and inputs remain intact, and the  
digital simulation is accurate, I don't see a problem. But I might  
object if the doctor plans to replace my brain with an abstract  
computation in Platonia
The doctor propose a real physical computer. Either a cheap PC or a  
more expensive MAC, but it is done with matter guarantied of  
stellar origin!


But what sort of program will it be running?


Anyone you agree on, discussing with your doctor, and that you can  
afford.





A physical simulation, or some abstract computationalist AI model?  
See my reply to Brent.


Given today's knowledge, I might say yes to a doctor making a machine  
simulating ell the main metabolism of all cells in the brain, neurons,  
glial cells and the bacteria.


But the reasoning does not depend on the level, only that one exist.  
See my previews post.







-- because I don't know what such a thing might be,

Nor do I.
and don't believe it actually exists absent some physical  
instantiation.
Do you thing prime numbers needs physics to exist? If yes, show me  
what is wrong in Euclid's proof, which define and prove the  
mathematical existence of the prime numbers without assuming  
anything physical.


I am assuming that Euclid, himself, is physical,


OK, but that is not part of Euclid's assumption. Euclid has convinced  
me that even if its parents never met, primes numbers would exist.



and that he devised the proof -- it did not drop into his lap  
unsought.


I agree that he has a physical body (indeed, an infinity), and that  
his mind explored a spirtitual or immaterial realm, the realm of  
numbers relation. Like I don't believe that telescopes created the  
galaxies, I don't believe Euclid's created the prime numbers.



In a phrase I have used before, It did not spring forth fully armed,  
like Athena from Zeus's brow. Numbers were a hard-won abstraction  
from everyday physical reality. They do not have any independent  
existence.


In which theory? What has independent existence?




As someone has said, you do not come across a number "5" running  
wild in the undergrowth.


I am not sure, when I run I might not count them, but five incarnate  
in my feet and hands all the time, and even if I did not have legs,  
like a snake, 5 would still be prime, independently of me thinking  
about it or not.






I know that many, if not most, mathematicians report that in their  
research it is as though they are exploring a landscape that exists  
-- they are discovering things that are already there, they are not  
constructing them. Hence most mathematicians are realists about  
mathematics, which is Platonism.


I am not such a "platonist" for mathematics, except for arithmetic, or  
even just its sigma_1 restricted part.


Then given we got Plato's theology for the self-introspecting machine,  
I prefer to reserve Platonism to that (which is much different from  
mathematical realism or arithmetical realism.


I am not set theoretical realist. The notion of sets is already  
epistemology in disguise. A very useful one, but I prefer to not  
assume infinite sets at the basic ontological level.







But I think we need to distinguish two senses in which something can  
be said to exist. There is mathematical existence, Exist_{math}, and  
physical existence, Exist_{phys}.


I agree. And those are quite different mode of existence.



These are not the same, and are not even approximately equivalent,  
although it might seem that way to a mathematician.



Only one who never think outside mathematics.





Exist_{math} is the set of all implications of a set of axioms and  
some rules of inference.



Not at all. That would give only a tiny sigma_1 set. Even arithmetic  
is larger than that, and non unifiable in any effective theory.


The arithmetical truth or reality is inexhaustible, and beyond all  
theories. machines can only scratch at the surface of the arithmetical  
reality.





It is not necessary that everything that exists_{math} can be proved  
as a theorem withing the system, or that the completeness and/or  
consistency of this system can ever be established. But it is an  
abstract system, and exist_{math} resides in Platonia, outside of  
any physical existence.


OK.






Exist_{phys} is the hardware of the universe.



OK. But then comp is false, there are zombies, etc.

If you get UDA, you will see that basic existence is number existence:  
what exists are just 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.

Plus the axioms given.

Then we can say that relations among number can 'exist" in the sense  
of being true, and sometimes provable, or not, by this or that machines.


The physical existence will be a different mode of existence, the  
ostensive confirmation by those multiplied on all computations.  
Physical existence will be defined by a more complex self)referenti

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/30/2015 10:17 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

On 3/28/2015 11:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno has acknowledged that this is not what the MGA shows. MGA  
simply shows that his version of computationalism is incompatible  
with physical supervenience. This cannot be seen as surprising  
since it is explicitly built into computationalism that  
physicalism is false.


That's not my understanding.  Bruno's argument starts with  
assuming that a part, or all, of your brain could be replaced by a  
digital AI with the same I/O and if done at a suitably low level  
of detail (probably neuronal) you conscious inner life would be  
essentially the same.  That seems to me to be assuming physicalism  
as the basis of consciousness.


This contradicts what you say below about Bruno assuming that only  
certain special processes institute consciousness.


He's trying a reductio.  So he assumes physicalism - that some  
physical processes produce consciousness (not just any physical  
process) - and tried to reach the absurdity that the physical  
process can be a do-nothing process.




I think there is an ambiguity, or uncertainty, about just what the  
program that is to replace part or all of your brain does. If the  
program is just a simulation of the actual physical brain, neuron  
by neuron, synapse by synapse, so that that physical laws that  
govern the behaviour of these brain elements are instantiated by  
the computer, and act on the initial data given by the state of the  
brain when the program is started, then there will be no essential  
difference between the program and the brain it replaces. In this  
case you might say "Yes, doctor", with some confidence. The  
necessary programming would presumably be well understood since the  
brain is deterministic at the level with which we are concerned,  
and the physical/chemical laws can be determined. If the initial  
state can be ascertained with sufficient precision without killing  
you, then the simulated computer brain substitute acts just like  
the original, so should give no problems.


This understanding is based on the idea that consciousness  
supervenes on the processes and states of the physical brain. These  
have been replaced by equivalent physical processes, so  
consciousness should remain intact. There is no appeal to  
computationalism here.


Sure there is; it's the requirement that the computer compute the  
equivalent physical processes.  They are equivalent in the sense of  
producing the same sequence of states (at whatever level they are  
simulated).


The simulating computer has to perform many detailed calculations  
to carry through the operation of known physical laws on the  
initial data, but I don't think anyone is saying that consciousness  
supervenes on such calculations.


I think they are.  In fact didn't you say so above: "...then the  
simulated computer brain substitute acts just like the original, so  
should give no problems."  Are you making some distinction between  
simulating the brain and simulating the physics of the brain?




The other approach is to assume that the computer used to replace  
your brain is running a true AI program. It is not simulating the  
physical processes piece by piece, but running some black box  
program that has been shown to reproduce known brain outputs for  
some range of suitable inputs. The program is presumably supposed  
to implement the universal TM computations upon which consciousness  
supervenes independently of the underlying hardware/wetware. If  
this is the model you have in mind, then the computationalist model  
directly contradicts physical supervenience, right from the outset.


No, as I understand it Bruno is assuming the doctor replaces all or  
part of your brain with a digital device (or even an analog one so  
long as it's function doesn't depend on infinite precision) that  
computes the same I/O function at it's interface with the rest of you.




Now, I think the interesting question to ask is: "Given these two  
different implementations of the brain replacing program, would you  
have equal confidence in both possibilities?"


I think the answer would, in general, be "No!". The program that  
assumes physical supervenience can be tested element by element, so  
that once it has been shown to truly follow the known chemical and  
physical laws, and accurately reproduces the structure of your  
actual brain, it will be counterfactually correct, and could be  
trusted into the future.


The alternative, computationalist model cannot be tested in this  
way. Basically because it is necessarily holistic. Consciousness is  
assumed to supervene on a particular type of computation, but is  
your computationalist program the same as mine? How do we know? I  
do not think the we could ever guarantee that such an AI device was  
counterfactually correct for /your/ brain. Many artificial learni

RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

Regarding the subject of terrorism here is an eye opening article that 
quantifies it and gives a different perspective on it than is usually presented 
in the military industrial complex owned mass media. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.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: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:31 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

I feel you are too harsh on your own homeland, Chris, and Israel for that 
matter. You see our flaws and evils quite profoundly, but are lenient upon the 
varieties of jihadists abroad in the world today. 

Excuse me! Show me this alleged “lenience” of mine… show me a single instance 
where I have been “lenient” (whatever that means) towards the this alleged 
Islamic menace you keep going on and on about. You are a polemicist Mitch, and 
you make up stuff about other people; a very bad habit of yours that you should 
really get a handle on. 

Can I convince you of this, no, I positively suck as a salesman, an agitprop, a 
peddler. You may be correct about the horribleness of war, but there are worse 
things then merely war, and that is war combined with massacre, and massacre 
caused by religious fanaticism. To the left-mind, the most hideous thing is 
Christian intolerance and fundamentalism, and misbehaviors of the Islamists, is 
an understandable evil. To this point, we now have nation now polarized 
thoroughly. The Left has always (for 40 years) viewed the conservatives as 
their primary enemy, and behaved as such. Now, the Right has selected BHO as 
the primary enemy, according to a recent poll. You can never relent on your 
opinion, and neither will I. That's is likely something for an anthropologist 
to study. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 12:07 pm
Subject: RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 ] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent:
Monday, March 30, 2015 9:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM
-0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> Well, its not the new jihadists
I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have
long, empowered, and made excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that
they see the jihadists worldwide as being able to topple their shared
"capitalist enemies."  Why else would somebody make excuses, constantly, for
jihadists, islamists, and their antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so
forth? The left in all lands serve as the Islamist enablers, and some are
billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I know this is divisive, but it's sadly,
accurate. Maybe, you left voters could start to vote for nationalist politicians
in your countries as a push-back against the jihadist-catering pols, academics,
and newsies? You could still be for social justice and spend for it, but
coddling the islamists by word and deed would need to be suppressed. They do
like modern weaponry, delivered into their hands by allah, to use against the
Qufars (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons. 

>>In which country are
the lefties apologists for jihadists and islamists? Not in mine. Almost
everybody I know is a "leftie", coz nobody here likes our current "rightie" PM,
but none of them support the IS.

In my opinion the only people who support
the IS are the fundamentalist psychopaths who have become drawn to it in the
first place and the war mongers -- especially in the US and Israel, who are
working in one capacity or another, for the war sector, for the MIC, which views
the IS as a nice PR entity to notch up support for another ten years of a
perpetual state of war -- and hence lock in future revenue streams for this
highly privileged sector of our highly distorted and definitely NOT free
market economy.
Chris

--

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.

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

RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 7:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

Quentin, sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment. For 
example, during the Vietnam conflict, there were mass demonstrations against 
the war. The leaders of the antiwar movement were never pacifists, but sided 
with the communists, and especially what the soviets wanted. They never 
protested against the Soviets hold in eastern europe or soviet funding wars in 
the middle east, North Korea, or, especially the communist Khmer Rogue in 
Kapuchea, where a million were massacred, Stalin Style, Mao style. Silent, like 
the lambs, to paraphrase Hannibal Lecter. These anti-war types, because of 
their being not pacifists, but communist, in their ideology, remained silent, 
Similarly, the anti-war peeps of today support the Islamists. For personal 
example (a minor one) when I perused the IEET site, where in one professor of 
anthropology, wrote an article on that website, stating that the Hamas war 
against Israel was a Transhumanist cause. I challenged the fellow on this and 
pondered what Transhumanists can have in common with Hamas who believes in and 
enforces Shariah Law (and all that implies). Let us say the examples I raised 
met with objections there, where John Hughes likes things hard left. I ended up 
contacting a former manager of that site who confirmed my view (his moderate 
liberal-libertarian). 

You have a strange distorted understanding of history as it becomes when 
squeezed through the toothpaste tube of your ideological optic. You are living 
proof of the dangers of subjectivism, of how the act of wearing ideological 
blinders distorts reality into the weird paranoid production your mind 
perceives. You take partial facts, half-truths, fantastic interpretation and 
cook up a grand conspiracy in the feverish recesses of your mental reification 
of reality – as it becomes perceived through your distorted optic. Reality only 
seems this way to you because this is what your mind’s eye demands it should be.

I love my country enough to criticize it; do you?

Chris

Now you may ask why would leftists who call themselves now, progressives, side 
with the Islamists? An incomplete explanation is the progressives hope the 
Islamists knock the crap out of the West, thus, leaving themselves as the 
beneficiaries of such a civilizational failure. Maybe its a knee-jerk reaction? 
I don't care anymore, I just view who sides with whom. For instance, there has 
never been a proposed boycott out of academia against Saudi, Qatar, Iran, Iraq 
(under Saddam) North Korea, etc. I am not trying to convince you (an impossible 
task) simply trying to point out the logical incongruity of being good with 
Islamist totalitarianism. I am surprised that our civilization has not erupted 
in massive violence, and right now the streets are quiet?

-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 12:11 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : 

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

2015-03-31 10:37 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Russell Standish  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, 
> politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made excuses for 
> these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists worldwide as 
> being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies."  Why else would 
> somebody make excuses, constantly, for jihadists, islamists, and their 
> antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so forth? The left in all lands serve 
> as the Islamist enablers, and some are billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I 
> know this is divisive, but it's sadly, accurate. Maybe, you left voters could 
> start to vote for nationalist politicians in your countries as a push-back 
> against the jihadist-catering pols, academics, and newsies? You could still 
> be for social justice and spend for it, but coddling the islamists by word 
> and deed would need to be suppressed. They do like modern weaponry, delivered 
> into their hands by allah, to use against the Qufars (all of us). This now 
> includes NBC weapons.

In which country are the lefties apologists for jihadists and 
islamists? 

It is fairly common in Europe. 

Hi Quentin, 

First of all, I don't agree with any of the stuff spudboy wrote, except for 
this detail. The right-wing in Europe is rather terrible and I have no sympathy 
for their xenophobic inclinations. 

Which countries in Europe ? 

>From my personal experience: Portugal, France and Germany. Not so sure about 
>the UK. 

Because I know

Re: The MGA revisited



On 31 Mar 2015, at 07:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:


meekerdb wrote:

On 3/28/2015 11:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno has acknowledged that this is not what the MGA shows. MGA  
simply shows that his version of computationalism is incompatible  
with physical supervenience. This cannot be seen as surprising  
since it is explicitly built into computationalism that  
physicalism is false.
That's not my understanding.  Bruno's argument starts with assuming  
that a part, or all, of your brain could be replaced by a digital  
AI with the same I/O and if done at a suitably low level of detail  
(probably neuronal) you conscious inner life would be essentially  
the same.  That seems to me to be assuming physicalism as the basis  
of consciousness.


This contradicts what you say below about Bruno assuming that only  
certain special processes institute consciousness.


I think there is an ambiguity, or uncertainty, about just what the  
program that is to replace part or all of your brain does. If the  
program is just a simulation of the actual physical brain, neuron by  
neuron, synapse by synapse, so that that physical laws that govern  
the behaviour of these brain elements are instantiated by the  
computer, and act on the initial data given by the state of the  
brain when the program is started, then there will be no essential  
difference between the program and the brain it replaces. In this  
case you might say "Yes, doctor", with some confidence. The  
necessary programming would presumably be well understood since the  
brain is deterministic at the level with which we are concerned, and  
the physical/chemical laws can be determined. If the initial state  
can be ascertained with sufficient precision without killing you,  
then the simulated computer brain substitute acts just like the  
original, so should give no problems.


This understanding is based on the idea that consciousness  
supervenes on the processes and states of the physical brain. These  
have been replaced by equivalent physical processes, so  
consciousness should remain intact. There is no appeal to  
computationalism here. The simulating computer has to perform many  
detailed calculations to carry through the operation of known  
physical laws on the initial data, but I don't think anyone is  
saying that consciousness supervenes on such calculations.


The other approach is to assume that the computer used to replace  
your brain is running a true AI program. It is not simulating the  
physical processes piece by piece, but running some black box  
program that has been shown to reproduce known brain outputs for  
some range of suitable inputs. The program is presumably supposed to  
implement the universal TM computations upon which consciousness  
supervenes independently of the underlying hardware/wetware. If this  
is the model you have in mind, then the computationalist model  
directly contradicts physical supervenience, right from the outset.


Now, I think the interesting question to ask is: "Given these two  
different implementations of the brain replacing program, would you  
have equal confidence in both possibilities?"


I think the answer would, in general, be "No!". The program that  
assumes physical supervenience can be tested element by element, so  
that once it has been shown to truly follow the known chemical and  
physical laws, and accurately reproduces the structure of your  
actual brain, it will be counterfactually correct, and could be  
trusted into the future.


The alternative, computationalist model cannot be tested in this  
way. Basically because it is necessarily holistic. Consciousness is  
assumed to supervene on a particular type of computation, but is  
your computationalist program the same as mine? How do we know? I do  
not think the we could ever guarantee that such an AI device was  
counterfactually correct for /your/ brain. Many artificial learning  
programs, based on neural nets or the like, can be trained to  
perform with great reproducibility on the training data set, but  
fail miserably once one goes outside this data set. They are not  
counterfactually correct, and I do not know how you could ever  
ensure the necessary counterfactual correctness, even if you did  
imagine that you knew precisely the sort of computation upon which  
consciousness supervened.


So I would reject the computationalist program right at the start --  
I would not say "Yes, doctor" to that sort of AI program.


Nor do I.
That is why I say that my definition of computationalism is weaker  
than most in the literature.
Computationalism, as I defined it, assumes only the existence of a  
level of substitution such that you survive with a digital (Turing  
emulable) functional substitution made at that level.


In the six first step of the UD argument, I suppose the level high  
(but still describing the biology of neurons and glials cells), to  
make the reasoning more easy. But the conclusion h

Re: Where does the UTM comes from? (Was Re: Something from nothing -- my attempt of derivation of a UTM.

2015-03-31 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015  LizR  wrote:

> There is a "recording" of your life experience and mine in pi, and also
> in e .
>

Yes.

> > What breathes fire into the recordings?
>

I have 2 ideas about that but it's pure speculation and I'm probably
talking Bullshit:

1) There is certainly a relationship between the diameter and the
circumference of a circle but maybe it's not a real number, maybe the Real
Numbers don't exist and only the idea of them does. In fact some say that
space itself is quantized, if that's true could you even say that circles
exist?  Some things written in the English language do not exist so If
mathematics is a language then perhaps the Real Numbers are a mathematical
Harry Potter Novel.

2) Perhaps in this context "fire" means a lack of noise. Assuming that the
Real Numbers exist there is a sequence of digits in pi that contains my
life experience, but there are a large number of other sequences that do
not, a very very very large number of them. Perhaps there is a way to give
a value, including a negative value, to all the sequences in pi depending
on how close they were to John Clark's life experience. Then if you could
find a way to sum up all those values, maybe in a way analogous to
Feynman's sum over histories method, you'd get a value close to zero and so
conclude that pi has very little to do with me. But if you did the same
thing with my brain you'd get a value very close to 1.

  John K Clark

> A UTM - which has to be instantiated in some sense (not necessairly
> physical). Somehow this works by takeing one set of numbers relative to
> another, however the margin of my brain isn't large enough to quite
> undersand how that works.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

I feel you are too harsh on your own homeland, Chris, and Israel for that 
matter. You see our flaws and evils quite profoundly, but are lenient upon the 
varieties of jihadists abroad in the world today. Can I convince you of this, 
no, I positively suck as a salesman, an agitprop, a peddler. You may be correct 
about the horribleness of war, but there are worse things then merely war, and 
that is war combined with massacre, and massacre caused by religious 
fanaticism. To the left-mind, the most hideous thing is Christian intolerance 
and fundamentalism, and misbehaviors of the Islamists, is an understandable 
evil. To this point, we now have nation now polarized thoroughly. The Left has 
always (for 40 years) viewed the conservatives as their primary enemy, and 
behaved as such. Now, the Right has selected BHO as the primary enemy, 
according to a recent poll. You can never relent on your opinion, and neither 
will I. That's is likely something for an anthropologist to study. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 12:07 pm
Subject: RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent:
Monday, March 30, 2015 9:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM
-0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> Well, its not the new jihadists
I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have
long, empowered, and made excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that
they see the jihadists worldwide as being able to topple their shared
"capitalist enemies."  Why else would somebody make excuses, constantly, for
jihadists, islamists, and their antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so
forth? The left in all lands serve as the Islamist enablers, and some are
billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I know this is divisive, but it's sadly,
accurate. Maybe, you left voters could start to vote for nationalist politicians
in your countries as a push-back against the jihadist-catering pols, academics,
and newsies? You could still be for social justice and spend for it, but
coddling the islamists by word and deed would need to be suppressed. They do
like modern weaponry, delivered into their hands by allah, to use against the
Qufars (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons. 

>>In which country are
the lefties apologists for jihadists and islamists? Not in mine. Almost
everybody I know is a "leftie", coz nobody here likes our current "rightie" PM,
but none of them support the IS.

In my opinion the only people who support
the IS are the fundamentalist psychopaths who have become drawn to it in the
first place and the war mongers -- especially in the US and Israel, who are
working in one capacity or another, for the war sector, for the MIC, which views
the IS as a nice PR entity to notch up support for another ten years of a
perpetual state of war -- and hence lock in future revenue streams for this
highly privileged sector of our highly distorted and definitely NOT free
market economy.
Chris

--

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.

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

RE: Life in the Islamic State for women



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
> Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, 
> politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made excuses for 
> these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists worldwide as 
> being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies."  Why else would 
> somebody make excuses, constantly, for jihadists, islamists, and their 
> antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so forth? The left in all lands serve 
> as the Islamist enablers, and some are billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I 
> know this is divisive, but it's sadly, accurate. Maybe, you left voters could 
> start to vote for nationalist politicians in your countries as a push-back 
> against the jihadist-catering pols, academics, and newsies? You could still 
> be for social justice and spend for it, but coddling the islamists by word 
> and deed would need to be suppressed. They do like modern weaponry, delivered 
> into their hands by allah, to use against the Qufars (all of us). This now 
> includes NBC weapons. 

>>In which country are the lefties apologists for jihadists and islamists? Not 
>>in mine. Almost everybody I know is a "leftie", coz nobody here likes our 
>>current "rightie" PM, but none of them support the IS.

In my opinion the only people who support the IS are the fundamentalist 
psychopaths who have become drawn to it in the first place and the war mongers 
-- especially in the US and Israel, who are working in one capacity or another, 
for the war sector, for the MIC, which views the IS as a nice PR entity to 
notch up support for another ten years of a perpetual state of war -- and hence 
lock in future revenue streams for this highly privileged sector of our highly 
distorted and definitely NOT free market economy.
Chris

-- 


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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Something from nothing -- my attempt of derivation of a UTM.

2015-03-31 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015  LizR  wrote:

 > it isn't the empty box that is nothing, it's the contents of the box
>

The contents of the box is a vacuum and that is far from nothing, it's
seething with virtual particles.

> > I don't see that talking about nothingness renders it into something.
>

The only way to describe nothing is to say what it is not, so although
nothing is not something the 2 are inextricably linked. And the best short
answer that modern physics can give as to why there is something rather
than nothing is that nothing is unstable.

> > I could talk about pink unicorns, for example
>

Therefore the idea of pink unicorns exists, but pink unicorns probably
don't. The idea of Real Numbers certainly exists but it's not known if Real
Numbers exist.

  John K Clark

> withouthang on what's the neighing sound outside my window? Excuse me
> a moment.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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: The MGA revisited

2015-03-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 30 Mar 2015, at 22:28, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2015, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fading qualia in the setting of normal behaviour, if logically
>>> possible, would destroy the common idea of consciousness that we have.
>>> It would mean, for example, that you could have gone blind last week
>>> but not realise it. You would look at a painting, describe the
>>> painting, have an emotional response to the painting - but lack any
>>> visual experience of the painting. If that is possible, what meaning
>>> is left to attribute to the word "qualia"?
>>>
>>> Well, it would mean that comp is false, because the electronic
>> replacements are not generating any conscious experience despite having
>> their I/O matched to the rest of the brain.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, there would be p-zombies. Behaving like conscious person, but
>> without any private knowledge, qualia, sensation or consciousness.
>>
>
> And there would also be the possibility of partial p-zombies, which would
> mean that private knowledge, qualia, sensation and consciousness make no
> subjective difference, or equivalently that they don't exist.
>
>
> Yes, and this eventually show that we can believe in non-computationalism
> if we are ready to believe in zombies, and partial zombies.
>
> Bruno
>
> *Did you survive with the artificial brain? "Oh, yes, no doubt about that,
> I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no
> difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference
> ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference ... cling
> ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh,
> yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no
> doubt about that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt
> about that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about
> that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I
> feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no
> difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference
> ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no difference ... cling
> ... *
>

A partial zombie would mean that you do feel different but you don't notice
that you feel different. This applies not only to a difference you might
conceivably not notice, like colour reversal, but to a gross sensory or
cognitive deficit, such as going completely blind or losing the ability to
understand language. It seems to me that if you allow that such things can
happen without you or anyone else noticing then the whole idea of
consciousness is spurious.


-- 
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: The MGA revisited



On 30 Mar 2015, at 23:05, LizR wrote:

On 31 March 2015 at 09:28, Stathis Papaioannou   
wrote:


On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 30 Mar 2015, at 10:06, LizR wrote:
On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou   
wrote:

Fading qualia in the setting of normal behaviour, if logically
possible, would destroy the common idea of consciousness that we  
have.

It would mean, for example, that you could have gone blind last week
but not realise it. You would look at a painting, describe the
painting, have an emotional response to the painting - but lack any
visual experience of the painting. If that is possible, what meaning
is left to attribute to the word "qualia"?

Well, it would mean that comp is false, because the electronic  
replacements are not generating any conscious experience despite  
having their I/O matched to the rest of the brain.
Yes, there would be p-zombies. Behaving like conscious person, but  
without any private knowledge, qualia, sensation or consciousness.


And there would also be the possibility of partial p-zombies, which  
would mean that private knowledge, qualia, sensation and  
consciousness make no subjective difference, or equivalently that  
they don't exist.


Yes, exactly, partial zombies. This is sounding like Daniel  
Dennett's view, that consciousness etc don't "really" exist but are  
a sort of illusion or "user interface" or like "elan vital", some  
mysterious ineffable property that science will do away with once we  
understand enough. I don't necessarily believe this, but I need more  
than "an argument from incredulity" to convince me that it's wrong.


The doctor: Ah! Mister Dennett, I guess you don't need an anesthesia  
for the operation, as consciousness and thus pain (the qualia which is  
painful) are just an ineffable illusion.

Dennett: h, please stop, I can't bear that...
The doctor: Ah! I see you are trying to trick me,  ... like if you  
would be conscious of anything, aren't you? But your book convinced me  
that pain, well, that's all in your head.


Stathis gave a better explanation, but if I can conceive that anything  
I see and measure, or reason about, might be an illusion, I can't  
conceive that consciousness is an illusion, because to have a genuine  
illusion you need a conscious person to be deluded. An unconscious  
illusion does not make sense.


Bruno

The magician: and here is my favorite trick.
The public, but we saw nothing.
The magician: that is the trick, I made an elephant from nowhere, and  
then I make  the elephant *and* the illusion of the elephant  
disappear. Few magicians can do that.  I can even make disappear the  
entire show, do you want to see?







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

To post to this group, send email to everything-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: The MGA revisited



On 30 Mar 2015, at 22:28, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 30 Mar 2015, at 10:06, LizR wrote:

On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou   
wrote:

Fading qualia in the setting of normal behaviour, if logically
possible, would destroy the common idea of consciousness that we  
have.

It would mean, for example, that you could have gone blind last week
but not realise it. You would look at a painting, describe the
painting, have an emotional response to the painting - but lack any
visual experience of the painting. If that is possible, what meaning
is left to attribute to the word "qualia"?

Well, it would mean that comp is false, because the electronic  
replacements are not generating any conscious experience despite  
having their I/O matched to the rest of the brain.



Yes, there would be p-zombies. Behaving like conscious person, but  
without any private knowledge, qualia, sensation or consciousness.


And there would also be the possibility of partial p-zombies, which  
would mean that private knowledge, qualia, sensation and  
consciousness make no subjective difference, or equivalently that  
they don't exist.


Yes, and this eventually show that we can believe in non- 
computationalism if we are ready to believe in zombies, and partial  
zombies.


Bruno

Did you survive with the artificial brain? "Oh, yes, no doubt about  
that, I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that,  
I feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I  
feel no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel  
no difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ... Oh, yes, no doubt about that, I feel no  
difference ... cling ...







That would mean there is something else involved, something that  
isn't generated by computation.



That would entail that indeed.

But computationalism is not claiming that there is not something  
else involved, indeed the "true" relations, as in the difference  
between []p & p and []p. This relates the machine to a non nameable  
first person knower.


I think Brent intuit this. He use the term "our world" for that, and  
this is the "<>t" added to the []p to get a "physical world" (before  
"comp" which will be the restriction of the sigma_1 sentences). It  
is an indexical conception of world: this reality (in which I  
believe).


Consciousness and computation are not related to the static  
representations but in their true relations.


The sigma_1 relations, and only them, verifies p <-> []p, the logic  
avoids collapse, because <>p is not sigma_1.
So, those sigma_1 relation collapse truth and representations, at  
that level, but self-reference and measurement complexifies the logic.


Truth extends computability, in fact provability extends  
computability, in the constructive or not, transfinite. But Truth  
extends properly all machines' provabilities,  or the locally  
effective sets of belief, as the machine can discover when  
introspecting itself (in the Gödel, Post, Kleene manner).


I might need to explain to you the difference, that you might know  
well, but still discard from the theory, between the truth that 2 +  
2 = 4, and a proof of this, for example provided by some proving  
machine.


Then you need to understand the working of a computer, or of any  
universal (Turing) system, and understand how they all can implement  
each others. Given that elementary arithmetic is such a system, a  
computation can be defined by relations between numbers.


At the sigma_1 (or sigma_0) level truth fuse with provability, but  
when machine looks at themselves the complexity crops well above the  
sigma_1 level, and the relations between p and []p get, well, more  
complicated (that is why we get 8 hypostases).


Consistency (<>t) is Pi_1 and is the typical truth about the machine  
that the machine cannot justified about herself: but she can  
discover the fact as she can justified <>t -> ~[]<>t, and actually  
missing []<>t.  With the Plato lexicon this gives all Protagorean  
virtue including intelligence (by the definition I gave).


The protagorean virtue are those which leads to the contrary when  
(self, or not!) asserted: they are the proposition or state  
attribute obeying []x -> ~x. Like moral, happiness, conscience,  
intelligence, love, security, and also the unnameable attributes.


Smullyan's "Forever Undecidable" is a good introduction to the logic  
o

Re: The MGA revisited



On 30 Mar 2015, at 13:31, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Best guess on my part. Platonia produces physicalism



Well, you mean produces the appearance of a physical world (not: the  
appearance that a physical world explains everything!)





, via constant computation {unproven}


No, that is what is proven. You don't need platonisme.  The existence  
of the computations is a theorem. You need only to agree with x and y  
arbitrary natural numbers:


0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y

x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)

x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1

x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x





and yields the universe.


This remains to be seen. The point is that with computationalism, it  
*has* to.




Platonia is more real then 3 and 4 D space that we are created from.  
Steinhart's theory- we are a data stream-process, that gets promoted  
to another hypercomputer. Control-Alt-Delete! Aristotle versus  
Plato, Berkeley versus Newton. They both win.


I would say that with comp and QM, Plato marked two times. The current  
Aristotle/Plato match is 0:2, in soccer terms.


Of course, that match is only one in a vaster divine cup :)

Bruno





-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 29, 2015 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: The MGA revisited

On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett   
wrote:


As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have  
not yet seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind.


One reason that has been suggested is the "unreasonable  
effectiveness" of maths as a description of physics. This is Max  
Tegmark's argument for the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". To  
take this to its logical conclusion, if we ever formulate a theory  
that (as far as we know) describes everything that exists - a real  
live TOE - then, Tegmark would say, what is there that distinguishes  
the universe from the, by hypothesis completely accurate,  
description? His conclusion is nothing, and since the maths  
description is simpler than the observed universe, the scientific  
conclusion is that what we observe is a part of a multiverse  
containing all outcomes of the TOE (this is a bit like Russell's  
TON, with the equations of the TOE as the "almost nothing" that  
actually exists) - and that assuming the universe is anything more  
than just "What the maths looks like from the inside" is unnecessary  
- and untestable - metaphysical speculation.


However we don't have such a TOE as yet, so it's possible it will  
turn out to be non-mathematical, in which case Max's argument will  
sink without trace.


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

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

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

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


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



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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 30 Mar 2015, at 02:57, LizR wrote:

On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett   
wrote:


As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have  
not yet seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind.


One reason that has been suggested is the "unreasonable  
effectiveness" of maths as a description of physics. This is Max  
Tegmark's argument for the "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis". To  
take this to its logical conclusion, if we ever formulate a theory  
that (as far as we know) describes everything that exists - a real  
live TOE - then, Tegmark would say, what is there that distinguishes  
the universe from the, by hypothesis completely accurate,  
description? His conclusion is nothing, and since the maths  
description is simpler than the observed universe, the scientific  
conclusion is that what we observe is a part of a multiverse  
containing all outcomes of the TOE (this is a bit like Russell's  
TON, with the equations of the TOE as the "almost nothing" that  
actually exists) - and that assuming the universe is anything more  
than just "What the maths looks like from the inside" is unnecessary  
- and untestable - metaphysical speculation.


?
On the contary: what arithmetic looks from inside can be made precise  
when the observer is assumed to be Turing emulable. The math is  
computer science, with the mathematical definition of computer.


Then the math, to be short, says: it looks like Parmenides, Plotinus,  
and the mystics. It feels like there is:


1)a big ONE without a name, a part of which is
2) the Intelligible part (and that part is actually far bigger or far  
more complex than the big ONE, which is relatively simple), and then  
there is
3) the universal soul, which is the fire in the equation, and actually  
makes a lot of mess in Platonia, but perhaps the worst is to come, as  
there are:

4) the intelligible matter (death and taxes), and
5) the sensible matter  (which can hurt).

Those are the five hypotheses of Parmenides, and they are recovered  
with the nuances:


p
[]p
[]p & p
[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p

That gives eight important distinct modes in which a universal machine  
can see herself and the math which encompass her. (8, not 5, as three  
modes inherit the G/G*split).





However we don't have such a TOE as yet,


Hmm... I guess you have lost your notes diary again.

With computationalism, it is a fair simplification to say that each  
universal machine is a TOE. Any first order specification of any one  
among them would do the same job, and lead to the same mind-body  
problem, and the same mind and body solution, but I have chosen  
"elementary arithmetic" and "SK-combinators" to fix the things.


An excellent introduction to the SK-combinators is the book "How to  
mock a mockingbird?" by Raymond Smullyan.


I could have chosen any UTM, including you or Winston Churchill, any  
one would do. Well, better to use a TOE which is simple, so that we  
can trust that its elementary assumption/belief make sense.


Bruno

The governement: We have to cut the budget of education to pay the  
soldiers.

Churchill: Then tell me what the soldiers are supposed to fight for.






so it's possible it will turn out to be non-mathematical, in which  
case Max's argument will sink without trace.



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

To post to this group, send email to everything-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: The MGA revisited



On 29 Mar 2015, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/29/2015 1:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Le 29 mars 2015 09:03, "Bruce Kellett"   
a écrit :

>
> meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 3/28/2015 11:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>> meekerdb wrote:

 On 3/28/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> meekerdb wrote:
>
> The calculation written out on paper is a static thing, but  
the result of that calculation might still be part of a simulation  
that produces consciousness. Though, unless Barbour is right and  
the actuality of time can be statically encoded in his 'time  
capsules (current memories of past instances)', I was thinking in  
terms of a sequence of these states (however calculated).



 Yes, I agree that the computation should not have to halt  
(compute a function) in order to instantiate consciousness; it can  
just be a sequence of states.  Written out on paper it can be a  
sequence of states ordered by position on the paper.  But that  
seems absurd, unless you think of it as consciousness in the  
context of a world that is also written out on the paper, such that  
the writing that is conscious is /*conscious of*/ this written out  
world.

>>>
>>>
>>> My present conscious state includes visual, auditory and  
tactile inputs -- these are part of the simulation.But they  
need simulate only the effect on my brain states during that moment  
-- they do not have to simulate the entire world that gave rise to  
these inputs. The recreated conscuious state is not  
counterfactually accurate in this respect, but so what? I am  
reproducing a few conscious moments, not a fully functional person.

>>
>>
>> But isn't it the case that your brain evolved/learned to  
interpret and be conscious of these stimuli only because it exists  
in the context of this world?

>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
 But in the MGA (or Olympia) we are asked to consider a device  
which is a conscious AI and then we are led to suppose a radically  
broken version of it works even though it is reduced to playing  
back a record of its processes.  I think the playback of the record  
fails to produce consciousness because it is not counterfactually  
correct and hence is not actually realizing the states of the AI -  
those states essentially include that some branches were not taken.  
Maudlin's invention of Klara is intended to overcome this objection  
and provide a counterfactually correct but physically inert  
sequence of states.  But I think it Maudlin underestimates the  
problem of context and the additions necessary for counterfactual  
correctness will extend far beyond "the brain" and entail a  
"world".  These additions come for free when we say "Yes" to the  
doctor replacing part of our brain because the rest of the world  
that gave us context is still there.  The doctor doesn't remove it.

>>>
>>>
>>> In the "yes doctor" scenario as reported by Russell, it talks  
only about replacing your brain with an AI program on a computer.  
It does not mention connecting this to sense organs capable of  
reproducing all the inputs one normally gets from the world. If  
this is not clearly specified, I would certainly say 'No' to the  
doctor. There is little point or future in being a functioning  
brain without external inputs. As I recall sensory deprivation  
experiments, subjects rapidly subside into a meaningless cycle of  
states -- or go mad -- in the absence of sensory stimulation.

>>
>>
>> The question as posed by Bruno, is whether you will say yes to  
the doctor replacing part of your brain with a digital device that  
has the connections to the rest of your brain/body and which  
implements the same input/output function for those connections.   
Would that leave your consciousness unchanged?

>
>
> OK. If all the connections and inputs remain intact, and the  
digital simulation is accurate, I don't see a problem. But I might  
object if the doctor plans to replace my brain with an abstract  
computation in Platonia -- because I don't know what such a thing  
might be, and don't believe it actually exists absent some physical  
instantiation.

>
> As you see, I believe in physicalism, not in Platonia. And I have  
not yet seen any argument that might lead me to change my mind.


Then as a MGA shows that computations do not supervene in realtime  
on the physical,  then as a physicalistyou simply have to  
reject computationalism as a theory of mind.


The thing is no one is giving arguments to believe one or  
another... Bruno  did only show both assumptions cannot be true at  
the same time, he chose to keep for the sake of the theory and find  
where that leads and how it could solve the mind body problem.  
Never he asserts computationalism is true or that physicalism is  
false. Feel free to pursue on the possibility that physicalism is  
true (or a complete other theory)  to resolve that same problem.  
But if you stay in the physicalist contest you can't use

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

Quentin, sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment. For 
example, during the Vietnam conflict, there were mass demonstrations against 
the war. The leaders of the antiwar movement were never pacifists, but sided 
with the communists, and especially what the soviets wanted. They never 
protested against the Soviets hold in eastern europe or soviet funding wars in 
the middle east, North Korea, or, especially the communist Khmer Rogue in 
Kapuchea, where a million were massacred, Stalin Style, Mao style. Silent, like 
the lambs, to paraphrase Hannibal Lecter. These anti-war types, because of 
their being not pacifists, but communist, in their ideology, remained silent, 
Similarly, the anti-war peeps of today support the Islamists. For personal 
example (a minor one) when I perused the IEET site, where in one professor of 
anthropology, wrote an article on that website, stating that the Hamas war 
against Israel was a Transhumanist cause. I challenged the fellow on this and 
pondered what Transhumanists can have in common with Hamas who believes in and 
enforces Shariah Law (and all that implies). Let us say the examples I raised 
met with objections there, where John Hughes likes things hard left. I ended up 
contacting a former manager of that site who confirmed my view (his moderate 
liberal-libertarian).

Now you may ask why would leftists who call themselves now, progressives, side 
with the Islamists? An incomplete explanation is the progressives hope the 
Islamists knock the crap out of the West, thus, leaving themselves as the 
beneficiaries of such a civilizational failure. Maybe its a knee-jerk reaction? 
I don't care anymore, I just view who sides with whom. For instance, there has 
never been a proposed boycott out of academia against Saudi, Qatar, Iran, Iraq 
(under Saddam) North Korea, etc. I am not trying to convince you (an impossible 
task) simply trying to point out the logical incongruity of being good with 
Islamist totalitarianism. I am surprised that our civilization has not erupted 
in massive violence, and right now the streets are quiet?

-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 12:11 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
wrote:

 2015-03-31 10:37 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

  On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Russell Standish 
 wrote:

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM -0400, spudboy100 via 
Everything List wrote:
 > Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist academics, 
 > politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made excuses for 
 > these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists worldwide as 
 > being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies."  Why else would 
 > somebody make excuses, constantly, for jihadists, islamists, and their 
 > antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so forth? The left in all lands 
 > serve as the Islamist enablers, and some are billionaires who lean left. 
 > Yeah, I know this is divisive, but it's sadly, accurate. Maybe, you left 
 > voters could start to vote for nationalist politicians in your countries as 
 > a push-back against the jihadist-catering pols, academics, and newsies? You 
 > could still be for social justice and spend for it, but coddling the 
 > islamists by word and deed would need to be suppressed. They do like modern 
 > weaponry, delivered into their hands by allah, to use against the Qufars 
 > (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons.

 In which country are the lefties apologists for jihadists and  

 islamists?   

It is fairly common in Europe.  

Hi Quentin,

First of all, I don't agree with any of the stuff spudboy wrote, except for 
this detail. The right-wing in Europe is rather terrible and I have no sympathy 
for their xenophobic inclinations.

Which countries in Europe ? 

>From my personal experience: Portugal, France and Germany. Not so sure about 
>the UK.

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-03-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2015-03-31 12:11 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-03-31 10:37 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Russell Standish >> > wrote:
>>>
 On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything
 List wrote:
 > Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist
 academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made
 excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists
 worldwide as being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies."  Why
 else would somebody make excuses, constantly, for jihadists, islamists, and
 their antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so forth? The left in all
 lands serve as the Islamist enablers, and some are billionaires who lean
 left. Yeah, I know this is divisive, but it's sadly, accurate. Maybe, you
 left voters could start to vote for nationalist politicians in your
 countries as a push-back against the jihadist-catering pols, academics, and
 newsies? You could still be for social justice and spend for it, but
 coddling the islamists by word and deed would need to be suppressed. They
 do like modern weaponry, delivered into their hands by allah, to use
 against the Qufars (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons.

 In which country are the lefties apologists for jihadists and
 islamists?
>>>
>>>
>>> It is fairly common in Europe.
>>>
>>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> First of all, I don't agree with any of the stuff spudboy wrote, except
> for this detail. The right-wing in Europe is rather terrible and I have no
> sympathy for their xenophobic inclinations.
>
>
>>
>> Which countries in Europe ?
>>
>
> From my personal experience: Portugal, France and Germany. Not so sure
> about the UK.
>
>
>> Because I know no "lefties apologists for jihadists and
>> islamists" here in Belgium... also if I translate corretly "lefties", in
>> french it translates to "gauchiste"... and it's an insult... don't know if
>> it is in english.
>>
>
> I believe the French version has a more negative connotation, while the
> English one is a mostly neutral nickname. Someone might correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
>
>>
>> If you equates sympathizer of the palestinian (who often have
>> social/progressive politics preferences, I can admit) as apologists for
>> jihadists and islamists, it's cleary an abuse and bad faith.
>>
>
> I agree that this is related to the matter, but what I would say is that
> some left-leaning people extrapolate their sympathy for the Palestinians to
> an overall pro-Arab, anti-Israel stance.
>

I don't see it that way... please also note that "charlie hebdo" is what
you can call "leftist"... and it is clearly not pro jihad, or pro religion
or whatever pro-religion/fascist related... most of the palestinian
sympathizers (from known left or not) are clearly not hamas supporter...
there are some clearly, but they're not common "left wing" or common in any
left parties I know of, even radical left... I know of no radical left (if
that's them you're pointing) in belgium and france who are *for* the
djihadist and or islamisation of the society... could you provide of such
persons/party who clearly states and defends such things ? as it is clearly
against any socials or economical ideas of what is called "the left".


> A certain tendency of the European left to dislike the USA also helps.
>
>
>>
>> So what do you mean by "fairly common in Europe" ? what "left" are
>> talking about ?
>>
>
> I'm not sure this is related to a "type of left", I would say it's more
> related to the tribal personality type, who likes to be on the side of
> their group on all matters, no matter what. There are a lot of left-wing
> people who do not fit this category, of course. I know and am friends with
> some of them.
>
> It is true, for example, that the crimes of Hamas are completely ignored
> by the European mainstream press and many intellectuals.
>

I don't think so...

Quentin


>
> Telmo.
>
>
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>
>>>
 Not in mine. Almost everybody I know is a "leftie", coz
 nobody here likes our current "rightie" PM, but none of them support
 the IS.

 --


 
 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 r

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

Russell, 


This is because academics, worldwide, tend toward the left, and they tend to it 
like a religion, but its more an ideology. An ideology being a faith movement. 
In the US, the academics (nominally all leftists) lean strongly in favor of 
islamists, worldwide. This could, in part, be that the Saudis (America's best 
friend!) have thrown their money around to greedy pols. I could send you news 
reports of the welcoming embrace, and statements of the islamists, but if 
you're a convinced leftist, you won't budge a millimeter-to quote old, adolf. I 
have the sales capabilities of maggot and thus, will never be able to sell 
stocks and bonds or widgets. The people that do like your current Rightist guy, 
in Australia, are likely not in academia. In the US, this is called flyover 
country. Your clique are academics, thus everyone you know bends left, and the 
rest are seen as ignorant rubes. I mean, somebody elected elected Tom Abbot, 
correct? 


What is likely, to be a game changer, is a Jihadist strike upon the EU and the 
US, most likely, that will change the view of most people (not academics) 
overnight. 



-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 12:14 am
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 07:04:10AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:
> Well, its not the new jihadists I blame, but the (yes) leftist
academics, politicians, and news thugs, that have long, empowered, and made
excuses for these aggressors. My suspicion is that they see the jihadists
worldwide as being able to topple their shared "capitalist enemies."  Why else
would somebody make excuses, constantly, for jihadists, islamists, and their
antidemocratic mindset, anti women, and so forth? The left in all lands serve as
the Islamist enablers, and some are billionaires who lean left. Yeah, I know
this is divisive, but it's sadly, accurate. Maybe, you left voters could start
to vote for nationalist politicians in your countries as a push-back against the
jihadist-catering pols, academics, and newsies? You could still be for social
justice and spend for it, but coddling the islamists by word and deed would need
to be suppressed. They do like modern weaponry, delivered into their hands by
allah, to use against the Qufars (all of us). This now includes NBC weapons.


In which country are the lefties apologists for jihadists and
islamists?
Not in mine. Almost everybody I know is a "leftie", coz
nobody here likes our
current "rightie" PM, but none of them support
the IS.

--



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.

 

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

On 31 March 2015 at 23:31, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Hi Liz,
>
> You may be right. I am surely not going to debate that there are a lot of
> people who were lucky enough to have been born in optimal conditions and
> feel superior to people who were just less lucky. For this reason, they
> will support ideas that are just self-serving rationalizations.
>
> The problem with left/right polarization, in my opinion, is that it kills
> critical thought.
>
> It is possible to agree with everything you said, but also believe that
> the strategies traditionally proposed by the left do not work. There are
> many interesting ideas that are not taken seriously because they fall
> outside of this dichotomy, for example:
>
> - Guaranteed flat income for everyone, no exceptions, no special rules;
> - A return to a resource-based currency and the end of central banks, thus
> preventing they highly leveraged investments that generate economical
> crises and only widen the gap between the rich and the poor;
> - Deregulation of medicine, recongnizing that there is a trade-off between
> the protections provided by regulation and the pricing-out of people out of
> medical care due to barriers to competition introduced by said regulation;
> - Confronting the lobbies that prevent modern technology from being used
> to create dirt-cheap, comfortable housing.
>

I agree with you. I'm very sympathetic to anarchist views, which some of
the above-mentioned are (more than left wing). I was only arguing for
simple empathy for others, which right wingers seem to have deliberately
cut themselves off from - to their own detriment as well as others'. I
wasn't particularly actually *being* a leftie, but I often get called one
for espousing such ideas. But of course real lefties see me as to their
right. (I have a similar problem with feminists...)

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

2015-03-31 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Liz,

You may be right. I am surely not going to debate that there are a lot of
people who were lucky enough to have been born in optimal conditions and
feel superior to people who were just less lucky. For this reason, they
will support ideas that are just self-serving rationalizations.

The problem with left/right polarization, in my opinion, is that it kills
critical thought.

It is possible to agree with everything you said, but also believe that the
strategies traditionally proposed by the left do not work. There are many
interesting ideas that are not taken seriously because they fall outside of
this dichotomy, for example:

- Guaranteed flat income for everyone, no exceptions, no special rules;
- A return to a resource-based currency and the end of central banks, thus
preventing they highly leveraged investments that generate economical
crises and only widen the gap between the rich and the poor;
- Deregulation of medicine, recongnizing that there is a trade-off between
the protections provided by regulation and the pricing-out of people out of
medical care due to barriers to competition introduced by said regulation;
- Confronting the lobbies that prevent modern technology from being used to
create dirt-cheap, comfortable housing.

I'm not sure if these ideas work in practice, but I am sure that they are
not given serious consideration because of the traditional left/right
lock-in on critical thought.

Telmo.


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

> After enough online discussions in which I've been called a leftie for
> various reasons, I have come to the conclusion that someone calling you one
> means, roughly...
>
> That they have no sympathy for any of their fellow humans who might be
> unfortunate enough to be born into the wrong socio-economic group, and who
> therefore haven't had the chance to get a decent education (and perhaps not
> even enough to eat)
>
> And because *their* ancestors came from the same continent that first
> developed science and had an industrial revolution, they consider
> themselves superior to people whose ancestors came from other continents
> ("the Africans achieved nothing until the Europeans arrived" etc etc)
>
> And that they refuse to acknowledge how lucky they are to have been born
> into the socio-economic group they were, in the country they were, to the
> parents they were, and to have the education and genes they have, which
> they consider to somehow be something they have "achieved" rather than the
> sheer luck it actually is.
>
> And that, despite their entire lives having been blessed by the good
> fortune of having been born the right person in the right place at the
> right time, they don't wish to share anything with anyone less fortunate
> than themselves, because those people haven't "earned the right" to partake
> of their privileges.
>
> That appears to be the position of people who call you a leftie. It's
> basically their excuse not to act like decent human beings.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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: The MGA revisited

On 3/30/2015 10:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

> So prime numbers might exist_{math}, but they do not exist_{phys}. If we
> keep this distinction clear we will avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion.
>

Dualism, eh? Yin and yang. Male and female. Maths and physics. Me and thee.
Us and them.

Gotta love it.

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