date:20150401

I don´t believe in anything that SCIAM says except in hard sciences. And
event in that I have my doubts
These kind of publications lost their credibility time ago. Well, and many
pseudoscience departments
in the universities. They are nothing but propaganda organs driven by power
and money

Well not directly power and money, but leftist fanatism as a cover for the
seek of power and money.

2015-04-01 7:56 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 PM
*To:* EveryThing
*Subject:* [SPAM]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%

And that graph describes the source of so many of our social ills; this
high degree of income distortion -- in terms of the US being an outlier, on
the global distribution of developed economies -- is the fundamental driver
of pretty much everything else going wrong with this country; from
crumbling infrastructure, to crumbling education, to crumbling living
standards. Could this be what life is like in a crumbling empire, far out
into imperial overreach, stretched thin across the globe, in the vast
archipelago of bases – including places of true logistical nightmare, like
Afghanistan (the logistical nightmare of nightmares…there is no feasible
way to get the heavy armor out of Afghanistan, except through Russia, with
Pakistan definitely not wanting mass transiting US armor.

The cost of bearing empire is breaking our backs, and with each successive
cycle of disaster capitalism – creative destruction, right-sizing,
out-sourcing etc. the empire is in a race to scraping bottom, as all
empires do. Inside the bubble of power the mantra remains “we make history”
(as once boasted by one famous neocon), but on the ground it is not all
going as planned… though who is going to ever bring the emperor the bad
news… any volunteers? Naturally we don’t have an emperor (yet), but we do
have a powerful deeply rooted patrician aristocracy that has been ascendant
here for the last four decades.

Will it swing back the other way, as it has in the past – such as with the
New Deal, or earlier with Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting of Standard Oil;
or is this just the prelude to… welcome to tomorrow?

Chris

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.

--
Alberto.

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

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:09 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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.


That is true. It is also true that ISIS was essentially made possible by
the misguided military intervention of the US in the region. So far, the
war on terrorism only made the situation worse. The way to fight
terrorism is to not be afraid of 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.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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 Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:
 
  On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
   On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
   wrote:
  
   
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.
 
  Happy April fool's to you!
 
  More seriously though, I haven't the foggiest what you mean. Even your
  follow on prose doesn't help.
 
 
  Why would the fact that playing a recording is a computation void
  significance of 1p views?
 
 
 Because it weakens/relativizes the difference between counterfactual
 possibility instantiating computation and say the
 numbers/sequences/patterns of a movie on my phone.
 

I really don't know what your push back is. The program consisting of
the nop instruction 1000 times in a row, followed by the halt
instruction is a perfectly valid program, and running it on a machine
is a perfectly valid computation, albeit a rather trivial one.

There are no counterfactuals involved. The program will do the same
thing regardless of what the CPU registers contain

Playing a recording is just a slightly more complex version of the
same thing.


-- 


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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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...


Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
technology will only improve from now on.


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


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

Re: The MGA revisited


Bruno Marchal wrote:


If just one physical law cannot be deduced from them, it means that 
computationalism is false, and that consciousness requires something 
else (God, primitive actual matter, or something that we just not yet 
conceive).


I would like to see just one non-trivial physical law that has been 
deduced from comp.


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 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote:


On 1 April 2015 at 03:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

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

On 29 March 2015 at 21:04, Bruce Kellett  
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 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.


OK, but we have to take it into account if we want explain mind and  
matter.





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.


But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the  
axioms Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO  
describe all feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false.
With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any  
sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we  
don't succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The TOE  
is there. All the physical (but non geographical, nor historical)  
feature of physics must be explained by elementary arithmetic, or  
computationalism is false. That follows from the UDA.





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.


Not really, but a case can be made that we have already explained  
where the symmetries come from, and thus (by Noether) the (future,  
when we know what is energy) conservation of energy, the quantum  
logic, etc.
But even without that, comp has given the TOE. That we humans cannot  
still extract physics is another point. It might take many years, or  
even millenia, but then we get already the propositional theology,  
including the logic of the observable, and the reason why the measure  
exists (the existence of quantization, the symmetry of the physical  
bottom, the many worlds, etc.


The UDA just nullifies the use of any extra-axioms. The physical  
universe is really in the head of all

Re: The MGA revisited



On 31 Mar 2015, at 17:48, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

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




On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

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

On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou  
stath...@gmail.com 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.


I think we agree on this. I have to think more if that can lead to a  
proof of computationalism, due to possible agnosologia (if that term  
is correct). I can imagine someone feeling less conscious, but losing  
all memories of having been more conscious, so that he does not feel  
the difference (like people becoming blind, but not noticing it). I am  
just the advocate of the devil, here.


Bruno






--
Stathis Papaioannou

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

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


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



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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:


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.


If it exists. But then you need to abandon computationalism if you  
hope to relate that physical universe to your consciousness here and  
now.

That is not obvious. It is the point of the UD Argument.





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.


Assuming there are objects. But then ... (see above).




Two thousand five hundred years of philosophical argument have not  
settled this issue,


Progress haev been made, until Aristotle metaphysics has been imposed  
through violence, for 1500 years, now.
And the discovery of the universal machine solves the last problem  
they met. 1500 years of aristotelian physics have just put the  
consciousness problem under the rug.





so no-one need accept your enthusiastic embrace of Plato's account.


It is not part of the hypothesis. Platonism is extracted from  
arithmetic. The only platonism used at the start is the belief that  
(A v ~A) is true with A being a statement equivalent with the program  
i on input j will stop or will not stop.







Other accounts are just as good (in many ways preferable).


No problem. The point is that IF we assume comp, they are refuted, or  
epistemologically non sustainable. It is a technical point.






...

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.


?

No, it is a theorem. Arithmetic is not axiomatizable.


.


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.


Well, assuming ~comp, you are back at square zero. I explain how comp  
solves the problem (or reduce it to another problem).
I am not defending any truth. I just show that IF computationalism is  
TRUE, then we have to extract the physical laws from elementary  
arithmetic or from any first order logical specification of any UTM.







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.



Because all my work consists in showing than comp (the idea that my  
physical brain is Turing emulable, like a computer) is inconsistent  
with physicalism. If I were putting the inconsistency with physicalism  
in the definition of comp, my proof could be simplified into: look at  
the axiom.  Don't confuse the comp thesis, and its highly non trivial  
(for most) consequence.





...

 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


Yes. I insist on that all the time. I am not a believer in comp at  
all. Nor am I am a disbeliever. I just don't do philosophy, I

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

Sure, Chris.


But there comes a time to wake up and smell the coffee. Your psychoanalysis is 
flattering but irrelevant in a world of rifles and car bombs. You don't agree 
with what I have said, but what about the behavior of your middle eastern 
compadres? Speak to what the Uma says (to each other!) and what they do. 
Sympathizing with a non-modernizing repressive totalitarian system, as much of 
the Uma's is, is incongruous, at best, for somebody who supports women and gay 
rights, atheism, and free speech. But this occurs with your team, none the 
less. We can dissect why, but to what end? Let's just say that we now live in a 
polarized nation and a polarized world. Anthropologists teach that conflict is 
the norm for primate cultures like ours, and there is no inducement for 
resolution. So be it. 


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





-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 1:08 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 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 allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 9:35 am
Subject: Re: Life in the

Re: The MGA revisited

On 1 April 2015 at 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote:

 Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the physical
 universe yet.


 But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the axioms
 Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO describe all
 feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false.
 With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any
 sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we don't
 succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The TOE is there.
 All the physical (but non geographical, nor historical) feature of physics
 must be explained by elementary arithmetic, or computationalism is false.
 That follows from the UDA.

 OK, but as you say - if comp is true. And I'm not saying you need to prove
it's true because I know that's impossible. But as far as I know, no one
has yet derived a convincing amount of physics from comp, so we don't yet
have convincing evidence that it may well be true, if you see what I mean.
(I think Bruce says the same thing in a post i'm about to read!)

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

And, by the way, all the Cuban sponsored terrorism is an itellectual
product of the aggresive secularistic fanaticism incubated in the western
universities, with a marxist of post-marxist background (it is the same).
This is the fanaticism from which bot of you are victims.

There is also a great deal of marxist background in the new islamism. The
leaders of islamic terrorism were educated in western universities. Many of
the 70-80 terrorists groups were socialists-islamists in a inextricable
mix. In the 90's the defeat of your loved socialist utopia, and the lack of
funds support and ideology from the soviet empire changed the labeling of
these islamo-socialist groups towards pure islamism.

There are great parallels between the left utopianism and islam, And a even
stronger similarity between their respective violent branches: leninism and
islamism. Both are political religions of different degrees of fanaticism

2015-04-01 10:53 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:

All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba and Venezuela as well as with
ties with islamism. The basque terrorists in the 70s trained together with
the Palestinian terrorists LPO (in the valley of the Becca) and with
argelian communists.

Please be informed.

In the other side nobody says that all the terrorists are Muslims. You
both may be a little off of reality guys. What children literature do you
read?.

There are alaso a great number of extreme left terrorist that has
diminished since the defeat of the USSR. But there remain a lot of
nostalgics of that era that populate the centers of power. And even the
discussion lists.

2015-04-01 0:06 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

--
*From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
*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

--
Alberto.

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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 01 Apr 2015, at 03:02, 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.


yes, but in the MGA we know the content of the consciousness (usually  
a dream where the person is flying).
So a human dream would supervene on a  very simple simple computation,  
which can be made arbitrary simple.
Would say yes to a doctor who suggest to replace your brain with a  
simple clock?






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.


MGA tackles the application of a theory to a reality. So it cannot  
leads to a proof, as we can prove nothing about reality, and so we do  
need some occam razor and intuition pump. The argumpent here can  
defeat all theories.





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.


OK. Like arithmetic. Again the consciousness is not in any static  
elementary things, but in the static relations rich enough the give  
the internal dynamics, and, with luck (= if comp is true) the right  
relative measures.


Bruno




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.


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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

Please be informed.

In the other side nobody says that all the terrorists are Muslims. You both
may be a little off of reality guys. What children literature do you read?.

2015-04-01 0:06 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

--
*From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
*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

--
Alberto.

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

Re: Geenralised game playing

Hi Liz,

Yes, this is quite exciting, more so than Watson or Deep Blue because it
tries to be more generic.
The latest wave of excitement seems to come from Google's Deep Mind. Here's
a paper about it, with some videos you can see even without paying:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7540/full/nature14236.html

Reinforcement learning is an old idea. Every time we see the qualifier
deep in something AI-related these days, it seems to mean that some old
idea is finally living to its potential through the availability of immense
computational power and data sources. There are more subtleties, of course,
but they seem to be mostly a matter of some parameterization secret-sauce.
Also, exploring large parameterization spaces is also something that
becomes more feasible with more computational power.

Cheers,
Telmo.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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.


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

2015-04-01 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2015-04-01 9:46 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au:

 On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
  On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
  wrote:
 
   On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish 
 li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
   

 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.
  
   Happy April fool's to you!
  
   More seriously though, I haven't the foggiest what you mean. Even your
   follow on prose doesn't help.
  
 
   Why would the fact that playing a recording is a computation void
   significance of 1p views?
  
 
  Because it weakens/relativizes the difference between counterfactual
  possibility instantiating computation and say the
  numbers/sequences/patterns of a movie on my phone.
 

 I really don't know what your push back is. The program consisting of
 the nop instruction 1000 times in a row, followed by the halt
 instruction is a perfectly valid program, and running it on a machine
 is a perfectly valid computation, albeit a rather trivial one.

 There are no counterfactuals involved. The program will do the same
 thing regardless of what the CPU registers contain

 Playing a recording is just a slightly more complex version of the
 same thing.


Well it's just a lookup table which for any steps will only ever output the
same symbol for that step... that seems to defeat entirely the
computationalist idea if such thing did support consciousness... that that
lookup table is a valid implementation for that moment, I agree with, but
the thing is that in computationalism, to counter that consciousness
supervenes on that simple lookup table (only)... the claim is that
consciousness supervene on *all* valid implementation of that moment (there
are an infinity of them)...

Quentin



 --


 
 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.




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

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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 01 Apr 2015, at 12:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:
If just one physical law cannot be deduced from them, it means that  
computationalism is false, and that consciousness requires  
something else (God, primitive actual matter, or something that we  
just not yet conceive).


I would like to see just one non-trivial physical law that has been  
deduced from comp.


All violation of classical tautologies by QM appears to be those  
violated by the comp QM.
I provide a theorem prover for the propositional logic of the  
observable.


Comp rediscovers physics in the opposite direction than physics: we  
see first the many-worlds/dreams, then the logic to which they obey,  
etc. The hardest thing will be the hamiltonian, unless it is  
geographical, in which case comp predicts universe with different  
hamiltonians.
Then comp predict, as a law of physics, the presence of consciousness,  
that is believer in theological and physical realities, which physics  
does not yet address, etc. May be read the second part of the sane04  
paper, and asks me from that. In a sense, comp predicts that black  
hole restore information when evaporating, as it predicts that at the  
physical bottom everything is reversible (modulo technical nuances but  
they are too much long to explain now, especially if you have still  
not grasp the logic of the UDA).


But this is besides the point of the UDA, which shows that to solve  
the consciousness problem, a derivation of physics from arithmetic is  
mandatory.


I am only interested in the mind-body problem. Using computationalism  
and its phsyics to do physics, would be like using Quantum Loop  
Gravity to do basket ball.


In some of my first talk, a long time ago, I pretended that comp was  
refuted, because if we look at ourselves below our substitution level,  
we should find the trace of infinities of computations, and QM  
predicts only one (as I will use QM for years in molecular biology,  
and take time to doubt the collapse which I was taught to be an  
experimental fact!). I will have to read Everett to realize that QM is  
quite an ally for the comp idea.


Keep in mind that I am not proposing any new theory, I just show the  
epistemological incompatibility between the comp theory of  
consciousness (mechanism, we are machine, or we are Turing emulable)  
and Aristotelian physics (there is an ontologically real primitive  
universe, or we have to postulate a physical universe). I submit a  
problem. The shy solution got by interviewing he machine just shows it  
make sense, and that to refute comp would need well, to compare the  
logics of the observable given by the universal machine and the logic  
of the observable inferred by empirical analysis.


Also, thanks to the machine interview, a computationalist know that  
there is a physical reality, with laws applying to all universal  
machine. So comp introduces a new kind of invariant: it is invariant  
for the TOEs used, as long as they are rich enough to define an UTM.


Bruno



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.


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

2015-04-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
  On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
  wrote:
 
  
   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.

 Happy April fool's to you!

 More seriously though, I haven't the foggiest what you mean. Even your
 follow on prose doesn't help.


 Why would the fact that playing a recording is a computation void
 significance of 1p views?


Because it weakens/relativizes the difference between counterfactual
possibility instantiating computation and say the
numbers/sequences/patterns of a movie on my phone.

They're all amenable to numeric description yes, but isn't the difference
the zombie vs. universal machine's 1p views and consciousness? You state
still running implying that the stated difference, brittle vs.
counterfactuals, makes little/no difference. With supervenience of
consciousness as topic, I assumed you meant that to bear on this.

On this you assert:



 What it does do is show that the MGA does not derive a logical
 contradiction, as Quentin asserts, but is rather an intuition pump.


Which I find to be a large leap from there for above reason.



 Of course, I do suspect that an accurate (but not counterfactually
 correct) recording of a single computational run is insufficient to
 instantiate a conscious entity.


Exactly.


 But I don't know so as a proven fact,
 and that, I feel, is a weakness in the MGA.


Perhaps you assume functionalism, mechanism and its zombie crew too strong
on 3p level? I don't understand why we have to emphasize yeah, but this
still runs computation. PGC

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

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:



 2015-03-31 12:11 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:



 On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
 wrote:



 2015-03-31 10:37 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com:

 On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Russell Standish 
 li...@hpcoders.com.au 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...


Sure, I'm not accusing you of seeing it that way, and I personally know
people who self-identify as left-wingers who don't either. Although I do
always notice a certain bias when looking at the Israel-Palestine conflict.


 please also note that charlie hebdo is what you can call leftist...


I don't think they make any secret about it. See above.


 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...


Not supporters, but many appear to be apologists.


 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 ?


I didn't claim that they are pro-jihadist. What I claim is that they are
apologists. On the Israel-Palestinian conflict they focus on Israel's
atrocities, while ignoring the fact that there is an Islamic group on the
other side that openly defends the extermination of all jews and regularly
organizes attacks against civilians and then uses their own people as human
shields to either protect their military bases or obtain more anti-Israel
PR.

They also tend to defend Islam, which is by far the most nefarious religion
in activity these days. I agree that the solution is not to prosecute
Islamists, but calling them the religion of peace might be a bit too
Orwellian.


 as it is clearly against any socials or economical ideas of what is called
 the left.


I know, this is what baffles me.




 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

Re: The MGA revisited



On 01 Apr 2015, at 04:25, meekerdb wrote:


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.


A sequence of states (physical or arithmetical) is never a  
computation. To have a computation, you need a computer (physical or  
arithmetical) which makes the passing from a state to the next.






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.


Well, Russell's anthropic idea is closer to Bayesianism, and i do  
consider that this might explain

Re: The MGA revisited



On 01 Apr 2015, at 03:58, 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.


But then consciousness is no more explainable by computations, and  
there is no more reason to say yes to the doctor.
Keep in mind that I am NOT defending the truth of computationalism. I  
only argue that with computationalism we have to deduce the physical  
laws from arithmetic, and I illustrates how to do that, and find (much  
more quickly than I would ever have hope) already quantum logic and  
many quantum weirdness (indetermincay, no-locality, orthomodularity,  
incompatible observable, symmetries, etc.)
What I do not get is physical time, space, energy (which might be  
geographical, but even if that is the ace, that we lust deduced).




The digital simulation of brain functions is achieved on a physical  
computer after all, which is a physical object itself -- simulating  
(primitive) physical processes.


Assuming a physical object, which I do not (nor do I assume they don't  
exist). Comp, the hypothesis is nutral on what exist, except for what  
is needed to have a UTM, so it assumes one UTM, if you want, but not  
necessarily a physical UTM.







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.


That one is normal, I think. But anyway: it is not what I mean when I  
say that RA emulates all digital brains. It means something subtler,  
and which takes many pages to be proven. It is usually done in good  
textbook of mathematical logic. If people insist, I can give the proof  
here. It is not simple.
The library of Babel is not a univeral dovetailing, and the number of  
Champernow (0,1234567891011 ..) does not emulates anything, despite  
describing (in some ways) all computations.





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?


No.

Your confusion is akin to the confusion between
 Obama is president of the USA is true, and
Obama is president of the USA contains 6 words.





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


I agree.

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.


Yes.
But a description of a computation, and a computation are not the same  
thing. It is hard to explain this without explaining more about the  
difference between syntax and semantics in computer science or  
mathematical logic.






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.



That is my point. It is not an objection: it is the problem which I  
explain to exist.







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

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

As the bedouins say, The dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Meh!

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

   From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com  

   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 
everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 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 
everything-list@googlegroups.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 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)

Re: The MGA revisited


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:


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.


At which line of the proof? Comp (even just the Church-thesis) assumes 
arithmetical realism only, not plato's theology. This means that 2+2=4 
is independent of me and you.


You build quite a lot into the comp hypothesis. If it is, as you said 
above, just the statement that the (human) brain is Turing emulable, 
then no assumption of arithmetical realism is involved. 2+2=4 can be 
true independent of me and you without assuming numbers have a real 
independent platonic existence. Arithmetic might not be fully 
axiomatizable (because of Goedel), but an axiomatized version is plenty 
rich enough to cope with everyday things.


It does not mean that a material galaxy 
does not also exist independently of me. For this I provide a proof or 
argument.


I haven't seen any proof of arithmetical realism.

And it does not proof that material galaxies don't exist, but 
that it cannot be related with the conscious event of seeing some galaxy 
through a telescope. It shows that assuming matter is useless to explain 
the appearance of matter, once we assume comp.


So don't assume comp. The the appearance of galaxies tells us something 
about the universe in which we live -- a universe explained by matter 
and related concepts.





 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.


That is done, and sum up in the second part of the sane04 paper, but it 
assumes some maturity in mathematical logic. Have you read it. I have 
already deduce the or a quantum logic of the observable.


I have not read your paper because, as yet you have not given me any 
reason to believe that I would find it interesting. Deducing some 
quantum logic is not much of an achievement. What about an actual 
physical law? Schroedinger's equation? Conservation of momentum? The 
Coulomb force law?




Pointing to prime numbers is not enough.


Please, read the papers and the publication. It has been 30 years of 
work. I have defend this without any problem as a PhD in computer 
science. It modest, and radical only for people having faith in 
primitive matter (a metaphysical hypothesis NOT sustain by any facts).


I think it is your metaphysical hypothesis that is not sustained by any 
facts. Physics has accumulated quite an impressive basis of explained 
facts over the years.





If you have a theory how a physical universe can make some machine 
dreams more real that their dream emulated by arithmetic, I am all ears? 


The physical universe, described by universal physical laws, can do that 
without producing white rabbit miracles. The dreams emulated by 
arithmetic are, at the moment, no better than opium-induced fantasies.


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

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 01 Apr 2015, at 09:46, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 


wrote:

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy  
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 


wrote:



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.


Happy April fool's to you!

More seriously though, I haven't the foggiest what you mean. Even  
your

follow on prose doesn't help.




Why would the fact that playing a recording is a computation void
significance of 1p views?



Because it weakens/relativizes the difference between counterfactual
possibility instantiating computation and say the
numbers/sequences/patterns of a movie on my phone.



I really don't know what your push back is. The program consisting of
the nop instruction 1000 times in a row, followed by the halt
instruction is a perfectly valid program, and running it on a machine
is a perfectly valid computation, albeit a rather trivial one.

There are no counterfactuals involved. The program will do the same
thing regardless of what the CPU registers contain

Playing a recording is just a slightly more complex version of the
same thing.



OK, but so you agree that MGA shows that if comp is true, matter is of  
no use, unless we admit that a complex experience like a human dream  
can supervene on a very simple trivial activity. Then the MGA  
intuition pump seems to work well enough, imo.


Bruno





--


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.


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: [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:24 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

I don´t believe in anything that SCIAM says except in hard sciences. And event 
in that I have my doubts

These kind of publications lost their credibility time ago. Well, and many 
pseudoscience departments

in the universities. They are nothing but propaganda organs driven by power and 
money

Well not directly power and money, but leftist fanatism as a cover for the seek 
of power and money.

And it is with this ad hominem attack on the alleged slant of the source that 
Alberto chooses to ignore an (easily fact checkable)  graph that illustrates 
how income distribution has changed over the last hundred years. You display 
such power of intellect…. Amazing! 

also very Ostrich-like; keep your head down Alberto, the sand is good for your 
brain.

Chris

2015-04-01 7:56 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 PM
To: EveryThing
Subject: [SPAM]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%

And that graph describes the source of so many of our social ills; this high 
degree of income distortion -- in terms of the US being an outlier, on the 
global distribution of developed economies -- is the fundamental driver of 
pretty much everything else going wrong with this country; from crumbling 
infrastructure, to crumbling education, to crumbling living standards. Could 
this be what life is like in a crumbling empire, far out into imperial 
overreach, stretched thin across the globe, in the vast archipelago of bases – 
including places of true logistical nightmare, like Afghanistan (the logistical 
nightmare of nightmares…there is no feasible way to get the heavy armor out of 
Afghanistan, except through Russia, with Pakistan definitely not wanting mass 
transiting US armor.

The cost of bearing empire is breaking our backs, and with each successive 
cycle of disaster capitalism – creative destruction, right-sizing, out-sourcing 
etc. the empire is in a race to scraping bottom, as all empires do. Inside the 
bubble of power the mantra remains “we make history” (as once boasted by one 
famous neocon), but on the ground it is not all going as planned… though who is 
going to ever bring the emperor the bad news… any volunteers? Naturally we 
don’t have an emperor (yet), but we do have a powerful deeply rooted patrician 
aristocracy that has been ascendant here for the last four decades.

Will it swing back the other way, as it has in the past – such as with the New 
Deal, or earlier with Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting of Standard Oil; or is 
this just the prelude to… welcome to tomorrow?

Chris

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.

-- 

Alberto.

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

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

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness



On 31 Mar 2015, at 04:28, John Clark wrote:




On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 step zero is when you either do or don't agree that, if a doctor  
replaced your brain with an electronic version that exactly  
duplicated the computations (hypothetically) underlying your  
consciousness, you would survive the replacement


Well of course I'd survive the replacement,  but yes doctor seems  
like a pretty silly term for it.


Would you died in case there are two reconstitutions?

Bruno




 John K Clark






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

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


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



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

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness



On 30 Mar 2015, at 19:02, John Clark wrote:



On Mon, Mar 30, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 That true. in the MWI  we don't say that, but even if we did the  
statement would not be gibberish it would just turn out to be wrong.  
But in the copying machine world I will see Moscow tomorrow is  
equivalent to klogknee will see Moscow tomorrow because both I  
and klogknee are not defined.


 But then you have to say already no to the doctor in step zero

I have no idea who the doctor is and if I ever knew that step zero  
existed I've erased it long ago to leave room in my finite brain for  
more important matters.


 Wake up, John, the *real* difficulties are in step 7 and step 8.

Wow, I can only imagine how dumb those must be.



Trolling.

Bruno




  John K Clark





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

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


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



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

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness



On 31 Mar 2015, at 04:20, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 You talk like if there was an insuperable difficulty brought by  
the duplication.


Engineering difficulties only, scientific breakthroughs would not be  
required to make a matter duplicating machine; however when such  
machines become commonplace the English language, and especially the  
way it uses personal pronouns, will need a major overhaul.


Not really. The 1p 3p distinction is enough for the validaity of the  
thought experience, and the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge works  
in the mathematical translation, when applied to Gödel's beweisbar.






 You seem to agree that a beam of photons split, on the polarizer,  
in two beam when prepared in the relevant superposition state.


Most polarizers just absorb light of one polarization and transmit  
the other, but Icelandic spar does create 2 beams of different  
polarization.


 From this I can build a though experience where you are told that  
you will be either looking at a quantum superposition state or in  
classical self-duplication experience. You would not been able to  
see the difference, without violating computationalism.


As I've said before, if you want to make the people in your thought  
experiment analogous to photons that exhibit weird quantum effects  
like interference you're going to have to merge the Washington Man  
and the Moscow man back into one entity.


That is not needed for the reasoning. The use of QM here is just to  
show a *different* use of the FPI.


Bruno





  John K Clark








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

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


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



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

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


We have here a case of selective memory. Brevik was indeed a Nazi (no surprise 
there) but you do notice that all his victims were Norwegian socialists? His 
motive was revenge against his fellow countrymen, not Muslims living in Norway, 
which he could have easily attacked. It's impossible to truly see Brevik as a 
church goer, even in the Nazi WW2 German Lutheran style.  You forget the 
Islamist attacks in Madrid 2004 which killed 191 and the subway attack in 
London which killed, and 52 dead in the London tube attacks. If Hindus were 
committing mass murder all over the world, we'd be talking about them instead 
of believers in Muhammad. It's purely practical to focus on the Islamists and 
there's no easy resolution to this war (which it is). I can bring up the London 
beheading, and hundreds of other jihad attack. In the 70's I could have pointed 
out the IRA, Red Army Fraction, Bader Meinhoff types, or the Chilean military 
bombing in DC. The Islamists are super well funded and are motivated by a 
promise of eternity. 
  
-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 1, 2015 1:20 pm
Subject: RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


 
  
 
  
 
  
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!
  
 
  
   
All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba and Venezuela as well as with ties 
with islamism. The basque terrorists in the 70s trained together with the 
Palestinian terrorists LPO  (in the valley of the Becca) and with argelian 
communists.
   

 
   
   

Please be informed. 

 

Was the right-wing Christian fanatic Norwegian terrorist Anders who mass 
murdered (77 people injuring hundreds more) scores of Norwegians in a car bomb, 
followed by a cold blooded execution style gunning down of unarmed teenagers in 
2011, and who acted in the name of his Christian supremacist ideology also --- 
covertly somehow also an Islamic terrorist? 

Was the train station bombing in Bologna Italy, which along with the afore 
mentioned Norwegian act of mass terrorism ranks as Europes worst post WWII act 
of terrorism, was that act perpetrated by Islamicists (or was it rather 
perpetrated by shadowy groups linked to the P2 lodge and to Operation Gladio?)

 

Inform yourself, yourself! 

The two single largest acts of terrorism in post WWII Europe both committed by 
far right (and in the case of the Bologna bombing also implicating a shadowy 
paramilitary organization called Operation Gladio).

 

In the US, was Timothy McVeigh also a crypto Muslim of sorts? Or was that mass 
murder act of terrorism also driven by an extremist right wing ideology?

 

Me thinks, it is rather more yourself that needs to inform themselves, 
seminarian.

Chris
   
   

 
   
   

In the other side nobody says that all the terrorists are Muslims. You both may 
be a little off of reality guys. What children literature do you read?. 
   
   

 
   
   

There are alaso a great number of extreme left terrorist that has diminished 
since the defeat of the USSR. But there remain a lot of nostalgics of that era 
that populate the centers of power. And even the discussion lists.
   
  
  
   
 
   

2015-04-01 0:06 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

 
  
 
  
   

 
 
 
 
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
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.

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On 1 April 2015 at 20:35, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 The way to fight terrorism is to not be afraid of it.

 Well, exactly. In practice the War on Terror has mainly been a
convenient excuse for western governments to increase their powers
substantially, so one wonders who they really see as the enemy. It appears
to be us.

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

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less
 guns per person than the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun
 is far smaller than the number of guns.

  What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


  Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
 Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with
 guns.


  So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita
 income of a country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you
 got some stats?

 Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the
 expense of buying a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad
 are not likely to buy a rifle for sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people
 that buy a rifle for sport or hunting tend to also have another rifle for
 target shooting and a shotgun or two and a couple of pistols.  That's why,
 although the number to guns in the US has gone up, the number of households
 with a gun has gone down.


So what about  Europe, Canada, Svalbard, etc?

I do of course agree with your point on a broad scale. I normally only say
that the USA has more guns per person than other countries in the first
world, since I assume the first world is roughly on a par economically. So
income inequality may partially explain the gap between the USA and India,
but not between the USA and the UK. I don't know about households (do the
Swiss have more people per household than the US, or something? Or are you
saying the map is wrong?) - this map only shows the average number of
civilian-owned guns per capita.

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


On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers always say - 
but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!


I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.



Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!


Sure, many people don't.  And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made people 
unfamiliar with them fearful of guns.  While people who grew up hunting and having guns 
around (like me) think of them as just another tool that can hurt you if used carelessly - 
like a motorcycle or dynamite.


(Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself, nor have I known 
anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart from a friend of my son 
whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).


Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six guns; two of which 
I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives.  But I've never know anyone who 
was shot, even accidentally.


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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:

 By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
 always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!


 I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.


 Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!


 Sure, many people don't.  And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made
 people unfamiliar with them fearful of guns.  While people who grew up
 hunting and having guns around (like me) think of them as just another tool
 that can hurt you if used carelessly - like a motorcycle or dynamite.

  (Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself,
 nor have I known anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge -
 apart from a friend of my son whose father lives in America (the father has
 a gun).


 Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six
 guns; two of which I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives.
 But I've never know anyone who was shot, even accidentally.

 I take it back, Kevin Ireland, the NZ poet who lives in Auckland some of
the time and Oxford the rest, is a friend of mine who has owned plenty of
guns. Indeed he wrote a poem about shooting his dog.

I don't have a problem with guns being owned and used in the right place -
for hunting, in the countryside and so on. However (as I assume, being a
person of intelligence, you do actually realise) those aren't the guns I'm
objecting to, nor are they the ones that turn the USA black on that map,
nor are they the ones toddlers get hold of, or 9 year olds kill their
shooting instructors with.

I know you feel obliged to argue the contrary case, but I really would
appreciate a bit of common sense on what the real subject of the argument
is here, rather than what looks like a knee-jerk defence of guns just
because you happen to have grown up with them.

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

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.



It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.


I agree about Humpy Bogart and films of that sort. But noone seriously 
argues that consciousness supervenes on the external visage -- or do they?


People's intuitions break down when faced with the compexity of 10^11 
neurons and 10^16 bytes per second. I don't know what the data rates at 
the LHC are, but they reach the trillions of bytes. And they have all 
sorts of sophisticated fast electronic triggers to try and keep the data 
rate down to manageable levels.


For brains, I don't think there is any preset level of complexity at 
which consciousness kicks in. The average human adult with full 
functionality is really quite complicated. But a person can remain 
conscious with extensive brain damage, and depending on the type of 
damage, they can retain reasonable functionality. How mage damage from 
Alzheimer's before you lose consciousness? The minimal number of 
functional neurons might be quite low. That is why Brent is concerned 
that the Mars Rover might have an anxiety attack!


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


meekerdb wrote:


On 4/1/2015 10:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as 
you seem

to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that 
consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious 
entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or 
demonstrably

conscious.



It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.


I agree about Humpy Bogart and films of that sort. But noone seriously 
argues that consciousness supervenes on the external visage -- or do 
they?


People's intuitions break down when faced with the compexity of 10^11 
neurons and 10^16 bytes per second. I don't know what the data rates 
at the LHC are, but they reach the trillions of bytes. And they have 
all sorts of sophisticated fast electronic triggers to try and keep 
the data rate down to manageable levels.


For brains, I don't think there is any preset level of complexity at 
which consciousness kicks in. The average human adult with full 
functionality is really quite complicated. But a person can remain 
conscious with extensive brain damage, and depending on the type of 
damage, they can retain reasonable functionality. How mage damage from 
Alzheimer's before you lose consciousness? The minimal number of 
functional neurons might be quite low. That is why Brent is concerned 
that the Mars Rover might have an anxiety attack!


But data /*rate */can't be the right measure, since the same sequence of 
states measured against some other clock would be just as conscious.  It 
must be complexity of brain processes as compared to some other 
processes; which is why I think the environment/context is an essential 
part of consciousness.


Yes, mention of data rates was irrelevant. Someone simulating brain 
processes by calculating with pencil and paper should not compromise 
consciousness if comp is correct, provided they capture sufficient 
details of the structure and processes.


But is relative complexity the measure? Relative to what? And I think 
one could be conscious in a fairly limited environment/context.


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!


On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns 
per
person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is far 
smaller
than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like Switzerland, are 
richer...and have a higher percentage of households with guns.


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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 31 March 2015 at 15:28, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  step zero is when you either do or don't agree that, if a doctor
 replaced your brain with an electronic version that exactly duplicated the
 computations (hypothetically) underlying your consciousness, you would
 survive the replacement


 Well of course I'd survive the replacement,  but yes doctor seems like a
 pretty silly term for it.

 I'm sure Bruno is open to alternative suggestions. If you think you would
of course survive the replacement then you're already out in front of
Bruno in your acceptance of comp. He only describes it as a bet you take,
and explores the consequences of it coming out on teh side of survival.

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

2015-04-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:03 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 4/1/2015 8:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you
 seem
 to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
 facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
 supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious
 entities,
 and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
 conscious.

  It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
 instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
 with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
 argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
 someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
 10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
 order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
 used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
 COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
 possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
 just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
 exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
 this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
 and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
 Chinese Room argument.

 At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
 conscious to conscious.


Which assumes perhaps too strong a form of functionalism and/or digitalism
that runs into its own contradiction with 1p consciousness?

As pointed out in earlier post: With that move, it is no longer relevant to
distinguish recording from person who has 1p experience, zombie question is
nonsense, no indexical property, there is correct substitution level, all
possible 1p consciousness of all persons supervenes on the recording
(everything digital) *or* none at all since recording has no CC and other
such funky consequences I can't recall. How is this avoided if everything
is one bland sauce of digital?

Thanks for pushing the question though Russell, as my earlier posts were
perhaps less clear on this. I guess you're coming from some ground I can't
parse or have missed reading and you have my apology here if so. But
zombies can be tricky bastards :-)


 Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
 intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
 a weakness of the MGA.


 There must be something more to it than just complexity or even Turing
 universality. Bruno says human-like consciousness requires Lobianity.  But
 I think that's asking for more than just awarenss; it's asking for
 self-awarness.


Which with comp assumptions/environment includes the properties that come
with that kind of self-awareness, e.g. incompleteness, machine's silence
etc. PGC


 If I were building a Mars Rover and gave it the ability to learn from its
 experience by reviewing its memory of events and projecting hypothetical
 futures, I would be concerned that I had created a sentient being that
 would forsee its own end.  So I would be sure to avoid putting its
 indefinite survival into its value system.

 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


Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au 
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:


On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:50:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  OK, but so you agree that MGA shows that if comp is true, matter is
  of no use, unless we admit that a complex experience like a human
  dream can supervene on a very simple trivial activity. Then the MGA
  intuition pump seems to work well enough, imo.

  Bruno


You have just conceded my point. Then the MGA is not a logical proof (as
you have sometimes claimed, and Quentin claimed even more forcefully),
but rather an argument by incredulity, or an intuition pump as Daniel
Dennett puts it. Nothing wrong with that of course, we just need to
know what has actually been achieved.


I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you 
seem to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one 
that facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that 
consciousness supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like 
conscious entities, and haven't pointed towards a recording that is 
obviously or demonstrably conscious.


Your statement also seems to presuppose an absolute standard of logical 
proof and that such would guarantee form of certain knowledge. Whatever 
personal standards we may hold for proof, there is some sense in also 
interpreting it as form of relating to or communicating with other 
people convincingly: 'proving' is trying to convince that one statement 
follows from some specified other statements. If those other statements 
are true, then the statement in question is also true.


The argument from incredulity is invalid -- not 'truth-preserving'!

I wish everybody a fine day, communicating with their movies, ensuring 
that their movies' living standards, education, careers, finances, 
health, social security, retirement plans etc. are in order. Each to 
their own, but I'm part of set of people to whom that's just weird and 
absurd. Sure, maybe I am weird and absurd. Fine, whatever. PGC


Don't you ever spend some of your time shouting at your television set 
and complaining to movie characters that they are utter nutters and that 
the story is farcically stupid! Or shouting at Hitchcock movies Watch 
out behind you there...


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!

On 4/1/2015 8:30 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:

By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun
lovers always
say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!

I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.

Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!

Sure, many people don't. And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made
people
unfamiliar with them fearful of guns. While people who grew up hunting and
having
guns around (like me) think of them as just another tool that can hurt you
if used
carelessly - like a motorcycle or dynamite.

(Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself,
nor have
I known anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart
from a
friend of my son whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).

Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six
guns; two of
which I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives. But I've
never know
anyone who was shot, even accidentally.

I take it back, Kevin Ireland, the NZ poet who lives in Auckland some of the time and
Oxford the rest, is a friend of mine who has owned plenty of guns. Indeed he wrote a
poem about shooting his dog.

I assume that was to put a terminally ill dog out its misery (a sad duty I've done a few
of times) rather than an accident.

I don't have a problem with guns being owned and used in the right place - for hunting,
in the countryside and so on. However (as I assume, being a person of intelligence, you
do actually realise) those aren't the guns I'm objecting to, nor are they the ones that
turn the USA black on that map,

I don't think the map has enough resolution to show whether the guns are in the
countryside or suburbs or city. I know that, per household, there are a lot more guns in
sparsely populated areas, e.g. on western farms and ranches as compared to cities.

nor are they the ones toddlers get hold of, or 9 year olds kill their shooting
instructors with.

Rare incidents are not a good basis for public policy.

I know you feel obliged to argue the contrary case, but I really would appreciate a bit
of common sense on what the real subject of the argument is here, rather than what looks
like a knee-jerk defence of guns just because you happen to have grown up with them.

I'm sorry I didn't know you were arguing a case. What case are you arguing? Did you
assume I would join in a knee-jerk condemnation of US gun ownership? I wouldn't mind
giving up my guns if I thought it would make me significantly safer, just like I'd give up
my motorcycles if I thought they were going to kill me. Yes, I know the statistics.
You're more likely to be shot if you own a gun (accidents, suicides account for more than
half of gun deaths). And you're 30 times more likely to be killed on a motorcycle over
the same mileage as compared to a car. But minimizing risk isn't an overriding value in
my life.

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 4/1/2015 10:42 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.



It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.


I agree about Humpy Bogart and films of that sort. But noone seriously argues that 
consciousness supervenes on the external visage -- or do they?


People's intuitions break down when faced with the compexity of 10^11 neurons and 10^16 
bytes per second. I don't know what the data rates at the LHC are, but they reach the 
trillions of bytes. And they have all sorts of sophisticated fast electronic triggers to 
try and keep the data rate down to manageable levels.


For brains, I don't think there is any preset level of complexity at which consciousness 
kicks in. The average human adult with full functionality is really quite complicated. 
But a person can remain conscious with extensive brain damage, and depending on the type 
of damage, they can retain reasonable functionality. How mage damage from Alzheimer's 
before you lose consciousness? The minimal number of functional neurons might be quite 
low. That is why Brent is concerned that the Mars Rover might have an anxiety attack!


But data /*rate */can't be the right measure, since the same sequence of states measured 
against some other clock would be just as conscious.  It must be complexity of brain 
processes as compared to some other processes; which is why I think the 
environment/context is an essential part of consciousness.


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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have less 
guns per
person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is 
far
smaller than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like 
Switzerland,
are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income of a country 
and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got some stats?


Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the expense of buying 
a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad are not likely to buy a rifle for 
sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people that buy a rifle for sport or hunting tend to 
also have another rifle for target shooting and a shotgun or two and a couple of pistols.  
That's why, although the number to guns in the US has gone up, the number of households 
with a gun has gone down.


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


LizR wrote:
Yes lots of people have said something like that (including me) but the 
time aspect is addressed in Bruno's argument. (Come to think of it you 
more or less addressed it yourself by commenting about block universes. 
A computation can run in a block universe, after all, in the important 
sense - having different states at different times.)


Yes. The block universe works because subsystems can be used as clocks. 
But then the numerical description of me in any normal number could also 
have a subsystem encoded which could act as a clock -- just number the 
states 1,2,3,... I think that something like that is necessary, or else 
the whole dovetailer argument refers to some static object. Otherwise 
you require some physical Turing machine. I think Bruno assumes the 
latter, which really does make his whole argument supervene on physical 
reality.


Bruce


I think some notion of successor relations is all that's needed, or 
something like that -  I'm sure Bruno will explain.


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

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:49:56PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
 Sure there are obviously cultural and legal differences too.  I was
 in Sydney on the day of the Port Arthur massacre.  I gathered that,
 before that, personal ownership of guns in Australia was fairly
 common and not much regulated.  It motivated severe restrictions on
 and confiscation of privately owned guns.

Gun ownership has never been popular here, either before or after Port
Arthur. What changed was a tightening of rules over semi-automatic
weapons, and a massive buy-back of semi-automatic weapons that had
previously been privately owned.

To my knowledge, gun ownership rules have never been harmonised in
Australia. In the state of my upbringing (WA), it was illegal to own any
sort of gun (air-rifles were excepted from licensing, IIRC), except in
the following circumstances:

1) Farmers and professional shooters could own manually operated
rifles or shotguns up to .303 calibre

2) Other people could own guns, but they must be kept at
a licensed shooting range at all times. Possibly a handgun may have
been allowed under those circumstances.

3) Handguns could not be owned at all, unless made inoperable by
having it's barrel filled with lead (catering to the gun collector).

4) I'm guessing that police would have had access to all sorts weaponry,
but as a general rule, police were not armed with firearms. 

Obviously the rules in the Eastern States were laxer, given the extent
of private semi-automatic ownership, and the fact that cops pack sidearms.


-- 


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: The MGA revisited

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
 
 I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
 to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
 facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
 supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
 and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
 conscious.
 

It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.

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: The MGA revisited

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:03:49PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
 There must be something more to it than just complexity or even
 Turing universality. Bruno says human-like consciousness requires
 Lobianity.  But I think that's asking for more than just awarenss;
 it's asking for self-awarness.  If I were building a Mars Rover and

Of course. But the rejections of recordings being conscious is based
on the intuition that they are too simple to correspond to a conscious
entity. But recordings can be incredibly complex, so I don't think one
can reject the notion that recordings are always unconscious, just
because the simple ones don't appear to be. 

Obviously not all complex recordings are conscious, in fact I would
suspect most are not. But it is not so obvious that aren't any complex
conscious recordings.


-- 


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: The MGA revisited

Yes lots of people have said something like that (including me) but the
time aspect is addressed in Bruno's argument. (Come to think of it you more
or less addressed it yourself by commenting about block universes. A
computation can run in a block universe, after all, in the important sense
- having different states at different times.)

I think some notion of successor relations is all that's needed, or
something like that -  I'm sure Bruno will explain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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 4/1/2015 8:34 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.

It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
Chinese Room argument.

At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
a weakness of the MGA.

There must be something more to it than just complexity or even Turing universality. Bruno
says human-like consciousness requires Lobianity. But I think that's asking for more than
just awarenss; it's asking for self-awarness. If I were building a Mars Rover and gave it
the ability to learn from its experience by reviewing its memory of events and projecting
hypothetical futures, I would be concerned that I had created a sentient being that would
forsee its own end. So I would be sure to avoid putting its indefinite survival into its
value system.

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

On 2 April 2015 at 06:17, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 In practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid

 Almost as stupid as capitalism, which is currently delivering 99% of the
world into slavery and destroying the planet at a rate of knots.

In practice, Communism has never been tried (just like free market
capitalism. Or free market socialism for that matter, as advocated by
Proudhon)

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

2015-04-01 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  In practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid

  Almost as stupid as capitalism,


The defining characteristic of stupid is that stupid doesn't work, so
regardless of what you may personally think of capitalism's ethics (and
there is no disputing matters of taste) the fact remains that if capitalism
was stupider than communism then it wouldn't have won the 40 year long face
to face confrontation with it. And compared with the monstrous horrors of
communism the worst crime of the most unethical corporation on the planet
is little more than naughty.


  which is currently delivering 99% of the world into slavery


The human race has never been more numerous than it is right now, or been
better fed or been better educated or been more peaceful. Oh, or had fewer
slaves.

  and destroying the planet at a rate of knots.


And there has never been less disease and people have never been healthier
or had longer lives. I guess destroying the planet can be fun!

And by the way, the most polluted places on Earth are in the former USSR,
China and eastern European countries that were behind the Iron Curtain.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Lovely Einstein Quote

Ah yes, I thought he had Buddhist leanings.

On 2 April 2015 at 13:31, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited
 in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as
 something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of
 consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to
 our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our
 task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of
 compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its
 beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and
 the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall
 require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
 (Albert Einstein, 1954)



 I didn't know until today he also believed the egoist self was a delusion.

 Jason

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


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Apr 2015, at 03:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The digital simulation of brain functions is achieved on a physical 
computer after all, which is a physical object itself -- simulating 
(primitive) physical processes.


Assuming a physical object, which I do not (nor do I assume they don't 
exist). Comp, the hypothesis is nutral on what exist, except for what is 
needed to have a UTM, so it assumes one UTM, if you want, but not 
necessarily a physical UTM.


You said somewhere that a computation is dynamical, not static, which is 
why you rejected the notion that Champernow's number contains all 
possible computations and hence is a dovetailer: (0,1234567891011 ..) 
does not emulate anything, despite describing (in some ways) all 
computations.


Emulation is a dynamical process in time. I wonder where you get a time 
variable for your UTM. All that you say about the UTM and the dovetailer 
appears to assume an instantiation in some temporal structure. I do not 
see time as a parameter in arithmetic! In other words, your dovetailer 
has to be running on a physical UTM. You claim above that it does not 
have to be physical. I would like you to point me to a non-physical 
Turing machine that actually runs programs. I.e., not just a description 
of a Turing machine.


I have downloaded your SANE04 paper and will work through it in time. A 
first glance suggests that I will have objections at very many points.


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: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 09:27:16AM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
 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? 
 

The general election was more of a protest vote against the previous
government, which had become so odious (whether real or perceived),
that the majority decided to go with Tony Abbott's lot.

Tony Abbott's personal popularity has never been above about 30%, well
below the the opposition leader as preferred prime minister. But
personal popularity often doesn't have much to do with it, unlike a
presidential system, I guess.

Yes - someone elected Tony Abbott. The Liberal party of Australia
elected him, by one vote over his rival Malcolm Turnbull (a far more
popular leader). Since gaining government, Tony Abbott's popularity
has sunk dramatically, so much so that the Liberal Party recently
voted on a spill motion, which Tony narrowly won (ie was not
spilled). We live in interesting times indeed.

Yes academic people do tend to be centralist, or progressive,
which in the current state of politics lies somewhat left of the Labor
party, the traditional leftist party in Australia. But I mix with a
variety of people, not just academics, but most tend to be fairly well
educated nevertheless. I would say all of them are left of Tony
Abbott, however, even though they may be natural Liberal Party
supporters.

But to restate - nobody I know is a jihadist or islamist apologist,
not even the muslims I know.


-- 


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.

Lovely Einstein Quote

2015-04-01 Thread Jason Resch

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited
in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as
something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of
consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to
our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our
task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of
compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its
beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and
the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall
require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)



I didn't know until today he also believed the egoist self was a delusion.

Jason

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


On 4/1/2015 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have 
less guns
per person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun 
is far
smaller than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households 
with guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income 
of a
country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got some 
stats?

Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the 
expense of
buying a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad are not 
likely to buy
a rifle for sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people that buy a rifle for 
sport or
hunting tend to also have another rifle for target shooting and a shotgun 
or two and
a couple of pistols.  That's why, although the number to guns in the US has 
gone up,
the number of households with a gun has gone down.


So what about  Europe, Canada, Svalbard, etc?

I do of course agree with your point on a broad scale. I normally only say that the USA 
has more guns per person than other countries in the first world, since I assume the 
first world is roughly on a par economically. So income inequality may partially explain 
the gap between the USA and India, but not between the USA and the UK.


Sure there are obviously cultural and legal differences too.  I was in Sydney on the day 
of the Port Arthur massacre.  I gathered that, before that, personal ownership of guns in 
Australia was fairly common and not much regulated.  It motivated severe restrictions on 
and confiscation of privately owned guns.


I don't know about households (do the Swiss have more people per household than the US, 
or something? Or are you saying the map is wrong?) - this map only shows the average 
number of civilian-owned guns per capita.


So how did they count guns in Switzerland where all militia aged citizens are issued an 
assault rifle - which they can keep when they leave the militia at age 35?


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 Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:12:05PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 meekerdb wrote:
 
 But data /*rate */can't be the right measure, since the same
 sequence of states measured against some other clock would be just
 as conscious.  It must be complexity of brain processes as
 compared to some other processes; which is why I think the
 environment/context is an essential part of consciousness.
 
 Yes, mention of data rates was irrelevant. Someone simulating brain
 processes by calculating with pencil and paper should not compromise
 consciousness if comp is correct, provided they capture sufficient
 details of the structure and processes.
 
 But is relative complexity the measure? Relative to what? And I
 think one could be conscious in a fairly limited
 environment/context.
 
 Bruce
 

The figures quoted were bits per second of subjective time. If you
want a recording of 10 second observer moment sequence, then multiply
the rate by 10. You are then welcome to replay that recording at (say)
1000th the original rate, and of course it makes absolutely no
difference as to whether the recording is conscious or not.

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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

  So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns
 per person than the USA? Magic?

   For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is
 far smaller than the number of guns.

 What, all other countries are poorer than the US?

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

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

  From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 4:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

In his long rambling manifesto he spoke -- much like you do in fact Mitch, of a 
clash of civilizations, and he saw himself as a defender of a Christian, Aryan 
Norway, being overrun by brown people. I am just going by his own stated 
motives, not your reinterpretation of what they must have been. The actual 
crime stats speak of a different story most terrorist attacks, by far-- in 
terms of numbers of incidences, but also in terms of overall damage, injury and 
death,  in the US and in the EU are not being perpetrated by Islamicists, but 
by other kinds of extremists, including many various separatist 
movements.Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Christians as well are committing 
acts of terror; however in the Western press these rarely get reported as such; 
most often the reports speak of a disturbed or deranged person, with no mention 
of the fact that their derangement was centered in their Christian 
(Nationalist) or other beliefs.If you added up all the people who died as a 
result of terrorist acts over the last 50 years do you think it would even come 
close to the number of just Americans who get violently murdered each and every 
single year?In the year 2013 you were more likely to die as the result of being 
man slaughtered by a toddler with a gun in this country than you were likely to 
get murdered by a terrorist.I am trying to put all this brouhaha into some kind 
of perspective. It is so far down the stack of imminent threats this world 
actually faces; kind of makes you wonder why it gets so much attention and is 
presented as being our most pressing problem. What's the agenda? And whose 
agenda is it?

We have here a case of selective memory. Brevik was indeed a Nazi (no surprise 
there) but you do notice that all his victims were Norwegian socialists? His 
motive was revenge against his fellow countrymen, not Muslims living in Norway, 
which he could have easily attacked. It's impossible to truly see Brevik as a 
church goer, even in the Nazi WW2 German Lutheran style.  You forget the 
Islamist attacks in Madrid 2004 which killed 191 and the subway attack in 
London which killed, and 52 dead in the London tube attacks. If Hindus were 
committing mass murder all over the world, we'd be talking about them instead 
of believers in Muhammad. It's purely practical to focus on the Islamists and 
there's no easy resolution to this war (which it is). I can bring up the London 
beheading, and hundreds of other jihad attack. In the 70's I could have pointed 
out the IRA, Red Army Fraction, Bader Meinhoff types, or the Chilean military 
bombing in DC. The Islamists are super well funded and are motivated by a 
promise of eternity.   

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 1, 2015 1:20 pm
Subject: RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

#yiv5779553059 #yiv5779553059AOLMsgPart_2_aec9f228-bb25-4e63-bb93-3e3b7b86eab7 
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 
6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 
6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 
2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 
3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 
4 5 2 3 3;}#yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
p.yiv5779553059MsoNormal, #yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
li.yiv5779553059MsoNormal, #yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
div.yiv5779553059MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody a:link, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody a:visited, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody p.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody li.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody div.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059EmailStyle18 
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
span.yiv5779553059BalloonTextChar {}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody .yiv5779553059MsoChpDefault {} _filtered 
#yiv5779553059 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5779553059

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns
 per person than the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is
 far smaller than the number of guns.

  What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


 Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
 Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with
 guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income
of a country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got
some stats?

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

By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!

Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to! (Or can't, but that
does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself, nor have I known anyone
who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart from a friend of my
son whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).

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

2015-04-01 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:50:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
  OK, but so you agree that MGA shows that if comp is true, matter is
  of no use, unless we admit that a complex experience like a human
  dream can supervene on a very simple trivial activity. Then the MGA
  intuition pump seems to work well enough, imo.
 
  Bruno
 

 You have just conceded my point. Then the MGA is not a logical proof (as
 you have sometimes claimed, and Quentin claimed even more forcefully),
 but rather an argument by incredulity, or an intuition pump as Daniel
 Dennett puts it. Nothing wrong with that of course, we just need to
 know what has actually been achieved.


I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you seem
to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious entities,
and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
conscious.

Your statement also seems to presuppose an absolute standard of logical
proof and that such would guarantee form of certain knowledge. Whatever
personal standards we may hold for proof, there is some sense in also
interpreting it as form of relating to or communicating with other people
convincingly: 'proving' is trying to convince that one statement follows
from some specified other statements. If those other statements are true,
then the statement in question is also true.

I wish everybody a fine day, communicating with their movies, ensuring that
their movies' living standards, education, careers, finances, health,
social security, retirement plans etc. are in order. Each to their own, but
I'm part of set of people to whom that's just weird and absurd. Sure, maybe
I am weird and absurd. Fine, whatever. PGC

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

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

If the Chinese room is conscious (on the systems argument I think) that
might just be another way of eliminating consciousness, something Dennett
likes to do. I'm not sure if it is or not...

On 2 April 2015 at 16:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:48:47AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
 
  I still don't see what MGA pumps intuitively and incorrectly, as you
 seem
  to assume that MGA is bad intuition pump, rather than good one that
  facilitates seeing something tricky. You've not shown that consciousness
  supervenes on broken gates, you don't treat movies like conscious
 entities,
  and haven't pointed towards a recording that is obviously or demonstrably
  conscious.
 

 It is one thing to argue intuitively that playing Casablanca does not
 instantiate Humphrey Bogart's consciousness. That I would happily agree
 with. It only involves a few 100KB per second. It is another thing to
 argue that a precise recording of the firings of every neuron in
 someone's brain similarly doesn't instantiate consciousness (at around
 10^11 neurons per typical human brain, this would be something of the
 order of 10^16 bytes per second). This is the sort of recording being
 used in Maudlin's thought experiment/MGA. And obviously, according to
 COMP, a huge lookup table encoding the machine's output for every
 possible input for a machine implementing a conscious moment (which is
 just another type of recording, albeit a very complex one that would
 exceed the Seth LLoyd bound for the universe) must be conscious. Note
 this latter type of device was used in Searles Chinese Room argument,
 and I think needs to be answered the same way Dennett answers the
 Chinese Room argument.

 At some point on the complexity scale, recordings go from being not
 conscious to conscious. Where do you draw the line? I'm afraid
 intuition does not help much in this matter, which is why I say it is
 a weakness of the MGA.

 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.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba and Venezuela as well as with ties 
with islamism. The basque terrorists in the 70s trained together with the 
Palestinian terrorists LPO  (in the valley of the Becca) and with argelian 
communists.

Please be informed. 

Was the right-wing Christian fanatic Norwegian terrorist Anders who mass 
murdered (77 people injuring hundreds more) scores of Norwegians in a car bomb, 
followed by a cold blooded execution style gunning down of unarmed teenagers in 
2011, and who acted in the name of his Christian supremacist ideology also --- 
covertly somehow also an Islamic terrorist? 

Was the train station bombing in Bologna Italy, which along with the afore 
mentioned Norwegian act of mass terrorism ranks as Europes worst post WWII act 
of terrorism, was that act perpetrated by Islamicists (or was it rather 
perpetrated by shadowy groups linked to the P2 lodge and to Operation Gladio?)

Inform yourself, yourself! 

The two single largest acts of terrorism in post WWII Europe both committed by 
far right (and in the case of the Bologna bombing also implicating a shadowy 
paramilitary organization called Operation Gladio).

In the US, was Timothy McVeigh also a crypto Muslim of sorts? Or was that mass 
murder act of terrorism also driven by an extremist right wing ideology?

Me thinks, it is rather more yourself that needs to inform themselves, 
seminarian.

Chris

In the other side nobody says that all the terrorists are Muslims. You both may 
be a little off of reality guys. What children literature do you read?. 

There are alaso a great number of extreme left terrorist that has diminished 
since the defeat of the USSR. But there remain a lot of nostalgics of that era 
that populate the centers of power. And even the discussion lists.

2015-04-01 0:06 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

  _  

From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
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 

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

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

-- 

Alberto.

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

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 01 Apr 2015, at 12:33, LizR wrote:


On 1 April 2015 at 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote:

Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the  
physical universe yet.


But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the  
axioms Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO  
describe all feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false.
With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any  
sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we  
don't succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The  
TOE is there. All the physical (but non geographical, nor  
historical) feature of physics must be explained by elementary  
arithmetic, or computationalism is false. That follows from the UDA.


OK, but as you say - if comp is true. And I'm not saying you need to  
prove it's true because I know that's impossible. But as far as I  
know, no one has yet derived a convincing amount of physics from comp,


I have derived the propositional logic of the observable. I invite  
anyone to test it with nature, more than I have already done.


Then it is the only theory in twon which distinguish the justifiable  
from the non justifiable about the observable and the non-observable.


That is more, than the current physics. (Except for David Albert who  
does address the problem in its Bohmian interpretation of QM, and some  
few others, but unaware of the computer science restriction on what  
can prove machine about themselves).






so we don't yet have convincing evidence that it may well be true,  
if you see what I mean. (I think Bruce says the same thing in a post  
i'm about to read!)




Well, I think that deriving quantum logic is more than you might  
think. But to explain this I guess we would need to go deeper in the  
technical details. With the quantum logic you have the yes-no  
experiments, and if it verifies some conditions, it determine the  
measure, and all probabilities, then Noether theorem can almost add  
all the rest, probably with some help from the number 24. The  
theoretical physicists have already done a large part of the work. But  
they still invoke a physical universe for the existence criteria,  
which is where comp implies the reversal, and gives the tools to  
distinguish the quanta and the qualia (where the most honest  
materialist if forced to explain-away consciousness).


Then, I might not be a believer in comp, but 99,999% of the scientists  
(being monist materialist or dualists) do.


The dualist are more honest, generally, as they admit invoking some  
miracle.
The monist materialist either invokes a miracle without saying (some  
even without noticing it) or they conclude correctly that  
consciousness does not exist (which for me is a reductio ad absurdum  
of materialism: you don't need UDA if you are simultaneously convinced  
by Dennett and conscious.


The point is theological or psychological. Does the person exist?

Let us define God by what is at the origin of things, or illusion of  
things, or reality.


Then the basic instinct of the people on this list is an intuition  
that such a god is (extensionally) equivalent with the everything,  
and we have two nice candidates, which have almost precise  
mathematical definitions:


1) A universe or multiverse, described by the wave equation (Everett,  
or Bohm, or Von Neumann, ...MWI or not-MWI), which, when interpreted  
literally on some quantum vacuum can give rise to all possible quantum  
relative states.
That solution is nice, especially that it randomizes away the white  
rabbits, and so seems already to be at least one solution of the comp  
measure problem.


2) ... well, 2 is more a scheme of provably equivalent candidates: any  
first order specification of any universal machine/sytem/Language  
(possibly with oracles) will do. The starting Logos, if you remember  
Plato.


Roughly speaking 1) say it is that universal number, at the exclsuion  
of all the others, and then has the problem that it has to eliminate  
consciousness. 2) follows from comp. If we bet on comp, (or extreme  
weakening of comp, I use comp to simplify the things, löbianity  
persists on a large class of non Turing emulable entities), the only  
one way to get both the quanta and the qualia is to look inward.  
Gödel's discovered that we can interrogate axiomatizable theories  
(machines) about themselves, and showed both their incompleteness, and  
the KEY fact that they can prove their own incompleteness,  
illustrating that machine looking inward, with elementary inference  
inductive abilities, can see something, notably their ignorance and  
the productivity of that ignorance. Computer science described that  
ignorance, in many ways, with usually complex lattices structures, and  
complex logics. But in our setting, that ignorance is described by  
three logics G* \ G, Z1* \  Z1; X1* \ X1.

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-04-01 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


  sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment.


Yes, and today I would say that moderate Muslims are guilty of that,
assuming that such creatures actually exist and are not as mythical as
Bigfoot or Black Gay Republicans.


  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.


That is a very good point. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the 4 most
evil men of the 20th century, I don't want to get into which of the 4
should take the #1 position because I think it would be tasteless to start
arguing that my holocaust was worse than your holocaust, but it's clear
that all 4 were dreadful human beings. And yet even today leftists are only
comfortable in criticizing one of those 4. I have a theory as to why. Most
liberals tend to be academics and the theoretical basis of communism as
seen in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital may be economic
nonsense but it's not obviously evil; I mean who would object to a workers
paradise? In practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid,
however   even in theory the Nazism in Mein Kampf with it's anti-semitism
and master race crap was nauseating.

 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 think it's just knee jerk, somehow they got the idea that to be a good
card carrying liberal one must respect all religions even if there is
absolutely nothing respectable about them.

  John K Clark

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

RE: Life in the Islamic State for women

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 10:18 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment.

Yes, and today I would say that moderate Muslims are guilty of that, assuming 
that such creatures actually exist and are not as mythical as Bigfoot or Black 
Gay Republicans.  

 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.

That is a very good point. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the 4 most evil 
men of the 20th century, 

Let us not forget the much more recent genocide that occurred in Rwanda, and 
how the world essentially stood by and let it happen. Yeah, I know the victims 
(and the perpetrators were) Africans, living in some far off country, of 
negligent economic importance or relevance to the set of issues deemed 
important by the developed world mass media, economic and political centers of 
power.

Chris

I don't want to get into which of the 4 should take the #1 position because I 
think it would be tasteless to start arguing that my holocaust was worse than 
your holocaust, but it's clear that all 4 were dreadful human beings. And yet 
even today leftists are only comfortable in criticizing one of those 4. I have 
a theory as to why. Most liberals tend to be academics and the theoretical 
basis of communism as seen in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital may 
be economic nonsense but it's not obviously evil; I mean who would object to a 
workers paradise? In practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just 
stupid, however   even in theory the Nazism in Mein Kampf with it's 
anti-semitism and master race crap was nauseating.   

 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 think it's just knee jerk, somehow they got the idea that to be a good card 
carrying liberal one must respect all religions even if there is absolutely 
nothing respectable about them. 

  John K Clark

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

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

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-04-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wednesday, 1 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:


 On 31 Mar 2015, at 17:48, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


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



 On Tuesday, March 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


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

 On 30 March 2015 at 19:26, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 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.


 I think we agree on this. I have to think more if that can lead to a proof
 of computationalism, due to possible agnosologia (if that term is correct).
 I can imagine someone feeling less conscious, but losing all memories of
 having been more conscious, so that he does not feel the difference (like
 people becoming blind, but not noticing it). I am just the advocate of the
 devil, here.


Anosognosia is the inability to recognise when you have an illness or a
disability, usually in the context of  neurological or psychiatric
disorders. This differs from being a zombie in that behaviour is affected:
if the patient suffers from cortical blindness with anosognosia, they are
unable to recognise what is in front of them and walk into things. In
addition, they not only have the deficit of lacking qualia, they have a
specific delusional belief which cannot be shifted despite any evidence
they might be presented with.


-- 
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 01 Apr 2015, at 13:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:


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.
At which line of the proof? Comp (even just the Church-thesis)  
assumes arithmetical realism only, not plato's theology. This means  
that 2+2=4 is independent of me and you.


You build quite a lot into the comp hypothesis. If it is, as you  
said above, just the statement that the (human) brain is Turing  
emulable, then no assumption of arithmetical realism is involved.


You need it to define computation. Just to *define¨them.



2+2=4 can be true independent of me and you without assuming numbers  
have a real independent platonic existence.



Nice. You *are* an arithmetical realist. I defined arithmetical  
realism exactly by 2+2=4 can be true independent of me and you.


I have never said anywhere that numbers have a real independent  
platonic existence (and what would that mean). I gave the theory: it  
assumes only:


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

With predicate logic. (I can give a simpler theory which does not  
assumes even predicate logic, but the one above is easier to  
understand by non mathematicians).


I do not do metaphysics, and avoid term like real, or true, unless  
it is a context where I can defined them mathematically (in logic  
true is an standard notion, non problematical when concerned with  
natural numbers or finitary describable things).





Arithmetic might not be fully axiomatizable (because of Goedel), but  
an axiomatized version is plenty rich enough to cope with everyday  
things.



You preach the choir. yes, I share with Macintyre and Franzen the idea  
that most of math and physics does not go beyond what PA can prove.  
But this fails for logic, category, group and ... theology,  
metaphysics, etc. In theoretical computer science, we can distinguish  
hiearchies of complexities, but also degrees on insolubilities. Some  
insoluble problems can be much more insoluble than some others.






It does not mean that a material galaxy does not also exist  
independently of me. For this I provide a proof or argument.


I haven't seen any proof of arithmetical realism.


Of course, when used in your sense. But as I insist, arithmetical  
realism is just accepting the theory above, and to be precise,  
accepting the idea that arithmetical proposition are either true or  
false.







And it does not proof that material galaxies don't exist, but that  
it cannot be related with the conscious event of seeing some galaxy  
through a telescope. It shows that assuming matter is useless to  
explain the appearance of matter, once we assume comp.


So don't assume comp.


But then I have to assume miracles, substantial Gods, fairy tales, ...  
and so no to all doctors.




The the appearance of galaxies tells us something about the universe  
in which we live -- a universe explained by matter and related  
concepts.


assuming non comp, or eliminating consciousness. Please study the  
argument in detail, and if you find a flaw, well it is about time to  
make it precise.


It looks to me that you are just not aware of the reasoning.









 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.
That is done, and sum up in the second part of the sane04 paper,  
but it assumes some maturity in mathematical logic. Have you read  
it. I have already deduce the or a quantum logic of the observable.


I have not read your paper because, as yet you have not given me any  
reason to believe that I would find it interesting.


You believe in comp, even explicitly in the arithmetical realist part,  
and you are not interested in finding a flaw in a reasoning which  
shows that any UTM is a toe, that physics is indifferent for the basic  
ontology, etc.


I think that you will find the paper tremendously interesting, if not  
shocking, if you believe in both comp and in a primitive or primary  
physical universe.


Either you will find a flaw, or you will learn something. (or you will  
pretend to have find a flaw but without succeeding to convince anyone  
or to make it clear, I mean some people can't stay cold on this).





Deducing some quantum logic is not much of an achievement. What  
about an actual physical law?

Re: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

On 3/31/2015 10:56 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

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

*Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 PM
*To:* EveryThing
*Subject:* [SPAM]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%

But the GDP/person is up. Those things are crumbling because the rich don't use them and
so are not interested in paying for them and the rich control politicians thru campaign
contributions.

Could this be what life is like in a crumbling empire, far out into imperial overreach,
stretched thin across the globe, in the vast archipelago of bases – including places of
true logistical nightmare, like Afghanistan (the logistical nightmare of
nightmares…there is no feasible way to get the heavy armor out of Afghanistan, except
through Russia, with Pakistan definitely not wanting mass transiting US armor.

The cost of bearing empire is breaking our backs, and with each successive cycle of
disaster capitalism – creative destruction, right-sizing, out-sourcing etc. the empire
is in a race to scraping bottom, as all empires do. Inside the bubble of power the
mantra remains “we make history” (as once boasted by one famous neocon), but on the
ground it is not all going as planned… though who is going to ever bring the emperor the
bad news… any volunteers? Naturally we don’t have an emperor (yet), but we do have a
powerful deeply rooted patrician aristocracy that has been ascendant here for the last
four decades.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that what has, in the past, leveled the wealth is
war. Of course that's because the government raised taxes, regulated prices, and invested
in research, development, and technology as part of the war effort.

Brent

Will it swing back the other way, as it has in the past – such as with the New Deal, or
earlier with Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting of Standard Oil; or is this just the
prelude to… welcome to tomorrow?

Chris

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
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-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
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-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

2015-04-01 Thread John Mikes

And how many were massacred by the evil regime of Hirohito in China and the
POW-camps (both genders)? (not to mention his war against the USA in the
Pacific).
The war in VietNam is an ignorance of our historians: Kennedy wanted to
punish any 'commis' in general and ignorantly attacked the Moskovite
Viet-Nam which stood in Mao's way towards India. Mao could not invade a
commi country, so he was taken aback at the Viet-Nam borders. He just
laughed all the way to the church that the USA took up Viet-Nam and crossed
his fingers for Ho-Tchi-Minh's decay so his way clears up in Southern Asia.
A US controlled Viet-Nam was no obstacle for him to attack. Unfortunately
for him, the US military was too weak to deliver a 'free plate' to Mao.


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:26 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:





 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 10:18 AM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Life in the Islamic State for women





 On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



  sometime its who you are silent about that is an indictment.



 Yes, and today I would say that moderate Muslims are guilty of that,
 assuming that such creatures actually exist and are not as mythical as
 Bigfoot or Black Gay Republicans.



  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.



 That is a very good point. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the 4 most
 evil men of the 20th century,



 Let us not forget the much more recent genocide that occurred in Rwanda,
 and how the world essentially stood by and let it happen. Yeah, I know the
 victims (and the perpetrators were) Africans, living in some far off
 country, of negligent economic importance or relevance to the set of issues
 deemed important by the developed world mass media, economic and political
 centers of power.

 Chris



 I don't want to get into which of the 4 should take the #1 position
 because I think it would be tasteless to start arguing that my holocaust
 was worse than your holocaust, but it's clear that all 4 were dreadful
 human beings. And yet even today leftists are only comfortable in
 criticizing one of those 4. I have a theory as to why. Most liberals tend
 to be academics and the theoretical basis of communism as seen in The
 Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital may be economic nonsense but it's
 not obviously evil; I mean who would object to a workers paradise? In
 practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid, however
 even in theory the Nazism in Mein Kampf with it's anti-semitism and
 master race crap was nauseating.



  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 think it's just knee jerk, somehow they got the idea that to be a good
 card carrying liberal one must respect all religions even if there is
 absolutely nothing respectable about them.



   John K Clark











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

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


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

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 12:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

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...


Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people from obtaining 
them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this technology will only improve from 
now on.


So far the ones printed will only fire once (if at all).  And no one's been able to print 
ammunition yet.


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

2015-04-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 April 2015 at 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:


 On 01 Apr 2015, at 02:05, LizR wrote:

 Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the physical
 universe yet.


 But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the
 axioms Kxy = x + Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO describe
 all feature of the physical universe. If not comp is false.
 With comp, we cannot add anything to elementary arithmetic or to any
 sigma-1 complete set. That is the point of the reasoning. That we don't
 succeed, or have not yet extracted it is another point. The TOE is there.
 All the physical (but non geographical, nor historical) feature of physics
 must be explained by elementary arithmetic, or computationalism is false.
 That follows from the UDA.

 OK, but as you say - if comp is true. And I'm not saying you need to
 prove it's true because I know that's impossible. But as far as I know, no
 one has yet derived a convincing amount of physics from comp, so we don't
 yet have convincing evidence that it may well be true, if you see what I
 mean. (I think Bruce says the same thing in a post i'm about to read!)


I don't think it's impossible to prove comp true. If comp were not true
then it would be possible to make partial zombies. If partial zombies are
possible then there would be no difference between you having qualia or
lacking qualia, which is equivalent to saying consciousness does not
exist; not just that it is epiphenomenal but that it isn't there at all. So
if consciousness exists, comp must be true.


-- 
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.

SETI breakthrough: Project Durin Succeeds!




This news has gotten remarkably little coverage.  So for those who
have not heard:

Project Ozma failed.  Project Durin succeeded.  It turned out SETI
(the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) was looking in the
wrong direction all along.  It was looking up when it should have
been looking down.

Evolution works much the same everywhere in the universe.  It
selects for different attributes in different environments, but
one commonality is that it never selects for extreme patience.

How long would anyone keep transmitting a few gigawatts at a silent
planet?  A decade?  A century?  A millennium?  The one serious human
attempt to send such a message (the Arecibo message) lasted less than
three minutes, and was never repeated.

If the phone doesn't answer, you leave a message.

As Fermi pointed out decades ago, there's nothing special about the
present age.  A solar system which is just a little older, or in which
evolution happened just a little more quickly, would result in a race
millions of years ahead of us.  If they sent signals to Earth, they'd
get no reply.  If they visited Earth, they'd find nothing more
advanced than dinosaurs, or perhaps blue-green algae.  And they
certainly could have visited Earth.  Even at the speed of our current
spacecraft, it's possible to reach every part of the galaxy on a
geological time scale.

That is why Ayeph Dee, professor of exobiology at Frank Drake University,
had his students come up with a way to leave a message on an Earthlike
planet that would be detectable and readable for hundreds of millions
of years.

They came up with the idea of buried hollow titanium spheres, a few
meters in diameter, containing tuning forks.  Over the course of ages
some would come to the surface and be weathered to dust, and others
would be be subducted to depths at which temperature and pressure
would destroy them.  But if there were enough of them, and if they
were carefully placed, some would survive for hundreds of millions
of years at relatively shallow depths, embedded in bedrock.

Project Durin, named for the ruler of Tolkien's fictional underground
land of Moria, consists of a grid of ten thousand broad-spectrum
microphones embedded in the bedrock of the Canadian Shield.
Recordings are made available to the SETIunderground@Home distributed
computing project, whose software turns the array into an acoustic
version of a passive phased array radar.  It searches the bedrock
for narrow-band point sources of acoustic energy from tuning forks
excited by natural seismic activity.

Such a source was found, approximately 41 kilometers deep, with a
strong high-Q (~100) resonance at about 14 Hz.  This is consistent
with a tuning fork inside a hollow sphere, possibly made of titanium
or tungsten, and possibly filled with oil.  There were also several
seconds of broad-spectrum noise, which could be from multiple smaller
tuning forks inside the same sphere.  Dee conjectured that such a set
of tuning forks could be used to encode a message, based on their
relative frequencies and their relative locations within the sphere.

Unfortunately, we don't yet have the technology to excavate anything
at that depth.  (The deepest borehole ever drilled is just 12
kilometers.)  This also means that the rock surrounding the sphere
hasn't been analyzed, so we have no idea of its age, except that it's
certainly Precambrian, probably at least a billion years old, and
possibly two or three times that age.

It's believed that it was originally buried at a shallow depth.  It's
not known whether this was on land or under an ocean, or whether the
builders were from our solar system or not.  (Venus and Mars may have
been much more hospitable to life eons ago.)  It's even possible that
it was constructed by an indigenous terrestrial sapient race, though
it's hard to imagine it would have left no signs of its existence that
we would have noticed by now.

The planned next step is to detonate several embedded explosives, one
at a time, in various locations, as a form of active sonar, to more
closely locate the sphere.  Once that is done, a large number of
larger explosives (about 100 of approximately one ton each) will be
detonated almost simultaneously, such that their shock waves will
reach the sphere simultaneously from multiple directions, to excite
a strong and sharp resonance of all the tuning forks.

Searches for additional spheres elsewhere on Earth are encouraged.

Project Durin is always open to suggestions.



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

Yes, I think everyone should get their April fools in in good time, so us
Australasians can appreciate them.

Still, thank god we can stop worrying about climate change...

On 2 April 2015 at 10:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

Thank goodness someone still pulls April fools jokes. Actually, this
is the first one I've seen this year, and it is now the 2nd of April
here in Sydney!

Cheers

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:38:07PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

Forwarded Message
Remember all that stuff we told you about 97% of scientists agreeing
that climate change was real? And all those sad polar bears hanging
off of icebergs? And all the dire warnings about catastrophic
sea-level rise?

We just learned that none of it is true. It was all a huge prank
pulled off by the world’s scientists. Senator Inhofe was right.
Watch this video and learn the unvarnished truth about the climate
change hoax

https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

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

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

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

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

Re: Fwd: Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List


On 4/1/2015 2:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

Thank goodness someone still pulls April fools jokes. Actually, this
is the first one I've seen this year, and it is now the 2nd of April
here in Sydney!

Cheers


That's what happens when you wait for the Americans to produce all your 
entertainment. :-)

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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-01 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 You talk like if there was an insuperable difficulty brought by the
 duplication.



 Engineering difficulties only, scientific breakthroughs would not be
 required to make a matter duplicating machine; however when such machines
 become commonplace the English language, and especially the way it uses
 personal pronouns, will need a major overhaul.


  Not really.


Yes really, all it would take to duplicate me is put generic atoms into the
correct spacial relationship, that's the reason I spent $80,000, it is my
hope that freezing my brain at liquid nitrogen temperatures will not erase
too much of that positional information, and maybe just maybe someday
somebody might make use of it. I know my frozen brain will retain more
information than if it was eaten by worms or burned up in a crematorium,
but whether it will contain enough information to get the job done I don't
know.  It may be a long shot but it's the only shot I've got.

 The 1p 3p distinction is enough for the validaity of the thought
 experience,


A thought experiment is not needed to realize there is a difference between
I and you. And other than show that The Moscow Man aka the man who sees
Moscow will turn out to be the man who sees Moscow aka The Moscow Man I
can't figure out what you think you've proven.

 and the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge


I don't think that those working on cutting edge scientific problems in
2015 will be helped much by reading a book written in 369 BC by an author
who thought the Earth was the center of the universe and the 7 planets (
Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn, the Sun and the Moon) were fixed to 7
crystal spheres and the rest of the universe, the stars, was pasted on the
inside of a 8th sphere.

This ancestor worship of the ancient Greeks is getting to be silly.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Fwd: Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com

Yes, I think everyone should get their April fools in in good time, so us
Australasians can appreciate them.
Still, thank god we can stop worrying about climate change...
I always suspected that the most honorable Senator Inhofe was really actually,
a giant of science; now this confirms that indeed he has been right all along;
it was all just a hoax.

On 2 April 2015 at 10:24, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

Thank goodness someone still pulls April fools jokes. Actually, this
is the first one I've seen this year, and it is now the 2nd of April
here in Sydney!

Cheers

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:38:07PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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...


 Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
 from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per
person than the USA? Magic?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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 Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:50:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 OK, but so you agree that MGA shows that if comp is true, matter is
 of no use, unless we admit that a complex experience like a human
 dream can supervene on a very simple trivial activity. Then the MGA
 intuition pump seems to work well enough, imo.
 
 Bruno
 

You have just conceded my point. Then the MGA is not a logical proof (as
you have sometimes claimed, and Quentin claimed even more forcefully),
but rather an argument by incredulity, or an intuition pump as Daniel
Dennett puts it. Nothing wrong with that of course, we just need to
know what has actually been achieved.



-- 


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: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 08:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 12:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  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...


  Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop
 people from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So far the ones printed will only fire once (if at all).  And no one's
 been able to print ammunition yet.


Still it made a clever plot in Elementary, the modern adaptation of
Sherlock Holmes that leaves Sherlock standing.

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

Thank goodness someone still pulls April fools jokes. Actually, this
is the first one I've seen this year, and it is now the 2nd of April
here in Sydney!

Cheers

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:38:07PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

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: The MGA revisited


On 4/1/2015 12:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't think it's impossible to prove comp true. If comp were not true then it would be 
possible to make partial zombies. 


I think that's the inference we're arguing.  It's certainly not obvious to me.

If partial zombies are possible then there would be no difference between you having 
qualia or lacking qualia, 


There would be no 3p observable difference in other people.  Just showing that a partial 
zombie is possible doesn't show that you are one.



which is equivalent to saying consciousness does not exist;


I think it is equivalent to the idea that some (humans) have souls and some (animals) 
don't.  I don't believe that, but it's logically possible.



not just that it is epiphenomenal but that it isn't there at all.


Maybe it isn't.  I only know about my own.

Brent


So if consciousness exists, comp must be true.


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

On 1 April 2015 at 20:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don´t believe in anything that SCIAM says except in hard sciences. And
 event in that I have my doubts
 These kind of publications lost their credibility time ago. Well, and many
 pseudoscience departments
 in the universities. They are nothing but propaganda organs driven by
 power and money

 Well not directly power and money, but leftist fanatism as a cover for the
 seek of power and money.

 Ah, I see. Scientific American is full of money- and power-seeking
fanatics, unlike the richest 1% of the population.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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 4/1/2015 2:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Progress haev been made, until Aristotle metaphysics has been imposed through violence, 
for 1500 years,


A lot more violence was motivated by the Platonic view that this world is an illusion and 
everyone's actions must be guided by their anticipated afterlife in a perfect but 
invisible world.


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.

Fwd: Global Warming Hoax Confirmed



 Forwarded Message 
Remember all that stuff we told you about 97% of scientists agreeing that climate change 
was real? And all those sad polar bears hanging off of icebergs? And all the dire warnings 
about catastrophic sea-level rise?


We just learned that none of it is true. It was all a huge prank pulled off by the world’s 
scientists. Senator Inhofe was right. Watch this video and learn the unvarnished truth 
about the climate change hoax




https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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 4/1/2015 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Well, no, there is no TOE that describes all features of the physical universe 
yet.


But if comp is true, there is. If comp is true, the theory with the axioms Kxy = x + 
Sxyz = xy(zy), or elementary arithmetic HAVE TO describe all feature of the physical 
universe. If not comp is false.


But that's like saying if Catholicism is true then there is a God who's omniscient.  You 
should be more cautious about the modus tollens: There is no TOE hence comp is false.


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: Economic inequality

2015-04-01 Thread John Mikes

Liz, do not forget that the 'lower' flat ~10% means 1000 times the wealth
of the average family,
the lately surpassed ~20% *2000 times of the AVERAGE possession of US
FAMILIES*.
(Example: a specialty worker with ~$50.000 pay owns a house and chattel -
say $60-70.000
total value and a retirement nest egg ~30,000. In the TOTAL average that
counts for 0,3 -0.4
part (calculate the 'total' at an average wealth figure of $3-400,000 -
accordingly the 0.1%
owns $6-800 million. That is criminally stingy. The 0.1% is an order of
magnitude higher.
Which triggers the following dilemma:

Speaking of averages: does anybody have a guess whether that 0.1% is
INCLUDED into the
overall average, or is it only calculated above it? Furthermore: how does
it compare to the
combined(?) wealth(??) of the payroll-earning working class? Does it come
up to a difference
in the million range? Now * T H AT* is inequality.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:02 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

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 meeke...@verizon.net 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.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

Even Svalbard appears to have less guns per head than the USA, and there
you're actually legally obliged to carry one whenever you leave town!

On 2 April 2015 at 11:19, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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...


 Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
 from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per
 person than the USA? Magic?





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

2015-04-01 Thread colin hales

Yeah.. For about hmm  Dozens of microseconds  ... you had me... On the 2nd! 
 I experienced the qualia ... that frisson of misplaced credulousness that an 
old fart like me needs every now and then 
Cheers
Colin

-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
Sent: ‎2/‎04/‎2015 8:15 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

Thank goodness someone still pulls April fools jokes. Actually, this
is the first one I've seen this year, and it is now the 2nd of April
here in Sydney!

Cheers

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 01:38:07PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
  Forwarded Message 
 Remember all that stuff we told you about 97% of scientists agreeing
 that climate change was real? And all those sad polar bears hanging
 off of icebergs? And all the dire warnings about catastrophic
 sea-level rise?
 
 We just learned that none of it is true. It was all a huge prank
 pulled off by the world’s scientists. Senator Inhofe was right.
 Watch this video and learn the unvarnished truth about the climate
 change hoax
 
 
 
 https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 


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

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


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

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

here comes the sun in the spring and here comes the warmist guys again

2015-04-01 22:38 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:


  Forwarded Message 
 Remember all that stuff we told you about 97% of scientists agreeing that
 climate change was real? And all those sad polar bears hanging off of
 icebergs? And all the dire warnings about catastrophic sea-level rise?

 We just learned that none of it is true. It was all a huge prank pulled
 off by the world’s scientists. Senator Inhofe was right. Watch this video
 and learn the unvarnished truth about the climate change hoax



 https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_
 source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

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




-- 
Alberto.

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

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:

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...

Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from
obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this technology
will only
improve from now on.

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per person than
the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun is far smaller than the
number of guns.

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
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-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: Global Warming Hoax Confirmed

From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comhere comes the sun in the
spring and here comes the warmist guys again
And here comes Alberto getting all hot under the collar again; even when people
are just fooling around on the first day of April... imagine that!

2015-04-01 22:38 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

Forwarded Message
Remember all that stuff we told you about 97% of scientists agreeing that
climate change was real? And all those sad polar bears hanging off of icebergs?
And all the dire warnings about catastrophic sea-level rise?

We just learned that none of it is true. It was all a huge prank pulled off by
the world’s scientists. Senator Inhofe was right. Watch this video and learn
the unvarnished truth about the climate change hoax

https://nextgenclimate.org/hotseat/?utm_medium=emailutm_source=ThinkProgressutm_campaign=SPEM-AFD-video

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

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

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

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women