Re: The MGA revisited
On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 13:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: To be more precise, I should explain you how computations and emulation is defined in arithmetic, in term of the truth of elementary number theoretical relations. A computation will exist through the fact that it is true that some numbers divide some other numbers, and other facts like that. On the contrary, a description of a computation will be a number from which we can extract the description of a sequence of states, but that is different from the states existence being the result of a set of true relation. So you can use these terms in that way. But that does not make 'computation' a dynamical concept. It is not a physical time related concept. But computer, or universal number (or universal combinators) needs only a discrete static time: 0, 1, 2, 3, .. OK, but that is an ordering parameter and it does not make the computational dynamical rather than static. It does not make the computational dynamical in the physical sense, but we don't need that as physics will have to be derived from the first person experience associated to the non physical computation. To ease the understanding, it is better to not assume a primary physical reality, nor to assume it does not exist, and to follow precisely the reasoning. As it is counter-intuitive, it is the only way to avoid the use of some prejudice we can have in such domain. There is no change or movement involved. Arithmetic is completely static, as are the relations between numbers. Block universe are static too. It is the point of a relativity theory. Time and space comes from comparison between clock and meter, nothing can prevent the sigma_1 reality to emulates all those comparisons , and by assuming computationalism, of the conscious entities which make sense of the comparisons. It is similar to the block universe view in that your internal ordering parameter is entirely static. But the analogy is not perfect for what you want to do with comp. The physical block universe is often referred to in terms of two separate points of view: the 'bird' view which is from the outside, It corresponds loosely to what I call the third person point of view, except it is not based on physical notion, like universe. from which (entirely metaphorical) view, the universe is static; and the 'frog' view from within, from which view the universe is dynamical. Here we will have the first person view, but it is a psychological notion, and again, not related a priori with the physical. Indeed, in the math part we get the 1-view with adding p to the provability predicate. To get physics we will need the weaker t, or both t p. But here I anticipate. Note that in Everett Tegmark, the 1-view is given by the relative states, and the 3-view by the universal wave, or matrix. But 1-3 view is a much refined, and psychological notion, than bird and frog. In this case the bird (block) view is completely equivalent to a recording of the experiences of the frog in real time. Here your analogy breaks down. The ultimate 3-view, in the TOE extracted from comp, is the arithmetical reality. It is statical, but is not a recording. the computation exists due to the truth of some relation between numbers, and not from the description of those truth. That is a key difference, which cannot be understood if you have a conventionalist view of mathematics. The arithmetical reality kicks back, and indeed, incompleteness is a product of that difference. Einstein resists to this all his life, but in the book by Pale Yourgreau, I got evidence that eventually Gödel makes him realize that difference. Because the time parameter is defined internally, the recording can be run as often as required by the bird, and the result (and conscious experiences of the frog) are identical every time. There is no consciousness in a recording, or associable to a recording. There is just no computation there, only a description of a computation. I think I will have to make a thread on only this, as it is subtle and people can easily be confused. That is also what is made utterly clear in Gödel's work, but then it is no less subtle, even if it is a particular case of the difference between the number 89 and the description 89. The same thing would happen in the static view of the dovetailer with states ordered by the step number. The whole shebang would be no different from a recording of the same shebang -- That is a reason to doubt in a mono-universe block reality, but the problem is solved with a block multi-universe. I mean that this is conceivable. No problem with arithmetic, which internalize all the counterfactuals, and the computations, by abstraction. This will also solidify the idea that consciousness is an
Re: The MGA revisited
On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 13:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: You want a dynamic like in physics, a function from time to space, but in computer science, and to understand the problem here, the dynamics are given by function from N to mind states. You need to give magical ability to a turing machine so that she can distinguish (by its consciousness, in a first person way) the difference between a physical emulation, and an arithmetical emulation. The physical will give rise to the right measure, but not by magic, only because the physical is run by the sum on all computations below its substitution level. But all this is not needed to get the reversal in step seven. So I guess again that you are OK with step seven and see that if a primary physical universe exists and run the UD, then physics is reduced to arithmetic (seen from inside). Do you see that. I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. and it is not running your UD! I think we might notice if it were. I don't believe a physical universe could run a UD, but again, that point is not relevant after the MGA. I think that Russell is right when he suggested that even by step seven your dovetailer has to be running in Platonia, not in a physical embodiment. This has to do with the fact that the dovetailer can never complete. It is running all possible programs and most of these will never complete. So you never complete and get back to running all the steps of early programs in the sequence. So you do not compute all possible instantiations of a conscious moment by any finite time in a physical universe. Or even in Platonia because the idea of a completed infinity of computations makes no sense. Why do you think the universal dovetailer dovetails? For all i, j k, the step phi_i(j)^k is obtained from a bijection between NxNxN and N. The UD works a bit on the first execution, then a bit on the second execution, and then comes back on the first, then the second, then the third, and then come back to the first, etc. In that way, the UD executes all computations, including all those who never stop. So no conscious moment, even in with a dovetailer in Platonia, can ever be completely counterfactually correct, because there will always be related sequences of states that never get to be computed -- no completed infinities even in arithmetic. Physics is not reduced to arithmetic seen from the inside because arithmetic is never completed by the dovetailer or anything else and there are no non-magical ways in which similar states that might give rise to ordered physical laws can ever be be related. The universal dovetailer dovetails. You only ever get out of a model like this what you put in. You have put in arithmetic, so that is what you get out. You will never get physics this way. I do get an embryo of a non trivial physics, by adding the classical axioms/definition of knowledge, and I do provide the axiomatization of the logic of the observable, and I do show that it gives a quantization and a quantum logic, and I do compare it with QM's logic. I even provide theorem provers for most of the logics involved. Computationalism can be wrong, but that is the whole point of the reasoning: we can test it (with some nuance, like assuming we are not in a conspiratorial simulation, ...). Bruno Bruce With occam, a believer in comp can already stop here, and work on the measure problem. But a phsysicalist can still conclude that there is a primary unique universe, and that it can't run the UD, nor any significant part. The step 8 address this situation and shows precisely why invoking a primary physical universe makes it magical, with neuron needing prescience, and movie getting experiences, and indeed nothing getting all experiences. It is good news, as it suggest we might understand the origin of the physical laws, from non physical things, the gluing properties of universal numbers' dreams. 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
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
John wrote: 'Scriptures (all of them, from the pre-Hebrew ones to the most recent ones) are HUMANLY written (published?) and some (e.g. the Quran) only in ONE *human* language, even prohibiting a translation).' The Quran, revealed in Arabic, has been translated in several languages, and even in the same language by several translators. Multiple translations are available online on many websites, such as: http://quran.com/ http://corpus.quran.com/ http://islamawakened.com/quran/ http://searchtruth.com/list.php According to the Quran, it is the Muslim belief that a series of scriptures were revealed by divine decree for the guidance of mankind, the last of which is the Quran, as Muhammad is the seal (last) of the series of prophets [http://quran.com/33/40 ]. Though humans were able to make changes in previous scriptures (possibly both in the revealed language as well as translations), the arabic Quran is divinely guarded from changes [ http://quran.com/15/9 ]. Translations of certain verses of the Quran differ, and thus, the importance of trying to look up the original arabic words and their range of meanings, and its usage across the Quran. Most of the scriptures we know have been orally transmitted and then recorded (published) by humans, except possibly the Ten Commandments which were given to Moses on stone tablets [http://quran.com/7/145 ]. But that is besides the point. The scriptures were revealed to the human prophets and messengers, in the language of the people they were addressing [ http://quran.com/14/4 ], and thus the copy of the scripture in its revealed language is most likely the original source. There may be errors in translation, therefore, I suggest the study of the original sources, i.e. in the original language of revelation, if possible. It is also important to understand the difference between scripture [divine revelations] and secondary sources, which are efforts to compile teachings of the prophets that are not in the scripture, for example works like Bhagwad Gita, Talmud, Hadith. Of course, there are many errors in these recordings, which can be attributed to human memory or understanding, or both, or may be even deliberate efforts to corrupt the teachings and make additions to the religion. That the message of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other messages, have all suffered greatly because followers have attached primary importance to such secondary sources is quite evident from history. Vedas, Torah, Bible and Quran emphasise upon Monotheism, while the beliefs and worship of the many sects of Hindus, Jews, Christians and Muslims vary greatly. Personally, I see a lot of confusion on this list as well as elsewhere between the primary teachings of a scripture and the practice of those who profess to follow those religions. It is important to not to confuse the two if one is seeking the truth for oneself. For your convenience, following are the verses I referenced above. You can also look up multiple translations on http://islamawakened.com/quran/ http://quran.com/33/40 Pickthall Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things. http://quran.com/15/9 Pickthall Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian. http://quran.com/7/145 Shakir And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things; so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof; I will show you the abode of the transgressors. http://quran.com/14/4 Sahih International And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Samiya On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:49 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Samiya, you sweetly fell into the trap of my polite sentence *(...smarter than me*). I did not mention absolute smart. And: I did not ask 'where God came from' - although in an eaarlier post I raised the question 'where (from what system) did the mentioned 'God' come from? A ask, however, Bruno for some explanation he may have about the term God' he uses exrtensively and intensively - dispite of his many times claimed agnosticism. I referred to some 'alien(?) wisdom to re-evaluate out terms -anyway with the criticism that those (new) terms may fit into an alien (not our) system better. Scriptures (all of them, from the pre-Hebrew ones to the most recent ones) are HUMANLY written (published?) and some (e.g. the Quran) only in ONE *human* language, even prohibiting a translation). If, indeed, based on 'Godly' instructions, some 'mortals' (conveying the instructions) should have gotten some believable proof of the 'source' and understanding about the instructed texts. Should we beleieve that after
Re: The MGA revisited
On 07 Apr 2015, at 08:47, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:51:30PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think that Russell is right when he suggested that even by step seven your dovetailer has to be running in Platonia, not in a physical embodiment. This has to do with the fact that the dovetailer can never complete. It is running all possible programs and most of these will never complete. So you never complete and get back to running all the steps of early programs in the sequence. So you do not compute all possible instantiations of a conscious moment by any finite time in a physical universe. Or even in Platonia because the idea of a completed infinity of computations makes no sense. So no conscious moment, even in with a dovetailer in Platonia, can ever be completely counterfactually correct, because there will always be related sequences of states that never get to be computed -- no completed infinities even in arithmetic. Hi Bruce, that's not quite right. All computations eventually get computed by the UD within a finite (but unbounded) number of computational steps. Yes. Bruce missed the dovetailing part of the universal dovetailing. Only in a non-robust ontology does this not happen. Perhaps you could argue that the infinite sum over all computations supporting a given observer moment will never complete in a finite time, but I think that poses a problem for computing the measure (already recognised as an open problem), rather than being an isue per se with UDA 1-7. OK. 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: The MGA revisited
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:51:30PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think that Russell is right when he suggested that even by step seven your dovetailer has to be running in Platonia, not in a physical embodiment. This has to do with the fact that the dovetailer can never complete. It is running all possible programs and most of these will never complete. So you never complete and get back to running all the steps of early programs in the sequence. So you do not compute all possible instantiations of a conscious moment by any finite time in a physical universe. Or even in Platonia because the idea of a completed infinity of computations makes no sense. So no conscious moment, even in with a dovetailer in Platonia, can ever be completely counterfactually correct, because there will always be related sequences of states that never get to be computed -- no completed infinities even in arithmetic. Hi Bruce, that's not quite right. All computations eventually get computed by the UD within a finite (but unbounded) number of computational steps. Only in a non-robust ontology does this not happen. Perhaps you could argue that the infinite sum over all computations supporting a given observer moment will never complete in a finite time, but I think that poses a problem for computing the measure (already recognised as an open problem), rather than being an isue per se with UDA 1-7. -- 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
Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:51:30PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: So no conscious moment, even in with a dovetailer in Platonia, can ever be completely counterfactually correct, because there will always be related sequences of states that never get to be computed -- no completed infinities even in arithmetic. Hi Bruce, that's not quite right. All computations eventually get computed by the UD within a finite (but unbounded) number of computational steps. Only in a non-robust ontology does this not happen. I think you need to unpack this a little. The dovetailer is running all possible programs. That is an infinite number of programs, much less an infinite number of computational steps. How can you say that there are only a finite number of steps? And I do not know what finite but unbounded means in this context. It has meaning in closed universe models, but scarcely in arithmetic? Perhaps you could argue that the infinite sum over all computations supporting a given observer moment will never complete in a finite time, but I think that poses a problem for computing the measure (already recognised as an open problem), rather than being an isue per se with UDA 1-7. I have difficulty relating the number of computational steps to any physical time. This UD is running on arithmetic in Platonia. Each step takes no time, it is merely a relation between numbers. But if steps are numbered with successive integers, there is an infinite number of them and it cannot complete. It is not a matter of time, it is a matter of infinite integers: after any number of steps there is still an infinite number left to complete. The measure problem is insoluble without some further input into the model to restrict the possibilities. 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: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 9:19 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes Anything in the egg cell, or donated at any point during gestation from the mother (in mammals, at least) can be passed on, I assume. (What about mitochondria?) Mitochondria comes from mom; it is exclusively matrilineal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 07 Apr 2015, at 01:57, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Assuming you're like me, you perceive yourself as a single entity travelling through time in the forward direction. You? Mr. John Clark The Moscow Man will perceive a single entity, and Mr. John Clark the Washington Man will perceive a single entity, and Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man will no longer perceive anything at all. You left out traveling through time in a forward direction. Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man. It follows indeed from step 1, as if they were new man, the H-man would have died. many worlds or duplicating machines you have to specify which Telmo Menezes or which you in the exact same way. No it is not exactly the same way. With copying machines John Clark can see 6.02 *10^23 Telmo Menezes running around and has no idea which one is Mr. You, but in Many Worlds it is dictated by the laws of physics that John Clark can see only one Telmo Menezes, and human language need not be made more precise than the laws of physics. Assuming that you are not duplicated in possible far away Boltzmann brains, that there is no Du running in the universe, etc. To attach the first person to an third person reality is what is shown problematical. The identity thesis is assumed, but duplication illustrates this is problematical in general. Bruno does this with the concept of diary -- which can be a brain state. What good does that do? We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. We did agree on this. You are changing your mind here, without explaining why. The position of their brains is unimportant because until the door is opened both are still identical to the Helsinki Man. They are important if we are discussing the implications of computationalism (the belief that you mind can be replaced with some computation, Baloney. If consciousness even has a position it's the place a mind is thinking about or the place where its sense organs are; a mind might not even know or care where the computations are taking place. So you undoubtedly agree that step 3 is correct. In science it's better to be wrong than meaningless and step 3 is so infested with ambiguous personal pronouns that it is meaningless. Baloney. There is no ambiguity at all, as we have agree on the 1p/3p distinction. The W and M man are both the H-man, but suddenly put in different context. The personal identity is an indexical, and so, like most modalities, does not obey to the Leibniz rule. The only relevant point is that after the duplication, the W-man and the M-man do not feel to be the same person, and remains the same only intellectually. If they keep that intellectual idea seriously (which I do), it leads to the idea that personal identity is an illusion (which I think), but this poses no problem in the sequel of the reasoning which is concerned with prediction of first person experience. So I neither agree nor disagree with step 3 Oh, we are progressing. may be reading the next steps can help you to see if your bad feeling about the FPI is really relevant. just as I don't agree or disagree with a burp or the phrase free will; all three have zero informational content. They don't have enough meat on the bone to even be wrong. False. You have shown that incompatibilist theories of free will does not make sense, but that is not a reason to thrown the concept away, it is a reason to look at the compatibilist theories. You make the same error with the concept of God. You don't believe in the christian God, and declare from this that all notion of God are burp. The idea of taking some idea X seriously, is the idea of trying definition, and changing them when contradiction occurs. You illustrate only that you are taking *some* definition of free- will, and of God, too much seriously. Well OK maybe I went a little too far with that, a burp may contain some information about the nature of human digestion. The duplicator uncertainty is perhaps more remarkable, because different worlds exist as first person perspectives, If the one and only thing that can turn the Helsinki Man into the Moscow man is the sight of Moscow then I don't have the least bit uncertainty in predicting that the guy that will see Moscow will turn out to be the Moscow Man, nor do I find that fact remarkable. I find it a tautology Sure, but the question was asked to the Helsinki-man, about what he expects. As he does not expect to die (because he assumes computationalism) he expects that Moscow man will see Moscow and be astonished to he is
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, April 6, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Apr 2015, at 00:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Apr 2015, at 00:03, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Saturday, April 4, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Imagine the iterated duplication, the average history in the diaries obtained contained histories like W (I was unable to predit that), W again! Bruno Marchal keeps making the exact same error over and over and over again. Whatever is in the diary that the Washington Man is carrying is totally irrelevant because it was not written by the Washington Man he's just carrying it, the diary was written by the Helsinki Man. And Bruno Marchal just can't kick that personal pronoun addiction. For the 123rd time WHO THE HELL IS I? I is a single entity travelling through time in the forward direction. If you have duplication you realise this is an illusion. However, brains are strongly wired up to persist in this illusion, and the result is that if you are teleported to two places it will seem to you that you are teleported to just one with probability 1/2. The original and the copy know it's not objectively true, but they can't help the feeling. Yes, and then, as they assume comp, they have a simple theory explaining why it has to be like that: they have been duplicated. ( w v m) has been realized in all extensions, and (w m) is falsified in all extensions. Everything here can be made pure third person, so ... even a p- zombie grasps this :) BTW, I think your argument in your other post might eliminate yes doctor from comp. The unprovable part would rely entirely in Church's thesis. That would be nice and you make me think so. Yes, that's what I think. Those who believe (like Searle) that CT is true and every 3P function of the brain can be replicated but don't believe in comp are inconsistent. Agreed. Of course you still need to say yes to the doctor, but the trust will rely on the level, and well, on the fact that the patient of that doctor seems to pass the non-zombie-Turing test, which proves nothing, but we have nothing else as far as truth is concerned. There is for completeness another possibility, which is that a type of dualism is true. Your body is a zombie and your mind exists in a spiritual realm, but the two happily run in parallel. Like in computationalism, if you agree with the MGA conclusion, but with one big nuance: there is no body. So no zombie a fortiori. Only appearance of bodies, and they are pointers on the thinker, not the thinker itself. In this case if there was a partial brain replacement your body would continue saying everything is normal but your mind might notice a difference and the parallelism would stop from that point. Cochlear implant patients might be experiencing this now: their minds are frantically trying to communicate to the world that they are just as deaf as before, but they have frustratingly lost the ability to control their bodies, which are telling people that they can hear. Similar thing can happen with the corpus callosus when sectioned. The dominant brain keep control of the body, and acts and talk like if nothing happened, when some suspect that the non dominant brain might support a person or personal experience, who know feels like losing control, except indirectly through the limbic system. But those are not partial zombiness, it is more dissociative state, like with salvia, and ketamine or high dose of lsd, or shrooms. You don't comment below, I guess you have no problem with a movie does not support the conscious experience of the boolean program in real time. That would again leads to partial zombie, or lead to ascribe a token precise experience to an empty movie. OK? I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the doctor, might not add any new computability power, only that it would be needed to remain alive and have the relevant behavior. I guess you agree with this remark, as we were in the context of copies having the right behavior and pretending to survive perfectly. Obviously, a believer in CT, and not in comp, needs some amount of magic, and perhaps we can derive comp from CT, if, like in the MGA, we can show that indeed we need to add something magical. I have to think more on this, as I might be quick again. Hmm... A model could be given with having an infinite low substitution level. When using a digital brain, people would survive ... for some period of time, and then problems would add up, due to truncation error, decimals incorrect, etc. The brain would be a truly infinite machine, but without giving the person new computability power. It seems to me right now. What I intended by CT is the narrower physical version, which says that all physics is computable. If that is true then at least the behaviour of a person should be computable, though he may be a zombie if in fact consciousness has nothing to do with physics but occurs in a separate spiritual realm. What is incompatible is the following three beliefs: (a) all physics is computable, and (b) consciouness supervenes on brain processes, and (c) consciousness is substrate-dependent and so will not be reproduced even with a sufficiently fine-grained and perfectly well behaved brain simulation. -- 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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
You left out traveling through time in a forward direction. Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? Have you ever met anyone who doesn't feel like they are travelling through time in a forward direction? many worlds or duplicating machines you have to specify which Telmo Menezes or which you in the exact same way. No it is not exactly the same way. With copying machines John Clark can see 6.02 *10^23 Telmo Menezes running around and has no idea which one is Mr. You, They will all believe to be Telmo, and they will all have their own first person perspective of the world. If you ask about something before the multiplication, they will all tend to remember the same things. Nobody is asking you to decide which one is the real one. There is no real one, all are equally real and all believe they are themselves, as anyone believes to be themself. but in Many Worlds it is dictated by the laws of physics that John Clark can see only one Telmo Menezes, and human language need not be made more precise than the laws of physics. I don't see how the laws of physics prevent the possibility of another chunk of matter being configured in the exact same way as I am. Bruno does this with the concept of diary -- which can be a brain state. What good does that do? We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. Why do you write emails? The moment after you press Send you are John Clark the 1428412752 Unix timestamp man, and no longer John Clark the Unix timestamp 1428412651 man. The position of their brains is unimportant because until the door is opened both are still identical to the Helsinki Man. They are important if we are discussing the implications of computationalism (the belief that you mind can be replaced with some computation, Baloney. If consciousness even has a position it's the place a mind is thinking about or the place where its sense organs are; a mind might not even know or care where the computations are taking place. I agree. Of course, I never said that the mind supervenes on a position, what I said is that investigating the specific scenario of duplication to another position is a useful device used by the thought experiment that you refuse to follow. This might become more clear if you did, so this conversation is a bit weird. You reminded me of the sort of person who tries to derail a joke by asking for meaningless details in the setup, instead of waiting for the punchline. In this specific case, you might discover later on that your objections are meaningless. Or not, but it would certainly be more productive to discuss the entire thing. So you undoubtedly agree that step 3 is correct. In science it's better to be wrong than meaningless and step 3 is so infested with ambiguous personal pronouns that it is meaningless. So I neither agree nor disagree with step 3 just as I don't agree or disagree with a burp or the phrase free will; all three have zero informational content. They don't have enough meat on the bone to even be wrong. You may criticize the clarity of the language in the paper. I don't think anyone ever accused Bruno of being unquirky in his English, but everything has been thoroughly clarified after years of discussion. You are not the only one who doubts that the proof is correct, but you are the only one who doesn't understand step 3. Well OK maybe I went a little too far with that, a burp may contain some information about the nature of human digestion. The duplicator uncertainty is perhaps more remarkable, because different worlds exist as first person perspectives, If the one and only thing that can turn the Helsinki Man into the Moscow man is the sight of Moscow then I don't have the least bit uncertainty in predicting that the guy that will see Moscow will turn out to be the Moscow Man, nor do I find that fact remarkable. I find it a tautology The point is not to be remarkable, it's to be correct. Step 3 proposes that an outside observer will correctly predict that the man who sees Moscow will turn out to be the Moscow man and that the man who sees Washington will turn out to be the Washington man and that both men will exist after the duplication. The other part that you always leave out is that, if you ask the Helsinki man to predict what he will see next, both men will remember being the man who made a prediction, one will turn out to be right and the other wrong. If you run this experiment a number of times with a sufficiently intelligent person, the swarm of duplicates will agree on uncertainty, that they* cannot predict their* next city, each one has p = .5. This uncertainty of the first person arises from a scenario where there is no uncertainty on the third person. Do you have a problem with any of these
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 07 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 7 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the doctor, might not add any new computability power, only that it would be needed to remain alive and have the relevant behavior. I guess you agree with this remark, as we were in the context of copies having the right behavior and pretending to survive perfectly. Obviously, a believer in CT, and not in comp, needs some amount of magic, and perhaps we can derive comp from CT, if, like in the MGA, we can show that indeed we need to add something magical. I have to think more on this, as I might be quick again. Hmm... A model could be given with having an infinite low substitution level. When using a digital brain, people would survive ... for some period of time, and then problems would add up, due to truncation error, decimals incorrect, etc. The brain would be a truly infinite machine, but without giving the person new computability power. It seems to me right now. What I intended by CT is the narrower physical version, which says that all physics is computable. OK. This clarifies your point. But the original CT has nothing to do with physics. Also Deutsch's form of CT (everything physical can be quantum Turing emulated (perhaps in polynomial time)) is not equivalent with the original CT, and might be in conflict with it. All physics might be computable, without the entire physical universe being computable (which I thing is figital physics. With computationalism, a priori, the physical should not be computable, but it has to be enough computable to disallow too much white rabbits, something that QM seems to do remarkably well, but it is an open problem with arithmetic. The reason is that the indeterminacy on the computational histories might be too much big. If that is true then at least the behaviour of a person should be computable, though he may be a zombie if in fact consciousness has nothing to do with physics but occurs in a separate spiritual realm. What is incompatible is the following three beliefs: (a) all physics is computable, and (b) consciouness supervenes on brain processes, and (c) consciousness is substrate-dependent and so will not be reproduced even with a sufficiently fine-grained and perfectly well behaved brain simulation. OK. I think that (a) and (b') are already incompatible: (a) all physics is computable, and (b') consciousness supervenes on *digital* brain processes. But (a), (b) and (c) already make obligatory to derive physics from the FPI on the whole UD*. The winning computation(s) are plausibly the one with a linear symmetrical bottom, and which admit long (deep in Bennett sense) computational histories. This makes us very rare in the arithmetical reality, but also super-multiplied, and with natural ways to entangle many universal machines in a many video-game type of (observable, phenomelogical) reality. I will surely come back on Church's thesis. It is a quite strong thesis which implies incompleteness in one simple (double) diagonalization. The original thesis asserts only that lambda-calculus defines all intuitively computable function. It is provably equivalent with the same thesis with lambda-calculus replaced by any know (Turing) universal system. Does this implies comp? I doubt (given the counter-example), but might be closer than I thought. And if CT implies comp, or almost comp, then consciousness would be close to being equivalent with the ability to get troubled by the following sentence, which typically can neither be true nor false: Anyone currently reading the present sentence will never know that this present sentence is true In arithmetic this sentences does *not* belongs to G* \ G, as it is not even expressible (arithmetical truth is not expressible or definable in arithmetic). There is no problem with the self- reference,
Re: The Object
I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, 7 April 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote: On 06 Apr 2015, at 01:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I agree that if comp is true then consciousness cannot supervene on physical activity, for the reasons in the MGA thread. OK. Thanks for making this clear. The only way out of this conclusion is to deny comp, which means to deny CT. I guess you are too quick. We can still deny comp, without denying CT, for example by pretending that no copy will get the right behavior, or even that the copy will be dead, and cannot be made moving at all, perhaps because we believe in some magical God which would not allow it, or whatever, or that all copies will be mentally impaired, etc. It is only in the case where the copies behave the same as the original, and claim they have no change in qualia, that comp is follows from CT with the no-partial-zombie argument. This does not imply CT is false, as the magical soul, or the primitive matter, or the infinitely low subst level (actually infinite), used to make someone saying no to the doctor, might not add any new computability power, only that it would be needed to remain alive and have the relevant behavior. I guess you agree with this remark, as we were in the context of copies having the right behavior and pretending to survive perfectly. Obviously, a believer in CT, and not in comp, needs some amount of magic, and perhaps we can derive comp from CT, if, like in the MGA, we can show that indeed we need to add something magical. I have to think more on this, as I might be quick again. Hmm... A model could be given with having an infinite low substitution level. When using a digital brain, people would survive ... for some period of time, and then problems would add up, due to truncation error, decimals incorrect, etc. The brain would be a truly infinite machine, but without giving the person new computability power. It seems to me right now. What I intended by CT is the narrower physical version, which says that all physics is computable. OK. This clarifies your point. But the original CT has nothing to do with physics. Also Deutsch's form of CT (everything physical can be quantum Turing emulated (perhaps in polynomial time)) is not equivalent with the original CT, and might be in conflict with it. All physics might be computable, without the entire physical universe being computable (which I thing is figital physics. With computationalism, a priori, the physical should not be computable, but it has to be enough computable to disallow too much white rabbits, something that QM seems to do remarkably well, but it is an open problem with arithmetic. The reason is that the indeterminacy on the computational histories might be too much big. At least the physics in the brain must be Turing emulable, or the whole enterprise falls down. If that is true then at least the behaviour of a person should be computable, though he may be a zombie if in fact consciousness has nothing to do with physics but occurs in a separate spiritual realm. What is incompatible is the following three beliefs: (a) all physics is computable, and (b) consciouness supervenes on brain processes, and (c) consciousness is substrate-dependent and so will not be reproduced even with a sufficiently fine-grained and perfectly well behaved brain simulation. OK. I think that (a) and (b') are already incompatible: (a) all physics is computable, and (b') consciousness supervenes on *digital* brain processes. But (a), (b) and (c) already make obligatory to derive physics from the FPI on the whole UD*. The winning computation(s) are plausibly the one with a linear symmetrical bottom, and which admit long (deep in Bennett sense) computational histories. This makes us very rare in the arithmetical reality, but also super-multiplied, and with natural ways to entangle many universal machines in a many video-game type of (observable, phenomelogical) reality. I will surely come back on Church's thesis. It is a quite strong thesis which implies incompleteness in one simple (double) diagonalization. The original thesis asserts only that lambda-calculus defines all intuitively computable function. It is provably equivalent with the same thesis with lambda-calculus replaced by any know (Turing) universal system. Does this implies comp? I doubt (given the counter-example), but might be closer than I thought. And if CT implies comp, or almost comp, then consciousness would be close to being equivalent with the ability to get troubled by the following sentence, which typically can neither be true nor false: Anyone currently reading the present sentence will never know that this present sentence is true In arithmetic this
Re: The Object
Hi Liz, The guy was a computer sci dude before he shifted to philosophy. He's a phil prof at William Patterson University, in New Jersey, the States. He has downloadable papers at his Ericsteinhart.com website, and is view-able with short lectures, no longer than 7 minutes on Youtube, usually about 5 minutes. This is what makes his ideas so valid, I think, the compsci stuff, because increasing, the astronomers and physicists are getting down to explaining their discoveries with comp sci/math/ yadda yadda. I have butchered his ideas, to suit my own goals regarding mortality (he may not agree with me!) and intellectually, he is all over the place from atheism to pantheism to polytheism, to a sort of selective monotheism. Dude likes a form a Buddhism for himself His Revision theory of Resurrection is that your own life becomes a basis for a new one in a new universe, that's better, but no memories-identity passes through, but its better for your clone. I say, meh! Lose identity, lose leanings. This is also much closer in nature to Everett's MWI which splits our existence, as observers among electrons and photons. To that: By the way, how is Liz number 345,765,098,265 doing after she decided to move to Alaska, for the weather (blink blink!)?? Clones and more clones, meh! Steinhart has a much better answer (in my opinion) with his Promotion theory. He has analyzed what the cosmology would mean, for mind, conscious, the creator(s), and it breaks down to what Bruno likes, maths-arithmetic, cellular automata, programs, subroutines, processes, pipelines, promoting, data transfer, digital, analog, whatever else. He is not the first guy to think about this, Claude Shannon, Von Newmann, Conrad Zuse, Juergen Schmidhuber, Fredkin, Moravec, Tegmark, but he is perhaps the most logical, and thorough. Yes, he can be wrong, but for me, at the worst he may be like a broken wind up clock, correct at least twice per day. I think that after 6 or 7 billion people alive in one generation, we the people (species) may have an interesting and correct answer here. And yes, it's still above my intellectual pay grade. Cheers -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Apr 6, 2015 11:41 pm Subject: Re: The Object That all sounds very plausible to me. (Although sadly my pay grade doesn't match that fact.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 07 Apr 2015, at 19:35, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man. Yes but you didn't answer my question and the answer is important because relationships are not always symmetrical; a dog is always a mammal but a mammal is not always a dog. The W-man and the M-man encompass everything that the H-man was, however they both have additional experiences that the H-man knows nothing about. So although the W-Man and the M-man are the H-man, the H-man is not the M-man, and the H-man is not the W-man, and the M-man is not the W-man. We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. We did agree on this. Bullshit. You are changing your mind here Bullshit. the W-man and the M-man do not feel to be the same person That's because they are no longer the same person, they both remember being the H-Man but after that they've had different experiences and have different memories. it leads to the idea that personal identity is an illusion (which I think), And how would things be different if personal identity were not an illusion? You don't believe in the christian God, Yep and declare from this that all notion of God are burp. I am declaring that at least the Jesus freaks and Islamic nincompoops are saying something, it's not correct but at least they're saying something, and at least they have the courage of their convictions and love the idea of God more than they love the ASCII sequence G-O-D. But your G-O-D is just a spineless unintelligent unconscious formless colorless blob of nothing in particular that does nothing in particular except have a name. Your Aristotelian intimate conviction should not be invoked in a scientific debate. My GOD is the god of the Platonist. It has influenced in diverse way the God of the Abramanic religion, but since 500 in the west, and 1000 in the east, the Aristotelian seems to have succeed in brainwashing people that GOD is only the Aristotelian one. The platonist and aristotelian God are particular case of the general greek definition. It is close to some Indian and Chinese schools. The question Creator/not-Creator hides the question Creation/not- Creation. You illustrate only that you are taking *some* definition of free- will, and of God, too much seriously. People can defign free will however they want, but before they get into a lengthy discussion about whether humans have free will or not it would be wise to know what the hell the term is supposed to mean. Unfortunately this NEVER happens False, it did happen, and you have submit by your own an interesting definition. I remember you fail to appreciate the interest, but your argument that it was not an interesting was poorly convincing. You are the one with the special word problem. You look like wanting that they can't have any interesting meaning at all, but you use that for not studying those who agrees on some definition, and reason from that. Take the word God. By defining it by the reason of your conscience, we can say that every one self-conscious is already a believer in God, and then the debate will be on the nature of God. For an artistotelian God is Matter, because they think that Matter is the primary reality from which our consciousness emerged. For a Platonist, Matter might be the border of something, perhaps a universal machine dream. The God vocabulary is useful to homogenize the different religions- Reality-conception be them aristotelian or not, which is impossible by your way of talking. It is useful also as making easier to distinguish the science of physics, and physicalism, which are not related logically. It helps to understand the difference between believing in a physical universe, and believing that God is the physical universe, that is the reason of my conscience. There are no scientific evidence from that primariness. And there is an evidence that it might not be: the kicking back of the mathematical reality. As the greeks noticed. and so the result is that they very literally don't know what they're talking about. the question was asked to the Helsinki-man, about what he expects. As he does not expect to die John Clark The Helsinki Man does not expect John Clark to die, but John Clark The Helsinki Man does expect that John Clark The Helsinki Man will die; or to say the same thing with different words, John Clark expects to be just fine but does not expect to experience Helsinki anymore. Thanks for the news, but the question was about your expectation, and your vocabulary makes unclear what you expect, when you are in
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: you feel that you are the same person from day to day and year to year, even if you know this is an illusion. How would things be different if this were not an illusion? You are less the same person compared to your self from a year ago than you are compared to a copy of you that might exist in the next room. I have no argument with that, I think it's certainly true, but how is that an illusion? 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: The Object
On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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 Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? We have agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man. Yes but you didn't answer my question and the answer is important because relationships are not always symmetrical; a dog is always a mammal but a mammal is not always a dog. The W-man and the M-man encompass everything that the H-man was, however they both have additional experiences that the H-man knows nothing about. So although the W-Man and the M-man are the H-man, the H-man is not the M-man, and the H-man is not the W-man, and the M-man is not the W-man. We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. We did agree on this. Bullshit. You are changing your mind here Bullshit. the W-man and the M-man do not feel to be the same person That's because they are no longer the same person, they both remember being the H-Man but after that they've had different experiences and have different memories. it leads to the idea that personal identity is an illusion (which I think), And how would things be different if personal identity were not an illusion? You don't believe in the christian God, Yep and declare from this that all notion of God are burp. I am declaring that at least the Jesus freaks and Islamic nincompoops are saying something, it's not correct but at least they're saying something, and at least they have the courage of their convictions and love the idea of God more than they love the ASCII sequence G-O-D. But your G-O-D is just a spineless unintelligent unconscious formless colorless blob of nothing in particular that does nothing in particular except have a name. You illustrate only that you are taking *some* definition of free-will, and of God, too much seriously. People can defign free will however they want, but before they get into a lengthy discussion about whether humans have free will or not it would be wise to know what the hell the term is supposed to mean. Unfortunately this NEVER happens and so the result is that they very literally don't know what they're talking about. the question was asked to the Helsinki-man, about what he expects. As he does not expect to die John Clark The Helsinki Man does not expect John Clark to die, but John Clark The Helsinki Man does expect that John Clark The Helsinki Man will die; or to say the same thing with different words, John Clark expects to be just fine but does not expect to experience Helsinki anymore. I know that sounds clunky but as I've said when matter duplicating machines become common the English language is going to need a major overhaul, especially in its use of personal pronouns. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Life in the Islamic State for women
Samiya, please allow me one (two?) little questions: -- How can you tell a 'real' interpreter of God's words from a pretender? -- and I do not only refer to the 'publication' of the entire Script, there may be VAST differences between practical interpretations of the rightfully published details, whatever is included in the authentic total. (Look at e.g. the political variations as 'religious' prescriptions, law systems, state-formats, stuff to learn about the world etc.) --Is there a reson to call HIM and not HER? As I learned (from you), there is no gender differentiation in Heavens, what I found VERY emlightening. (During the times of the caveman a female Creator (Mistress of the World?) was adored, because of the circumstances of producing new life. The 'male' role was lopsided and diminished in importance. SHE was the BIG ONE. That changed as the mainly male exercised animal husbandry emlightened the bisexual proliferation of living creatures (and was applied to men, too). (A 3rd question out of order - forgive me please: since evolution, human development, ways of mental capacity and lifestyles are unlimited in time to come, does it make any reasonable sense to close the line of potential profets 1500 years ago, only 5 centuries after the previous one, when humanity MAY live for additional millennia(??) before the final judgement?) Apologies John Mikes On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: John wrote: 'Scriptures (all of them, from the pre-Hebrew ones to the most recent ones) are HUMANLY written (published?) and some (e.g. the Quran) only in ONE *human* language, even prohibiting a translation).' The Quran, revealed in Arabic, has been translated in several languages, and even in the same language by several translators. Multiple translations are available online on many websites, such as: http://quran.com/ http://corpus.quran.com/ http://islamawakened.com/quran/ http://searchtruth.com/list.php According to the Quran, it is the Muslim belief that a series of scriptures were revealed by divine decree for the guidance of mankind, the last of which is the Quran, as Muhammad is the seal (last) of the series of prophets [http://quran.com/33/40 ]. Though humans were able to make changes in previous scriptures (possibly both in the revealed language as well as translations), the arabic Quran is divinely guarded from changes [ http://quran.com/15/9 ]. Translations of certain verses of the Quran differ, and thus, the importance of trying to look up the original arabic words and their range of meanings, and its usage across the Quran. Most of the scriptures we know have been orally transmitted and then recorded (published) by humans, except possibly the Ten Commandments which were given to Moses on stone tablets [http://quran.com/7/145 ]. But that is besides the point. The scriptures were revealed to the human prophets and messengers, in the language of the people they were addressing [ http://quran.com/14/4 ], and thus the copy of the scripture in its revealed language is most likely the original source. There may be errors in translation, therefore, I suggest the study of the original sources, i.e. in the original language of revelation, if possible. It is also important to understand the difference between scripture [divine revelations] and secondary sources, which are efforts to compile teachings of the prophets that are not in the scripture, for example works like Bhagwad Gita, Talmud, Hadith. Of course, there are many errors in these recordings, which can be attributed to human memory or understanding, or both, or may be even deliberate efforts to corrupt the teachings and make additions to the religion. That the message of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many other messages, have all suffered greatly because followers have attached primary importance to such secondary sources is quite evident from history. Vedas, Torah, Bible and Quran emphasise upon Monotheism, while the beliefs and worship of the many sects of Hindus, Jews, Christians and Muslims vary greatly. Personally, I see a lot of confusion on this list as well as elsewhere between the primary teachings of a scripture and the practice of those who profess to follow those religions. It is important to not to confuse the two if one is seeking the truth for oneself. For your convenience, following are the verses I referenced above. You can also look up multiple translations on http://islamawakened.com/quran/ http://quran.com/33/40 Pickthall Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things. http://quran.com/15/9 Pickthall Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian. http://quran.com/7/145 Shakir And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things;
Re: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes
Liz: passed on - do you mean survives AS IS? I think whatever is added incubates into the complexity of the new creature into fitting, not 'as was' in the mother. And- I think mitochondria IS a cell within the larger one in symbiotic life. Chris is most likely right: FROM THE MOTHER only. And it is adjusted into the new complexity as well. JM On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Anything in the egg cell, or donated at any point during gestation from the mother (in mammals, at least) can be passed on, I assume. (What about mitochondria?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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.
Fwd: program vs. model (a quote)
This book may be of interest to the list. Brent Forwarded Message /there is nothing like having to actually program a model to force you to face the music/ http://www.amazon.com/Computing-Mind-How-Really-Works/dp/0195320670/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2 Shimon Edelman - http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/epistemology.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: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes
Apologies: MITOCHONDRIUM - I S - and mitochondria -are. JM On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:14 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: passed on - do you mean survives AS IS? I think whatever is added incubates into the complexity of the new creature into fitting, not 'as was' in the mother. And- I think mitochondria IS a cell within the larger one in symbiotic life. Chris is most likely right: FROM THE MOTHER only. And it is adjusted into the new complexity as well. JM On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Anything in the egg cell, or donated at any point during gestation from the mother (in mammals, at least) can be passed on, I assume. (What about mitochondria?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes Apologies: MITOCHONDRIUM - I S - and mitochondria -are. JM On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:14 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz:passed on - do you mean survives AS IS? I think whatever is added incubates into the complexity of the new creature into fitting, not 'as was' in the mother. And- I think mitochondria IS a cell within the larger one in symbiotic life. Chris is most likely right: FROM THE MOTHER only. And it is adjusted into the new complexity as well. This is the reason why mitochondria are used as a yardstick to measure the natural rate of mutation (e.g. the genetic drift). Because all animals exclusively get their own mitochondria from their mother -- e.g. NOT by sexual reproduction, which effectively is a shuffling of the genetic heritage of both portions of both parents DNA. The mitochondria DNA instead only ever comes from the maternal line and for this reason it makes a good genetic clock. A clock that can be used to estimate how old a species is, or that can tell a story of how a species almost went extinct some 70,000 years ago -- as happened to our own species. The reason e know this is by studying the genetic diversity of human mitochondrial DNA.Interestingly the Y chromosome, which all males of a species carry and exclusively get from the paternal side, can also function as a yardstick, again because it is unaffected by sexual reproduction. If an offspring has the Y chromosome (e.g. is a male) it got it from its father and never ever got it from its mother. For all our other chromosomes what we get is the sexually reshuffled recombined deck of cards, some of which came from each parent.Does this make any sense?Chris JM On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Anything in the egg cell, or donated at any point during gestation from the mother (in mammals, at least) can be passed on, I assume. (What about mitochondria?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? Have you ever met anyone who doesn't feel like they are travelling through time in a forward direction? Yes, somebody who is one instant away from death . And now that I have answered you question I repeat my question that you dodged: Who is traveling through time in a forward direction, Mr. John Clark or Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man? many worlds or duplicating machines you have to specify which Telmo Menezes or which you in the exact same way. No it is not exactly the same way. With copying machines John Clark can see 6.02 *10^23 Telmo Menezes running around and has no idea which one is Mr. You, They will all believe to be Telmo, I know, so if just before the multiple duplications John Clark predicted that you will see X how could it be determined which one of the 6.02 *10^23 is Mr. You so we could ask Mr, You if he did really did see X and figure out if John Clark's prediction was correct? but in Many Worlds it is dictated by the laws of physics that John Clark can see only one Telmo Menezes, and human language need not be made more precise than the laws of physics. I don't see how the laws of physics prevent the possibility of another chunk of matter being configured in the exact same way as I am. Obviously the laws of physics don't prevent it, that's why I said that matter duplicating machines don't need new science just very good engineering. But every one of those copies that the machine has made exist in the same universe and are visible to all. But if the Many Worlds interpretation is correct and if the laws of physics are what we think they are then I can never observe any of those other John Clark's or anything else in those other universes. And I think you were being disingenuous, I think you already understood all of this perfectly well. What good does that do? We're in Moscow now and John Clark The Moscow Man didn't write that diary, John Clark The Helsinki Man did and John Clark Helsinki Man no longer exists. Why do you write emails? Because I remember writing them of course just as The M-Man and the W-Man remember being the H-man. what I said is that investigating the specific scenario of duplication to another position is a useful device used by the thought experiment The exact same points could be made if everybody stayed in Helsinki but one copy watched a video about Moscow and the other watched a video about Washington. Information is what turns the Helsinki man into the Moscow Man not a change in position. You may criticize the clarity of the language in the paper. I don't think anyone ever accused Bruno of being unquirky in his English, It has nothing to do with that! The problem is that neither Telmo nor Bruno can get over the lifetime habit of effortlessly using personal pronouns without thinking, not even when the subject is the nature of personal identity; the result being neither realizes that posts on that subject contain nothing but tautologies and circular logic. you are the only one who doesn't understand step 3. A slight correction, I am the only one who understands that there is nothing to understand in step 3. And Telmo, peer pressure is never going to make me think Bruno is right, only logic can do that and I haven't seen much of that around here. The other part that you always leave out is that, if you ask the Helsinki man to predict what he [...] ^^ And we've come full circle and we're right back at square one again. Is Mr. He John Clark or is Mr. He John Clark The Helsinki man? 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: The MGA revisited
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Apr 2015, at 04:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: I understand what you are claiming, but I do not agree with it. The primary physical universe certainly exists, Then computationalism is false. But what are your evidence for a *primary* physical universe. That is an axiom by Aristotle, and I believe animals are hard-wired to make some extrapolation here (for not doubting the prey and the predators), but there are no scientific evidence for a *primary* physical object. There is no scientific evidence for a universal dovetailer either. And so far there is no evidence that it can produce anything like the physical universe we observe. Primary physicality is a lot simpler. Occam's razor to the fore The UD works a bit on the first execution, then a bit on the second execution, and then comes back on the first, then the second, then the third, and then come back to the first, etc. In that way, the UD executes all computations, including all those who never stop. Yes, I had misread how that works. But who wrote the programs it executes? Who wrote the scheduler? Seems a lot simpler to have a primary physical universe. Then all you have to do is explore it. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Fwd: America: Bankrupt Living on Borrowed Time
For Telmo. Brent Forwarded Message Thomas Jefferson is credited with the following sage advice, /“The *central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution*. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, *first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered*.”/ And so it seems sometimes the answer is right in front of us all along and we just fail to see it. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/america-bankrupt-and-borrowed-time America-wings…. Americanwings cartoon.jpg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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 Object
Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object div id=AOLMsgPart_2_bb69ed94-2d52-4245-9d7c-622ffc3f7cf7 div style=word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; class=aolReplacedBody div On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: br class=aolmail_Apple-interchange-newline blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arialI know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. /font /blockquote Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arialThe feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh!/font /blockquote blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arial div style=font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black -Original Message- From: LizR a target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object div id=aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_754ff7ab-4e9d-4bec-9dec-97cfa700b828 div dir=ltr By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. /div /div /div/font /blockquote Well said Liz. Bruno blockquote font color=black size=2 face=arial div style=font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black div id=aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_754ff7ab-4e9d-4bec-9dec-97cfa700b828 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra /div /div -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div /div /font br class=aolmail_webkit-block-placeholder -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
RE: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Subject: Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?) Chris, Hi. It sounds like you might be in computing since you mentioned some terms like reposited (I've never heard of that in bio!)? Yeah I write software for a living… and reposited is a pretty common jargon (that implicitly abstracts the particular details of whatever repository behind the notion of a repository interface). If so, you are very well educated in biology. Nice job! Your knowledge of the complexity of a cell and of things moving around via motor proteins and the cytoskeleton as opposed to diffusion only, etc. are real impressive. Many of the computer and engineering guys I know seem to be allergic to biology knowledge. Although, I admit I know almost nothing about computing either, except for stuff from a few simple classes in Pascal, Fortran, etc. a long, long time ago. I have long been fascinated with biology – being a biological entity myself J I'd never heard of that model where they ran it backwards to find the genesis of life, but it sounds pretty neat. I think it's certainly possible that life started in a far away stellar nursery and then came to Earth on a comet or something. Although, I kind of liked that Star Trek (The Next Gen.) episode where some ancient race of bald people seeded lots of different oceans with their DNA and put a code in their that, once we decipher it, will play a video of the bald people talking to us. I thought that was one of their best episodes. But, the final question is still there. How did the life originate where ever it came from? I can't rule out anything, but I bet they'll be able to someday figure out a chemical mechanism for things to start replicating themselves. I think that we are closing in on this and that within a decade or two – if we don’t blow ourselves up beforehand – we will be able to do genesis in the lab. Already Craig Venter’s group is getting close to creating synthetic life – albeit within an existing de-natured cell that’s had its own DNA removed. See: http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life?language=en Just read an article today shown that micro-strands of DNA can self-assemble in liquid crystals. Quoting from the article: “The new research demonstrates that the spontaneous self-assembly of DNA fragments just a few nanometers in length into ordered liquid crystal phases has the ability to drive the formation of chemical bonds that connect together short DNA chains to form long ones, without the aid of biological mechanisms. Liquid crystals are a form of matter that has properties between those of conventional liquids and those of a solid crystal—a liquid crystal may flow like a liquid, for example, but its molecules may be oriented more like a crystal. Our observations are suggestive of what may have happened on the early Earth when the first DNA-like http://phys.org/tags/molecular+fragments/ molecular fragments appeared, said Clark. http://phys.org/news/2015-04-hints-spontaneous-primordial-dna.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2015-04-hints-spontaneous-primordial-dna.html#jCp One big advantage that computing and engineering have over drug discovery is that the scientist can design a system he or she wants to make when it's code or a chip or something. But, because everything is so wet, bouncing around, cross-reacting and squishy in bio, it's hard to design things to work just the way you want them. Cells are always mutating, proteins are always moving around and chemicals are always cross-reacting. I think we'll eventually need to combine small mol. drugs and biological drugs with nanotechnological devices and tiny molecular computers to cure diseases. But that is also what makes it so interesting and also unfathomable at times. J Chris I checked out that article on microbes being passed from generation to generation. It was very interesting; although, it kind of sounded like it was passed via an environmental route because the next generation of animals lived in the same environment as the previous generation, and the microbes are probably all over the environment in the form of feces, shed fur, surfaces, animals touching each other, etc. I'd have to read more about it, but it sounded like not quite a direct mechanism of transmission. One more pontification, and I promise I'll stop, but I think some of the physics guys could learn from biochemists because biochemists are always looking for mechanisms of action for how things work. But, it seems like the physicists are more content to say something works and we have the math to describe it. For instance, I don't think they really know even why positive and negative charges attract or two positive charges repel, do they? I know there are fields of force, and
Re: The Object
More from those crazy mathematicians http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-chase-moonshine-s-shadow/ Mathematicians weren’t sure that the monster group actually existed, but they knew that if it did exist, it acted in special ways in particular dimensions, the first two of which were 1 and 196,883. On 8 April 2015 at 14:26, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ha! I can believe that a hypercomputing lobian machine can zip through the platonic realities that likely exist, but I must say professor Marchal, that experiencing mathematics at the chalk board, my dendrites do not function as well as your own. I will say the obvious that my neurological wiring must have been sub par when attempting to learn and, equally, important, memorize the patterns that mathematics involves. Memorize the patterns, then plug in whatever numbers. I believe that maths teachers run into differences in human neurobiology, rather than bad teaching skills or lazy students, or whatever excuse. Thus, being able to learn mathematics is truly a gift, and is not bestowed on everyone. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 03:01 PM Subject: Re: The Object On 07 Apr 2015, at 20:19, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I know people who do math really well, I am eternally envious. Math is the easiest branch to understand; it needs only works to get the results of the others. I think Gauss said that, and I agree, but unfortunately math is also used as a modern technic for torturing the kids, and it indeed makes people believe that it needs some gift or superiority to appreciate them. Something a bit like that, plus chance, might be needed to be creative and find a solution of an open problem, but to understand the works of the other, you can always find a path which suits you, if you are patient enough. The task of proving a new interesting theorem can be gigantic, but the beauty does not reside in that, the beauty are in the results. Only by being in love with some collection of results, you can develop familiarity and by chance see a relation missed by your colleagues and masters. What is it that you don't understand in math? If you work enough you can understand that all machines can understand and explore the mathematical reality, and that there is for every taste: the Baroque, the Jazzy, the Classical, the Romantic, the Dramatic, the Comical, the Thrilling, etc. It is is huge, and if computationalism is true, just by being, you already solve a math problem. The feudalism thing is likely correct but beyond this specific discussion. They are winning and we are not. I add, sigh! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 1:11 am Subject: Re: The Object By the way, the phrase above my paygrade was invented by someone less intelligent than you to keep you in your place, at least until they get around to reintroducing full scale feudalism. Well said Liz. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
