Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:36, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett >
>> wrote:
>>
> I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all
> brain
> processes stop under anaesthesia.


 When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the
 embryo is usually completely normal. If this could be done with a
 brain would it make any difference in the philosophical discussion?
>>>
>>>
>>> That becomes a hypothetical discussion. Let's do it first and discuss
the
>>> implications later. I remain sceptical about the possibility. An embryo
>>> is
>>> not an adult brain. Injecting antifreeze to inhibit cell rupturing might
>>> have adverse consequences in the brain.
>>
>>
>> In anaesthesia (and even in sleep) metabolic processes involved in
>> consciousness are suspended without damage to the brain. But this
>> whole list is hypothetical discussion! Mere technical difficulty does
>> not affect the philosophical questions.
>
>
> I think it might -- if the technical issues are such that the process is
> impossible in principle (for physical reasons).

Then it wouldn't be a mere technical difficulty. You have to show that
suspending biological processes then restarting them breaks some physical
law, and I don't think that it does.


--
Stathis Papaioannou


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:39, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 4/22/2015 10:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou 
>>> wrote:

 On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
>> consciousness
>> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a
>> gap
>> is
>> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>
>
> If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
> Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
> acceleration.)

 Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
 the course of normal life.
>>>
>>>
>>> But they do have to be explained differently (For example by physical
>>> continuity). We're discussing whether scanning a brain and making a
>>> (hypothetically "exact enough") duplicate later would affect the
>>> consciousness of the person involved. Comp says not, obviously in this
>>> case
>>> for other reasons than physical continuity.
>>
>> As I understand it, comp requires simulation of the brain on a digital
>> computer. It could be that there are processes in the brain that are
>> not Turing emulable, and therefore it would be impossible to make an
>> artificial brain using a computer. However, it might still be possible
>> to make a copy through some other means, such as making an exact
>> biological copy using different matter.
>
> But for Bruno's argument to go thru the copy must be digital, so that it's
> function appears in the UD list.

Yes, that's right; but it does not necessarily mean that an artificial
brain preserving your consciousness is impossible if comp is false.


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 10:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:

But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
consciousness
(assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap
is
particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.


If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
acceleration.)

Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


But they do have to be explained differently (For example by physical
continuity). We're discussing whether scanning a brain and making a
(hypothetically "exact enough") duplicate later would affect the
consciousness of the person involved. Comp says not, obviously in this case
for other reasons than physical continuity.

As I understand it, comp requires simulation of the brain on a digital
computer. It could be that there are processes in the brain that are
not Turing emulable, and therefore it would be impossible to make an
artificial brain using a computer. However, it might still be possible
to make a copy through some other means, such as making an exact
biological copy using different matter.
But for Bruno's argument to go thru the copy must be digital, so that it's function 
appears in the UD list.


Brent

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

Re: Origin of mathematics

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 10:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:

"Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions 
which
are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has any
transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing
outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, 
they
don’t change” (pp. 445-446)


The question they need to answer is /why/ these things don't change. Humans 
can
change other things they make up - as already mentioned, the rules of chess 
are one
example.

They can change things.  Robinson arithmetic is a change of Peano's.  But 
we give it
a different name instead of saying we've changed arithmetic.  It's just as 
if we'd
kept the old version of chess around and given a different name to the new version. 
It's a nominal distinction whether it's changed or it's a new thing.


As far as I know, we keep the old version. Surely the new one is an addition? Or are you 
saying these changes could be made any which way, that there is no kicking back? That 
2+2 can equal 5, as O'Brien claimed? That seems kind of unlikely, to be honest.


2+2=1 in mod 3 arithmetic.  If you change the game you change what can be proven.  You 
can't keep the old version and assume its proofs apply to the new game.


Brent

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruce Kellett]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett  wrote:


I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain
processes stop under anaesthesia.


When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the
embryo is usually completely normal. If this could be done with a
brain would it make any difference in the philosophical discussion?


That becomes a hypothetical discussion. Let's do it first and discuss the
implications later. I remain sceptical about the possibility. An embryo is
not an adult brain. Injecting antifreeze to inhibit cell rupturing might
have adverse consequences in the brain.


In anaesthesia (and even in sleep) metabolic processes involved in
consciousness are suspended without damage to the brain. But this
whole list is hypothetical discussion! Mere technical difficulty does
not affect the philosophical questions.


I think it might -- if the technical issues are such that the process is 
impossible in principle (for physical reasons).


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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>> I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain
>>> processes stop under anaesthesia.
>>
>>
>> When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the
>> embryo is usually completely normal. If this could be done with a
>> brain would it make any difference in the philosophical discussion?
>
>
> That becomes a hypothetical discussion. Let's do it first and discuss the
> implications later. I remain sceptical about the possibility. An embryo is
> not an adult brain. Injecting antifreeze to inhibit cell rupturing might
> have adverse consequences in the brain.

In anaesthesia (and even in sleep) metabolic processes involved in
consciousness are suspended without damage to the brain. But this
whole list is hypothetical discussion! Mere technical difficulty does
not affect the philosophical questions.


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruce Kellett]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 14:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:

meekerdb wrote:

On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:

But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
consciousness
(assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a
gap is
particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.


If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
acceleration.)


Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


Gaps in consciousness, perhaps. But are there gaps in the ebb and flow of
brain chemicals, hormones, cell deaths and divisions, ...? Or gaps in the
flow of the unconscious?


I'm pretty sure there are gaps in all biological processes that correspond
to any kind of thought/perception/awareness in the case of people who are
cooled down for heart surgery.


I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain
processes stop under anaesthesia.


When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the
embryo is usually completely normal. If this could be done with a
brain would it make any difference in the philosophical discussion?


That becomes a hypothetical discussion. Let's do it first and discuss 
the implications later. I remain sceptical about the possibility. An 
embryo is not an adult brain. Injecting antifreeze to inhibit cell 
rupturing might have adverse consequences in the brain.


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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 14:32, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

 On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
>> consciousness
>> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a
>> gap is
>> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>
>
> If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
> Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
> acceleration.)


 Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
 the course of normal life.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gaps in consciousness, perhaps. But are there gaps in the ebb and flow of
>>> brain chemicals, hormones, cell deaths and divisions, ...? Or gaps in the
>>> flow of the unconscious?
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure there are gaps in all biological processes that correspond
>> to any kind of thought/perception/awareness in the case of people who are
>> cooled down for heart surgery.
>
>
> I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all brain
> processes stop under anaesthesia.

When embryos are frozen all metabolic processes stop. On thawing, the
embryo is usually completely normal. If this could be done with a
brain would it make any difference in the philosophical discussion?


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 14:30, LizR  wrote:
> On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:
>> > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
>> >> consciousness
>> >> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap
>> >> is
>> >> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>> >
>> >
>> > If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
>> > Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
>> > acceleration.)
>>
>> Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
>> the course of normal life.
>
>
> But they do have to be explained differently (For example by physical
> continuity). We're discussing whether scanning a brain and making a
> (hypothetically "exact enough") duplicate later would affect the
> consciousness of the person involved. Comp says not, obviously in this case
> for other reasons than physical continuity.

As I understand it, comp requires simulation of the brain on a digital
computer. It could be that there are processes in the brain that are
not Turing emulable, and therefore it would be impossible to make an
artificial brain using a computer. However, it might still be possible
to make a copy through some other means, such as making an exact
biological copy using different matter.


-- 
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: Origin of mathematics

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:31, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
>>
>> "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
>> which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
>> any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing
>> outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they
>> don’t change” (pp. 445-446)
>>
>>  The question they need to answer is *why* these things don't change.
> Humans can change other things they make up - as already mentioned, the
> rules of chess are one example.
>
>  They can change things.  Robinson arithmetic is a change of Peano's.  But
> we give it a different name instead of saying we've changed arithmetic.
> It's just as if we'd kept the old version of chess around and given a
> different name to the new version.  It's a nominal distinction whether it's
> changed or it's a new thing.
>
> As far as I know, we keep the old version. Surely the new one is an
addition? Or are you saying these changes could be made any which way, that
there is no kicking back? That 2+2 can equal 5, as O'Brien claimed? That
seems kind of unlikely, to be honest.

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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> Quote:
> "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
> which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
> any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing
> outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they
> don’t change” (pp. 445-446).
>
> That's a statement of faith/dogma with pretensions of un-transcendental
> truth, which is as unclear and esoteric as how they appear to start their
> reasoning.
>
>
> Why isn't is just their hypothetical explanation of how to look at the
> world - like Bruno's comp hypothesis?
>

Everybody can choose their own theology. How/to what degree this bears on
truth is much more subtle.

They seem to confuse this because they first state false dichotomy between
Platonism and some humanism/nominalism implies their system.

Then they reason and conclude, see above, that some humanist magic will is
responsible for discoveries. So they do side with a flavor of nominalism
and, in strong fashion, state abstract truth of their faith. This strongly,
they leave realm of hypothesis + reasoning and do what seems to be closer
to advertising, with self-reinforcing messages. Looks circular without much
consequence, although I haven't read it and rely on the interpretation and
quotes.

How that's different from Bruno's hypothesis? He doesn't state in any paper
or post (to my knowledge) that comp is true.


>   You seem to be holding them to some standard of axiomatic reasoning when
> their thesis is to explain the origin of axiomatic reasoning.
>

With fuzzy elements, humans, prior existence etc. which is not wrong, but
this doesn't seem to clarify anything, nor do they advance with anything
novel from their proposal of the stated flawed dichotomy. PGC

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 9:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:


On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>
>> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness
>> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap 
is
>> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>
>
> If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
> Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic acceleration.)

Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


But they do have to be explained differently (For example by physical continuity). We're 
discussing whether scanning a brain and making a (hypothetically "exact enough") 
duplicate later would affect the consciousness of the person involved. Comp says not, 
obviously in this case for other reasons than physical continuity.


Of course as Stathis says, "How would you know if your consciousness changed?"  You could 
ask friends and look at documents and check your memories, but it's hard to say what it 
would mean to notice your consciousness changed.  Even if you thought that, maybe it's not 
your consciousness that's different rather it's your memory of how your consciousness used 
to be.  Motorcycle racers have a saying, "The older I get, the faster I was."


Brent

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruce Kellett]

meekerdb wrote:

On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in 
consciousness
(assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a 
gap is

particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.


If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic 
acceleration.)


Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


Gaps in consciousness, perhaps. But are there gaps in the ebb and flow 
of brain chemicals, hormones, cell deaths and divisions, ...? Or gaps 
in the flow of the unconscious?


I'm pretty sure there are gaps in all biological processes that 
correspond to any kind of thought/perception/awareness in the case of 
people who are cooled down for heart surgery.


I doubt that. Is the point susceptible of proof either way? Not all 
brain processes stop under anaesthesia.


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: Origin of mathematics

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 9:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:

"Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions 
which are
brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has any 
transcendental
existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing outside of time, 
but in
the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they don’t change” (pp. 
445-446)


The question they need to answer is /why/ these things don't change. Humans can change 
other things they make up - as already mentioned, the rules of chess are one example.


They can change things.  Robinson arithmetic is a change of Peano's.  But we give it a 
different name instead of saying we've changed arithmetic.  It's just as if we'd kept the 
old version of chess around and given a different name to the new version.  It's a nominal 
distinction whether it's changed or it's a new thing.


Brent



I haven't read the whole thing, so perhaps they do have an explanation for why made up 
things can't be changed? If so, I'd be interested to know what it is (not having time, 
sadly, to read every paper published on this list).


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

Re: Origin of mathematics

[Bruce Kellett]

LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:

"Both the records and the mathematical objects are human
constructions which are brought into existence by exercises of
human will; neither has any transcendental existence. Both are
static, not in the sense of existing outside of time, but in the
weak sense that, once they come to exist, they don’t change” (pp.
445-446)


The question they need to answer is /why/ these things don't change. 
Humans can change other things they make up - as already mentioned, the 
rules of chess are one example.


I haven't read the whole thing, so perhaps they do have an explanation 
for why made up things can't be changed? If so, I'd be interested to 
know what it is (not having time, sadly, to read every paper published 
on this list).


This is part of the excerpt I posted before:

"Once evoked, the facts about chess are objective, in that if any one 
person can demonstrate one, anyone can. And they are independent of time 
or particular context: they will be the same facts no matter who 
considers them or when they are considered."


I think this answers your question. If you change the rules of chess, 
you create a new and different game -- you do not change things that 
were true of the old game.


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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:
> > On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
> >>
> >> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
> consciousness
> >> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap
> is
> >> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
> >
> >
> > If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
> > Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic
> acceleration.)
>
> Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
> the course of normal life.
>

But they do have to be explained differently (For example by physical
continuity). We're discussing whether scanning a brain and making a
(hypothetically "exact enough") duplicate later would affect the
consciousness of the person involved. Comp says not, obviously in this case
for other reasons than physical continuity.

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

[LizR]

If you've spent the last few days walking and contemplating something that
was only posted 2 days ago on the list, you either have access to
precognition or time travel, either of which should tell you something
about the nature of space and time.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 9:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:

But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness
(assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap is
particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.


If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic acceleration.)


Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


Gaps in consciousness, perhaps. But are there gaps in the ebb and flow of brain 
chemicals, hormones, cell deaths and divisions, ...? Or gaps in the flow of the unconscious?


I'm pretty sure there are gaps in all  biological processes that correspond to any kind of 
thought/perception/awareness in the case of people who are cooled down for heart surgery.


Brent

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

Re: Origin of mathematics

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:
>
> "Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions
> which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has
> any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing
> outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they
> don’t change” (pp. 445-446)
>
> The question they need to answer is *why* these things don't change.
Humans can change other things they make up - as already mentioned, the
rules of chess are one example.

I haven't read the whole thing, so perhaps they do have an explanation for
why made up things can't be changed? If so, I'd be interested to know what
it is (not having time, sadly, to read every paper published on this list).

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruce Kellett]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:

But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness
(assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap is
particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.


If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic acceleration.)


Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


Gaps in consciousness, perhaps. But are there gaps in the ebb and flow 
of brain chemicals, hormones, cell deaths and divisions, ...? Or gaps in 
the flow of the unconscious?


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: Origin of mathematics

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 7:38 PM, PGC wrote:



On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote:

On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:

I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered 
to be a
property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of us, and 
not
conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is 
generally
considered to exist - we can observer it (or land things on it) and discover
unexpected results - Mars is /not/ covered in H.G.Wells' Martian 
civilisation or
Ray Bradbury's crystal cities, no matter how much we might want it to be. 
God (in
the conventional sense of supreme being who created the universe) is 
sometimes
considered not to exist because it's a concept that gets modified to 
account for
new scientific discoveries - few Christians nowadays consider that God 
created the
Earth 6000 years ago, or directly caused it to be entirely flooded, for 
example.

Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can exist 
(kick
back - or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have existed prior 
to
being thought of by human minds. It seems hard to reconcile these 
properties.
Something thought up that describes something that exists could reasonably 
be
called an accurate scientific theory; something thought up that describes 
something
that doesn't exist could reasonably be called fictional (or a failed 
scientific
theory). I can see no reason why a fiction should have rigid properties.
Conversely, if the subject of some theory kicks back, it's reasonable to 
consider
it a (possibly) accurate theory describing something that should be 
considered (at
least provisionally) real.


So is chess real?


If we want to be that fuzzy, assuming something can have "rigid, verifiable objective 
properties" but not before humans can think of it, then the answer is "yes, chess 
exists, but it's a different game from 3 days ago when Anand beat Wesley So with 
algorithm that started with Knight to B8 on the 10th move of a Spanish".


As stated in the article, there's always the risk of confusing some set of rules with 
the implications of that set of rules. But this itself "kicks back" too with the claimed 
discovery of "rigid/prior existence or not" categories as well. Consequently, this 
classification was not true a moment before the authors thought of it, becoming true, 
when the authors did their magic. This would be consistent by giving single 
universe/time/human primacy, but also has the ring to it, of people trying to sell us 
"the world revolves around the human and time but not before we thought of it". How 
convenient, one may smile plausibly.


Quote:
"Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions which are brought 
into existence by exercises of human will; neither has any transcendental existence. 
Both are static, not in the sense of existing outside of time, but in the weak sense 
that, once they come to exist, they don’t change” (pp. 445-446).


That's a statement of faith/dogma with pretensions of un-transcendental truth, which is 
as unclear and esoteric as how they appear to start their reasoning.


Why isn't is just their hypothetical explanation of how to look at the world - like 
Bruno's comp hypothesis?  You seem to be holding them to some standard of axiomatic 
reasoning when their thesis is to explain the origin of axiomatic reasoning.


Brent



We can't have it both ways unless we really, really will it... then it shall be evoked 
humans! Ok, I guess they're running out of time and I should by the book of 
un-transcendental truth to see the light that isn't lit before they thought of it?


Uhm, no sale here at the moment, although it seems a nice try, even if perhaps a bit 
naive on theological subtleties, fictions and truth. PGC


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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 23 April 2015 at 11:37, LizR  wrote:
> On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness
>> (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap is
>> particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>
>
> If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
> Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic acceleration.)

Even if comp is incorrect gaps make no difference, since they occur in
the course of normal life.


-- 
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: God

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 7:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very 
controversial:

conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics


The last 6 items are fairly uncontroversial, although I'm not 100% sure about the 
language<-social one. Still, that seems quite likely. What I'm less sure about is the 
first item: consciousness as - I assume - a linguistic construct. If I had to guess, I'd 
go for the explanatory chain making consciousness derive from evolution. My guess is 
that consciousness isn't uniquely human (as the linguistic case presumably argues, 
unless you're suggesting a few warning cries and suchlike can give rise to consciousness?)


I agree that animals, without language, also have awareness and perception.  I just left 
out a lot of steps in the above chain.  I was thinking of consciousness as the inner 
narrative of humans which does depend on language (c.f. Julian Jaynes).




Now if Bruno can show:

physics<-arithmetic


I'd be glad to also add:

arithmetic<-consciousness


I'm sure you would, and I'm certainly keen to see the proof - an explanation of why 
something we've invented is so "unreasonable effective" will be fascinating.


I don't see why that should be so fascinating.  If we invent it, it's not surprising that 
it's useful.  Are you surprised at the unreasonable effectiveness of knives?...or 
writing?...or airplanes? And has anybody found an unreasonable effectiveness for 
octonions?...or Cantor's infinite cardinals?  It seems to me that mathematics has just 
about the effectiveness that you would expect from human invention much of which is 
motivated by solving problems but some of which is just inventing games.


Brent

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

Re: Liminal space

[Alamin C]

I've spent the last few days walking and contemplating this, in an attempt 
to understand, how one could make use of the block universe. In essence I 
would like to construct a simple experiment that would allow me to travel 
if not physically then mentally in time. I have come to believe, that in 
contemplation one is aware of what we have concluded to be the present. 
That is to say, in the process of manifesting something, regardless of what 
it results in we are actually in the present. In the block universe model, 
the present cannot be an actual "moment" of concessions, for if it was then 
in that "moment" time would stop. In other words, I believe this would be 
(consciously speaking) death. And yet while we are manifesting our thoughts 
into conclusive ideas, by which we can then, use words to communicate to 
other's, we are acting on what was once the present. Upon our arrival at 
said conclusion to be expressed, we then move from the present, to the 
past, in search for words and phrases that we or others, have used to 
communicate similar conclusions, lastly we go on to predict the outcome of 
how our words will effect the other person "will this be an effective 
method to communicate this conclusion?" My original question, was 
pertaining to the process by which one is in contemplation, or to use an 
example in the physical/real world "matter", is at rest. If one was to give 
matter consciousness or and ability to communicate with tools that we are 
able to understand or decipher, I believe we would be able to predict, the 
paths by which all matter would take at the quantum level. The question in 
my opinion (as crazy as it sounds) may not be "how can we know the future 
and past of particles at the quantum level?", but "how can we look for ways 
in which particles, at the quantum level, function as a separate ecosystem 
in which they, like us, contemplate their own existence and make choices 
based own their own individual and almost completely random choices?" 
please critique this almost baseless assumption I look forward to your 
insight. 

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:35:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 10:58, Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, in a block universe, but in an evolving block universe there is also a 
>> special present. 
>>
>
> I hope mine is a box of chocolates and a long-stemmed rose.
>
>

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

[PGC]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:24:22 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
> I can't see how his categorisation works.  Existence is generally 
> considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing 
> independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For 
> example. a planet is generally considered to exist - we can observer it (or 
> land things on it) and discover unexpected results - Mars is *not* 
> covered in H.G.Wells' Martian civilisation or Ray Bradbury's crystal 
> cities, no matter how much we might want it to be. God (in the conventional 
> sense of supreme being who created the universe) is sometimes considered 
> not to exist because it's a concept that gets modified to account for new 
> scientific discoveries - few Christians nowadays consider that God created 
> the Earth 6000 years ago, or directly caused it to be entirely flooded, for 
> example. 
>
>  Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can 
> exist (kick back - or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have 
> existed prior to being thought of by human minds. It seems hard to 
> reconcile these properties. Something thought up that describes something 
> that exists could reasonably be called an accurate scientific theory; 
> something thought up that describes something that doesn't exist could 
> reasonably be called fictional (or a failed scientific theory). I can see 
> no reason why a fiction should have rigid properties. Conversely, if the 
> subject of some theory kicks back, it's reasonable to consider it a 
> (possibly) accurate theory describing something that should be considered 
> (at least provisionally) real.
>   
>
> So is chess real?
>

If we want to be that fuzzy, assuming something can have "rigid, verifiable 
objective properties" but not before humans can think of it, then the 
answer is "yes, chess exists, but it's a different game from 3 days ago 
when Anand beat Wesley So with algorithm that started with Knight to B8 on 
the 10th move of a Spanish".

As stated in the article, there's always the risk of confusing some set of 
rules with the implications of that set of rules. But this itself "kicks 
back" too with the claimed discovery of "rigid/prior existence or not" 
categories as well. Consequently, this classification was not true a moment 
before the authors thought of it, becoming true, when the authors did their 
magic. This would be consistent by giving single universe/time/human 
primacy, but also has the ring to it, of people trying to sell us "the 
world revolves around the human and time but not before we thought of it". 
How convenient, one may smile plausibly.

Quote:
"Both the records and the mathematical objects are human constructions 
which are brought into existence by exercises of human will; neither has 
any transcendental existence. Both are static, not in the sense of existing 
outside of time, but in the weak sense that, once they come to exist, they 
don’t change” (pp. 445-446).

That's a statement of faith/dogma with pretensions of un-transcendental 
truth, which is as unclear and esoteric as how they appear to start their 
reasoning. 

We can't have it both ways unless we really, really will it... then it 
shall be evoked humans! Ok, I guess they're running out of time and I 
should by the book of un-transcendental truth to see the light that isn't 
lit before they thought of it? 

Uhm, no sale here at the moment, although it seems a nice try, even if 
perhaps a bit naive on theological subtleties, fictions and truth. PGC

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

Re: God

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 14:04, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR  wrote:
>
>
>> > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that
>> God is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're*
>> conscious.
>>
>
> Bruno also says that mathematics begat our physical world and he might or
> might not be right about that, but even assuming that he is do you really
> think that "God" would be the best name for the Peano Postulates? Call me
> old fashioned but I think something called "God" should be more intelligent
> than I am, or at least be more intelligent and more conscious than a sack
> full of doorknobs.
>

I didn't argue for or against Bruno's usage. I just pointed out that I
think you've misunderstood what Bruno claimed in the post you were replying
to.

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 13:30, meekerdb  wrote:

>  Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very
> controversial:
>
> conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics
>

The last 6 items are fairly uncontroversial, although I'm not 100% sure
about the language<-social one. Still, that seems quite likely. What I'm
less sure about is the first item: consciousness as - I assume - a
linguistic construct. If I had to guess, I'd go for the explanatory chain
making consciousness derive from evolution. My guess is that consciousness
isn't uniquely human (as the linguistic case presumably argues, unless
you're suggesting a few warning cries and suchlike can give rise to
consciousness?)

>
> Now if Bruno can show:
>
> physics<-arithmetic
>

> I'd be glad to also add:
>
> arithmetic<-consciousness
>

I'm sure you would, and I'm certainly keen to see the proof - an
explanation of why something we've invented is so "unreasonable effective"
will be fascinating.

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

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 6:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:

I can't see how his categorisation works.  Existence is generally 
considered to be
a property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of us, 
and not
conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is 
generally
considered to exist - we can observer it (or land things on it) and discover
unexpected results - Mars is /not/ covered in H.G.Wells' Martian 
civilisation or
Ray Bradbury's crystal cities, no matter how much we might want it to be. 
God (in
the conventional sense of supreme being who created the universe) is 
sometimes
considered not to exist because it's a concept that gets modified to 
account for
new scientific discoveries - few Christians nowadays consider that God 
created the
Earth 6000 years ago, or directly caused it to be entirely flooded, for 
example.

Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can exist 
(kick
back - or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have existed prior 
to
being thought of by human minds. It seems hard to reconcile these 
properties.
Something thought up that describes something that exists could reasonably 
be
called an accurate scientific theory; something thought up that describes 
something
that doesn't exist could reasonably be called fictional (or a failed 
scientific
theory). I can see no reason why a fiction should have rigid properties.
Conversely, if the subject of some theory kicks back, it's reasonable to 
consider
it a (possibly) accurate theory describing something that should be 
considered (at
least provisionally) real.

So is chess real?


No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human mind. It didn't 
exist before people, and it has rules which can be changed without it kicking back 
(Castling, the pawn's two-square starting move - and hence en passant - were introduced 
to speed up the game).




But isn't the fact that we call it chess with a change also a convention.  If we'd called 
the game with castling etc, "Chass" then chass would be a new rigid invention...like 
arithmetic.  I can imagine some Homo Neanderthalis saying,"Look over there.  There's Thog, 
Glug, and Drod."  His companion says,"That's sorta the same as me, you, and Crak.  Let's 
call it 'three'."  And so they invented arithmetic.  Arithmetic depends on seeing 
similarities to group individuals and abstract away all the count.


Brent


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

Re: Origin of mathematics

[Bruce Kellett]

LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb 

So is chess real?

No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human 
mind. It didn't exist before people, and it has rules which can be 
changed without it kicking back (Castling, the pawn's two-square 
starting move - and hence en passant - were introduced to speed up the 
game).


So how do you respond to this paragraph from Pigliucci:

The obvious example that is most close to mathematics (and logic?) 
itself is provided by board games: “When a game like chess is invented a 
whole bundle of facts become demonstrable, some of which indeed are 
theorems that become provable through straightforward mathematical 
reasoning. As we do not believe in timeless Platonic realities, we do 
not want to say that chess always existed — in our view of the world, 
chess came into existence at the moment the rules were codified. This 
means we have to say that all the facts about it became not only 
demonstrable, but true, at that moment as well … Once evoked, the facts 
about chess are objective, in that if any one person can demonstrate 
one, anyone can. And they are independent of time or particular context: 
they will be the same facts no matter who considers them or when they 
are considered” (p. 423).


And how does chess, once defined, differ from mathematics?

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: God

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 LizR  wrote:


> > I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God
> is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* conscious.
>

Bruno also says that mathematics begat our physical world and he might or
might not be right about that, but even assuming that he is do you really
think that "God" would be the best name for the Peano Postulates? Call me
old fashioned but I think something called "God" should be more intelligent
than I am, or at least be more intelligent and more conscious than a sack
full of doorknobs.

  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: Origin of mathematics

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> I can't see how his categorisation works.  Existence is generally
> considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing
> independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For
> example. a planet is generally considered to exist - we can observer it (or
> land things on it) and discover unexpected results - Mars is *not*
> covered in H.G.Wells' Martian civilisation or Ray Bradbury's crystal
> cities, no matter how much we might want it to be. God (in the conventional
> sense of supreme being who created the universe) is sometimes considered
> not to exist because it's a concept that gets modified to account for new
> scientific discoveries - few Christians nowadays consider that God created
> the Earth 6000 years ago, or directly caused it to be entirely flooded, for
> example.
>
>  Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can
> exist (kick back - or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have
> existed prior to being thought of by human minds. It seems hard to
> reconcile these properties. Something thought up that describes something
> that exists could reasonably be called an accurate scientific theory;
> something thought up that describes something that doesn't exist could
> reasonably be called fictional (or a failed scientific theory). I can see
> no reason why a fiction should have rigid properties. Conversely, if the
> subject of some theory kicks back, it's reasonable to consider it a
> (possibly) accurate theory describing something that should be considered
> (at least provisionally) real.
>
> So is chess real?
>

No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human mind.
It didn't exist before people, and it has rules which can be changed
without it kicking back (Castling, the pawn's two-square starting move -
and hence en passant - were introduced to speed up the game).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 11:36, meekerdb  wrote:

>  But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in
> consciousness (assuming you could produce a working replica).  I don't see
> that a gap is particularly significant; a concussion also causes a gap.
>

If comp is correct, gaps make no difference. (That would also be Frank
Tipler's argument for immortality, in the absence of cosmic acceleration.)

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 10:58, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

>
> Yes, in a block universe, but in an evolving block universe there is also a
> special present.
>

I hope mine is a box of chocolates and a long-stemmed rose.

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

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 6:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 13:04, John Clark > wrote:


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015  Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
wrote:

>>  I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your 
strange
non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over 
definitions
so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as 
it's
clear and you use it consistently. 


 > God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which
explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.


That is 100% inconsistent with what you said in your post just a few hours 
ago, you
said your definition of God was NOT a intelligent conscious being who 
created the
universe and knows everything including what our prayers are.

I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God is conscious, 
he's saying God is whatever explains why /we're/ conscious.


Well I have at least a partial chain of explanation which is not very 
controversial:

conscious<-language<-social<-evolution<-biology<-chemistry<-physics

Now if Bruno can show:

physics<-arithmetic

I'd be glad to also add:

arithmetic<-consciousness

Brent

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

Re: God

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai.
>

I've been on the Extropian lost longer than you and I don't recall a purge
by Natasha or by anybody else. And I know who Ray Kurzweil is but I don't
know what "went to Kurzweilai" means.


> > I was there for Tipler
>

I though Tipler had some very interesting ideas, but unfortunately they
were later proven to be dead wrong.

  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: Origin of mathematics

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
I can't see how his categorisation works. Existence is generally considered to be a 
property of "kicking back" - of something existing independently of us, and not 
conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For example. a planet is generally considered 
to exist - we can observer it (or land things on it) and discover unexpected results - 
Mars is /not/ covered in H.G.Wells' Martian civilisation or Ray Bradbury's crystal 
cities, no matter how much we might want it to be. God (in the conventional sense of 
supreme being who created the universe) is sometimes considered not to exist because 
it's a concept that gets modified to account for new scientific discoveries - few 
Christians nowadays consider that God created the Earth 6000 years ago, or directly 
caused it to be entirely flooded, for example.


Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can exist (kick back - 
or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have existed prior to being thought of 
by human minds. It seems hard to reconcile these properties. Something thought up that 
describes something that exists could reasonably be called an accurate scientific 
theory; something thought up that describes something that doesn't exist could 
reasonably be called fictional (or a failed scientific theory). I can see no reason why 
a fiction should have rigid properties. Conversely, if the subject of some theory kicks 
back, it's reasonable to consider it a (possibly) accurate theory describing something 
that should be considered (at least provisionally) real.


So is chess real?

Brent

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

Re: God

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 13:04, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >>  I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange
>>> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions
>>> so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as it's
>>> clear and you use it consistently.
>>
>>
>
>  > God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which
>> explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.
>
>
> That is 100% inconsistent with what you said in your post just a few hours
> ago, you said your definition of God was NOT a intelligent conscious being
> who created the universe and knows everything including what our prayers
> are.
>
> I think you've mis-parsed what Bruno is saying. He isn't saying that God
is conscious, he's saying God is whatever explains why *we're* conscious.

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 12:54, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter.
> For the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as
> well as two probes around Jupiter--this should tell us something!


Not sure what. Russell's teapot was posited before those things were
possible, so the logic stands - at least until we invent time travel. And
in any case, once the universe is full of orbiting teapots we can still
just come up with something else very unlikely to make the same point.


> We could insert a teapot in orbit nowadays, making word, flesh, and
> secondly, we need to view religion, cosmology, through a
> computationalist/digitalist' eyes. Because old man universe is appearing
> more as a great program than a great stopwatch, at its core. So sayeth,
> Tegmark, Lloydd, and Schmidhuber, amen! It also indicates that H. sapiens
> are a part of this all.
>
> Yeah, maybe.

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

[LizR]

I can't see how his categorisation works.  Existence is generally
considered to be a property of "kicking back" - of something existing
independently of us, and not conforming to whatever we'd like it to be. For
example. a planet is generally considered to exist - we can observer it (or
land things on it) and discover unexpected results - Mars is *not* covered
in H.G.Wells' Martian civilisation or Ray Bradbury's crystal cities, no
matter how much we might want it to be. God (in the conventional sense of
supreme being who created the universe) is sometimes considered not to
exist because it's a concept that gets modified to account for new
scientific discoveries - few Christians nowadays consider that God created
the Earth 6000 years ago, or directly caused it to be entirely flooded, for
example.

Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin are trying to claim that something can exist
(kick back - or as they put it, have rigid properties) yet not have existed
prior to being thought of by human minds. It seems hard to reconcile these
properties. Something thought up that describes something that exists could
reasonably be called an accurate scientific theory; something thought up
that describes something that doesn't exist could reasonably be called
fictional (or a failed scientific theory). I can see no reason why a
fiction should have rigid properties. Conversely, if the subject of some
theory kicks back, it's reasonable to consider it a (possibly) accurate
theory describing something that should be considered (at least
provisionally) real.

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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>  I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your strange
>> non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over definitions
>> so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as long as it's
>> clear and you use it consistently.
>
>

 > God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which
> explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.


That is 100% inconsistent with what you said in your post just a few hours
ago, you said your definition of God was NOT a intelligent conscious being
who created the universe and knows everything including what our prayers
are. Make up your mind! How can I say if I believe in "God" or not if you
keep changing the definition of the word every few hours?

> I do not believe that god is an unintelligent blob, nor do I believe it
> is not an unintelligent blob.
>

Yes that's what I thought. Or to say the same thing with different words,
what you believe is neither true nor false, what you believe is so
worthless it's not even wrong, what you believe is gibberish.

> Definitions of words are arbitrary but both parties in a debate must
>> agree on those meanings or they literally don't know what they're arguing
>> about.
>
>
> > You talk like if some person have problem with all this. Only
> fundamentalist believers have problems here, not scientists (as far as I
> know).
>

So in your Humpty Dumpty dictionary a "fundamentalist believer" is somebody
who believes that in having a debate maybe just maybe it might be a good
idea to know what the hell the argument is about.

And this should not be confused with a "fundamentalist aristotelian" which
 is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST physicist who
ever lived and even in the field of philosophy was vastly overrated.

  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: God

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I have noted this before regarding Lord Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter. For 
the last 40 years or so we have had the science to orbit a teapot, as well as 
two probes around Jupiter--this should tell us something! We could insert a 
teapot in orbit nowadays, making word, flesh, and secondly, we need to view 
religion, cosmology, through a computationalist/digitalist' eyes. Because old 
man universe is appearing more as a great program than a great stopwatch, at 
its core. So sayeth, Tegmark, Lloydd, and Schmidhuber, amen! It also indicates 
that H. sapiens are a part of this all. 

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 05:40 PM
Subject: Re: God





 
  

  
   

   
On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes 
jami...@gmail.com> wrote:



 
Dennis: 
  

   

   
"God always means 
something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps of understanding 
..."


   
   



   
  
  

   I don't need to "disprove" 
something that has not been "proven" - or at least described as possible. BTW: 
nothing can be 'proven' except for ignorance. 
  
 



 




Yes, this makes God a Russell's teapot, and the burden of proof is with the 
theists (well, except if "God" is intended in Bruno's sense - as whatever is 
the fundamental cause of existence - but that's another matter, or possibly 
another equation). Mind you 
 some things can be proven, at least beyond reasonable doubt. For 
example the falisty of a load of previously accepted scientific theories - 
aether and phlogiston, humours and alchemy raindrops on roses and whiskers 
on kittens



 


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

[Bruce Kellett]

meekerdb wrote:

  Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked?

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/


The review by Pigliucci is fascinating. It almost makes me want to buy 
Smolin's book -- he seems to be saying much of what I have always 
thought about the nature and origin of mathematics.


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: Liminal space

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 3:58 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:

In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now 
standing in the
present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
anticipating an already set, but later, past?


On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think 
it would
be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."

I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
but the future is not - until it becomes the present.


Yes, that's Ellis'es concept.

But if the past
is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
present and not in the past?


Isn't whatever time of which we're conscious "the present", by definition?


Yes, in a block universe, but in an evolving block universe there is also a 
special present.


There's a special present along each world-line and it's the one you're 
conscious of.

Brent

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 3:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote:


On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote:

Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes 
should
say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would involve 
damaging
the 1000 neurons and there was a brain prothesis that would simulate a their
function I should say yes doctor. Since modelling 1000 neurons at 
sufficient detail
is possible, I leave it as an excercise for the reader to demonstrate that
simulating a whole brain is possible.


The complete neural structure of planaria has been mapped.  But that 
doesn't capture
the "consciounsness" of the individual planaria.  You can't tell from the 
wiring
diagram whether a particular planaria has learned to take the illuminated 
fork in
the test maze.  So you might determine the generic brain structure of homo 
sapiens,
but you would not thereby capture the consciousness of some particular 
person.  For
that, presumably you would need to know the relative strength of all the 
synapses at
a particular moment.


Yes, and you could possibly do that using a technique resolving detail down to the size 
of macromolecules.


But not without destroying the brain and producing a gap in consciousness (assuming you 
could produce a working replica).  I don't see that a gap is particularly significant; a 
concussion also causes a gap.


Brent

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

Re: Liminal space

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 2:59 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 April 2015 at 08:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now 
standing in the
present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
anticipating an already set, but later, past?


On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think 
it would
be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."

I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
but the future is not - until it becomes the present.


Yes, that's Ellis'es concept.

But if the past
is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
present and not in the past?


Isn't whatever time of which we're conscious "the present", by definition?


Exactly. The original question is badly phrased, it assumes some (hard-to-imagine) 
"evolving block universe" - but in fact the present is just where your consciousness is. 
King Harold's presents were in and before 1066, (so to speak) - I have to use "were" in 
that statement because of the indexical nature of our perception of time. A 
block-universe version might phrase it more neutrally so as not to assume some "folk" 
idea of an "evolving present". Of course, our language is structured around the "folk 
notion" of time "passing" (sorry about all the quotes but I have to distinguish that 
these are special and/or invalid usages). Saying something like "World War 2 is still, 
and always will be, being declared - 1939 is still there in the space-time continuum" 
sounds odd. However if one had a time machine and used it to visit 1939, and saw Neville 
Chamberlain with his piece of paper (and tried and failed to assassinate Hitler, which 
is of course mandatory for all time travellers), one would automatically start treating 
that as the present. (SF has already explored the linguistic changes necessary for time 
travel, and in doing so has incidentally pointed out why it's hard to talk about the 
space-time continuum as a block universe.)


PS Why is it that we can see that the past is a block universe, and relativity (and 
common sense) tell us the present and future must be the same, yet we - or some of us - 
kick against the idea so much?


Well, for one thing, if it's a */block multiverse/* then is the past as uncertain as the 
future?  That's part of Ellis'es point, that both the past and future are uncertain, even 
if the past is fixed.


Brent

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

Re: Liminal space

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>  In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in
>>> the
>>> present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
>>> anticipating an already set, but later, past?
>>>
>>>
>>> On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think it
>>> would
>>> be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."
>>>
>> I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
>> thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
>> but the future is not - until it becomes the present.
>>
>
> Yes, that's Ellis'es concept.
>
>  But if the past
>> is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
>> present and not in the past?
>>
>
> Isn't whatever time of which we're conscious "the present", by definition?
>

Yes, in a block universe, but in an evolving block universe there is also a
special present.


-- 
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.

God

[Dennis Ochei]

Yes, ignorance and fanaticism under any banner, including that of science
and reason, will leave a trail of bodies in their wake. But unless you have
an alternative to using reason and science to understand the world around
and within us (divine revelation?) i don't see your point.

Religion gives people bad reasons to be good, when good reasons abound.

Also, im not a nominalist.

> These people like you are the ones that the world must fear

Yes! Tremble! Mwhahahahaha!

haha, there is nothing fear from me. My hands are tied, since I know
harming others is equivalent to harming myself

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:

> Poor nominalists...
>
> Ever what you call "science" and "reason" has claimed prevalence over
> religion has been to produce massacres, since 1789 and even before. the
> religion of the ones that wave the flags of "science" and "reason", that
> is, thae ones that claim knowledge without conscience that what they have
> is some kind of faith based on a particular metaphysics. are the most
> dangerous ones.
>
> These people like you are the ones that the world must fear
>
> 2015-04-22 22:50 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei :
>
>> I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
>> point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
>> definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
>> off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
>> belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has
>> killed religion countless times, and continues to do so. But religion rises
>> again from its ashes, generally more benign than before.
>>
>>
>> Once we have dispelled illusions, the religion that emerges then will be
>> beautiful. But until that time most instances of religion are things that
>> reason and empiricism must put down to perfect.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis:
>>>
>>> *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
>>> gaps of understanding ..."*
>>>
>>> I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at
>>> least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
>>> ignorance.
>>> To keep pace with the unfathomable Everything (not the restricted
>>> physical topic-content of this list) the flexibility of the human
>>> (ignorant) mind requires a 'creator', a 'sustainer' a "BOSS" like a king
>>> for a country. That is called 'GOD'.
>>> You may believe (in) it. Know you cannot. So there is no way to
>>> disprove.
>>> Sometimes 'God' fills the gaps of misunderstanding (ignorance) as well.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that going back to more primitive times (less facts
>>> included into our worldview) even the smartest(?) minds could LEAD our
>>> ignorance to better wisdom. Aristotle's 'total' (in my pun: the "Aris -
>>> Total") was MORE than the sum of HIS counted ingredients, which included
>>> only the listable material parts. Then we have learned about functions,
>>> attributes, connections, variants, variations etc. and added lots of
>>> includable 'parts' to the total.
>>> Plato did not even pretend to visualize the 'world': he imagined a
>>> SHADOW of it on the wall as our percept of reality(?), situated BEHIND us
>>> (=invisibly).
>>>
>>> I esteem Bruno's ideas - am no mathematician - can rarely follow them,
>>> yet I never got a reply to my question about "what are the NUMBERS" from
>>> him.
>>> I consider 'computation' as (Lat) com (cum) - putare (thinking), mind's
>>> work, to add 2 and 2 together, definitely not restricted to the numberical
>>> terms. It may be also to add an animal, or plant to an environment. Real,
>>> or fake.
>>>
>>> Since the early 90s I participated on more than a dozen discussion
>>> lists, this one has exciting and lesser exciting posts and posters.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> John Mikes
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Dennis Ochei 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm not gonna lie, i find this exchange rather entertaining. I dont
 know what side I'd pick, but I will say I've never been 100% clear on what
 Bruno meant by Aristotelian or Platonist before now. What does Bruno do
 with personal pronouns? I have to agree that at least some of Bruno's
 written correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the
 course in philosophy anyway...

 God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
 gaps of understanding

 On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR  wrote:
>
> > In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that
>> certain shorthands are commonly used.
>>
>
> None of Bruno's shorthands or acronyms are commonly used, they are
> used on this list and nowhere else. And even here they are not used with
> any rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very 

RE: Origin of mathematics

[colin hales]

Really interesting!

Good to find someone that concurs with a one-at-a-time universe. I think this 
will emerge as being right, in the end. 

Thanks.
Colin

-Original Message-
From: "meekerdb" 
Sent: ‎23/‎04/‎2015 5:36 AM
To: "EveryThing" 
Subject: Origin of mathematics

Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked?

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/

Brent

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

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

Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015, meekerdb > wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons.
> Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of
> which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain
> prothesis that would simulate a their function I should say yes doctor.
> Since modelling 1000 neurons at sufficient detail is possible, I leave it
> as an excercise for the reader to demonstrate that simulating a whole brain
> is possible.
>
>
> The complete neural structure of planaria has been mapped.  But that
> doesn't capture the "consciounsness" of the individual planaria.  You can't
> tell from the wiring diagram whether a particular planaria has learned to
> take the illuminated fork in the test maze.  So you might determine the
> generic brain structure of homo sapiens, but you would not thereby capture
> the consciousness of some particular person.  For that, presumably you
> would need to know the relative strength of all the synapses at a
> particular moment.
>

Yes, and you could possibly do that using a technique resolving detail down
to the size of macromolecules.


-- 
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: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 08:23, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Capitalism is the ability to pass wealth on to one's descendants.
>

I'm sure there must be more to it than that.

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 08:08, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>  In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in
>>> the
>>> present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
>>> anticipating an already set, but later, past?
>>>
>>>
>>> On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think it
>>> would
>>> be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."
>>>
>> I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
>> thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
>> but the future is not - until it becomes the present.
>>
>
> Yes, that's Ellis'es concept.
>
>  But if the past
>> is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
>> present and not in the past?
>>
>
> Isn't whatever time of which we're conscious "the present", by definition?
>

Exactly. The original question is badly phrased, it assumes some
(hard-to-imagine) "evolving block universe" - but in fact the present is
just where your consciousness is. King Harold's presents were in and before
1066, (so to speak) - I have to use "were" in that statement because of the
indexical nature of our perception of time. A block-universe version might
phrase it more neutrally so as not to assume some "folk" idea of an
"evolving present". Of course, our language is structured around the "folk
notion" of time "passing" (sorry about all the quotes but I have to
distinguish that these are special and/or invalid usages). Saying something
like "World War 2 is still, and always will be, being declared - 1939 is
still there in the space-time continuum" sounds odd. However if one had a
time machine and used it to visit 1939, and saw Neville Chamberlain with
his piece of paper (and tried and failed to assassinate Hitler, which is of
course mandatory for all time travellers), one would automatically start
treating that as the present. (SF has already explored the linguistic
changes necessary for time travel, and in doing so has incidentally pointed
out why it's hard to talk about the space-time continuum as a block
universe.)

PS Why is it that we can see that the past is a block universe, and
relativity (and common sense) tell us the present and future must be the
same, yet we - or some of us - kick against the idea so much?

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 08:50, Dennis Ochei  wrote:

> I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
> point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
> definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
> off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
> belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has
> killed religion countless times, and continues to do so. But religion rises
> again from its ashes, generally more benign than before.
>
> It's an almost exact parallel with how viruses that once killed their
hosts gradually become less dangerous :-)

(Richard Dawkins would agree that religion is a mind-virus, especially
since he invented the word meme.)

>
> Once we have dispelled illusions, the religion that emerges then will be
> beautiful. But until that time most instances of religion are things that
> reason and empiricism must put down to perfect.
>
> Nice thought!

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 08:19, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was
> almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who
> did the booting back in the day. I usually was not a troller and if people
> zinged me, I ignored it because I was there for Tipler - affirmative,
> stuff, not arguments. Kind of like here, except now if I fear that people
> will ally themselves with the elites, who now lean into some sort of
> neocommunism, that I do bitch back.
>
> I hope not! I mean about there being any of that so-called moderation that
destroys forums (and stops them being "forums" too, of course, in the
proper meaning of the word) - not about you bitching. Long may you bitch!
(And me too, of course).

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

[LizR]

On 23 April 2015 at 08:06, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dennis:
>
> *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
> gaps of understanding ..."*
>
> I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at
> least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
> ignorance.
>

Yes, this makes God a Russell's teapot, and the burden of proof is with the
theists (well, except if "God" is intended in Bruno's sense - as whatever
is the fundamental cause of existence - but that's another matter, or
possibly another equation). Mind you *some* things can be proven, at least
beyond reasonable doubt. For example the falisty of a load of previously
accepted scientific theories - aether and phlogiston, humours and
alchemy raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

Poor nominalists...

Ever what you call "science" and "reason" has claimed prevalence over
religion has been to produce massacres, since 1789 and even before. the
religion of the ones that wave the flags of "science" and "reason", that
is, thae ones that claim knowledge without conscience that what they have
is some kind of faith based on a particular metaphysics. are the most
dangerous ones.

These people like you are the ones that the world must fear

2015-04-22 22:50 GMT+02:00 Dennis Ochei :

> I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
> point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
> definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
> off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
> belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has
> killed religion countless times, and continues to do so. But religion rises
> again from its ashes, generally more benign than before.
>
>
> Once we have dispelled illusions, the religion that emerges then will be
> beautiful. But until that time most instances of religion are things that
> reason and empiricism must put down to perfect.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Dennis:
>>
>> *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
>> gaps of understanding ..."*
>>
>> I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at
>> least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
>> ignorance.
>> To keep pace with the unfathomable Everything (not the restricted
>> physical topic-content of this list) the flexibility of the human
>> (ignorant) mind requires a 'creator', a 'sustainer' a "BOSS" like a king
>> for a country. That is called 'GOD'.
>> You may believe (in) it. Know you cannot. So there is no way to disprove.
>> Sometimes 'God' fills the gaps of misunderstanding (ignorance) as well.
>>
>> I don't believe that going back to more primitive times (less facts
>> included into our worldview) even the smartest(?) minds could LEAD our
>> ignorance to better wisdom. Aristotle's 'total' (in my pun: the "Aris -
>> Total") was MORE than the sum of HIS counted ingredients, which included
>> only the listable material parts. Then we have learned about functions,
>> attributes, connections, variants, variations etc. and added lots of
>> includable 'parts' to the total.
>> Plato did not even pretend to visualize the 'world': he imagined a SHADOW
>> of it on the wall as our percept of reality(?), situated BEHIND us
>> (=invisibly).
>>
>> I esteem Bruno's ideas - am no mathematician - can rarely follow them,
>> yet I never got a reply to my question about "what are the NUMBERS" from
>> him.
>> I consider 'computation' as (Lat) com (cum) - putare (thinking), mind's
>> work, to add 2 and 2 together, definitely not restricted to the numberical
>> terms. It may be also to add an animal, or plant to an environment. Real,
>> or fake.
>>
>> Since the early 90s I participated on more than a dozen discussion lists,
>> this one has exciting and lesser exciting posts and posters.
>>
>> Best regards
>> John Mikes
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Dennis Ochei 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not gonna lie, i find this exchange rather entertaining. I dont know
>>> what side I'd pick, but I will say I've never been 100% clear on what Bruno
>>> meant by Aristotelian or Platonist before now. What does Bruno do with
>>> personal pronouns? I have to agree that at least some of Bruno's written
>>> correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the course in
>>> philosophy anyway...
>>>
>>> God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
>>> gaps of understanding
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR  wrote:

 > In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that
> certain shorthands are commonly used.
>

 None of Bruno's shorthands or acronyms are commonly used, they are used
 on this list and nowhere else. And even here they are not used with any
 rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very uncommon
 ways; I still don't know what the word "God" means in Brunospeak. And don't
 get me started on personal pronouns!

 > For example "Aristotelian" just means anyone who assumes primary
> materialism


 OK so now I know that in Bruno's Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a materialist
 is someone who doesn't even pretend to know if mathematics begat physics or
 physics begat mathematics.


> > Bruno shouldn't need to have to constantly explain what he means by
> these terms.


 No, he needs to do exactly that. Bruno insists on using the Humpty-Dumpty
 dictionary and he has the only copy, so he needs to constantly explain what
 the hell he means; either that or throw away the Humpty-

Re: God

[Dennis Ochei]

I think you interpretted my words in a different way than I intended. My
point was merely that theists use motte and bailey tactics, modifying their
definition of God as soon as you start tightening the screws. If you cut
off one head the theist will confabulate a new one for their religious
belief. People say science cannot kill religion. But I say that science has
killed religion countless times, and continues to do so. But religion rises
again from its ashes, generally more benign than before.


Once we have dispelled illusions, the religion that emerges then will be
beautiful. But until that time most instances of religion are things that
reason and empiricism must put down to perfect.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dennis:
>
> *"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
> gaps of understanding ..."*
>
> I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at
> least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
> ignorance.
> To keep pace with the unfathomable Everything (not the restricted physical
> topic-content of this list) the flexibility of the human (ignorant) mind
> requires a 'creator', a 'sustainer' a "BOSS" like a king for a country.
> That is called 'GOD'.
> You may believe (in) it. Know you cannot. So there is no way to disprove.
> Sometimes 'God' fills the gaps of misunderstanding (ignorance) as well.
>
> I don't believe that going back to more primitive times (less facts
> included into our worldview) even the smartest(?) minds could LEAD our
> ignorance to better wisdom. Aristotle's 'total' (in my pun: the "Aris -
> Total") was MORE than the sum of HIS counted ingredients, which included
> only the listable material parts. Then we have learned about functions,
> attributes, connections, variants, variations etc. and added lots of
> includable 'parts' to the total.
> Plato did not even pretend to visualize the 'world': he imagined a SHADOW
> of it on the wall as our percept of reality(?), situated BEHIND us
> (=invisibly).
>
> I esteem Bruno's ideas - am no mathematician - can rarely follow them, yet
> I never got a reply to my question about "what are the NUMBERS" from him.
> I consider 'computation' as (Lat) com (cum) - putare (thinking), mind's
> work, to add 2 and 2 together, definitely not restricted to the numberical
> terms. It may be also to add an animal, or plant to an environment. Real,
> or fake.
>
> Since the early 90s I participated on more than a dozen discussion lists,
> this one has exciting and lesser exciting posts and posters.
>
> Best regards
> John Mikes
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Dennis Ochei  > wrote:
>
>> I'm not gonna lie, i find this exchange rather entertaining. I dont know
>> what side I'd pick, but I will say I've never been 100% clear on what Bruno
>> meant by Aristotelian or Platonist before now. What does Bruno do with
>> personal pronouns? I have to agree that at least some of Bruno's written
>> correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the course in
>> philosophy anyway...
>>
>> God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
>> gaps of understanding
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR  wrote:
>>>
>>> > In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that
 certain shorthands are commonly used.

>>>
>>> None of Bruno's shorthands or acronyms are commonly used, they are used
>>> on this list and nowhere else. And even here they are not used with any
>>> rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very uncommon
>>> ways; I still don't know what the word "God" means in Brunospeak. And don't
>>> get me started on personal pronouns!
>>>
>>> > For example "Aristotelian" just means anyone who assumes primary
 materialism
>>>
>>>
>>> OK so now I know that in Bruno's Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a materialist
>>> is someone who doesn't even pretend to know if mathematics begat physics or
>>> physics begat mathematics.
>>>
>>>
 > Bruno shouldn't need to have to constantly explain what he means by
 these terms.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, he needs to do exactly that. Bruno insists on using the Humpty-Dumpty
>>> dictionary and he has the only copy, so he needs to constantly explain what
>>> the hell he means; either that or throw away the Humpty-Dumpty
>>> dictionary.
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, v

Re: God

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:




On Tue, Apr 21, 2015  Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015  Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

>>>  We are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary -- words 
no
longer have their ordinary, everyday meaning.

>> Yes. According to Bruno the words "atheist" and "Christian" mean 
almost the
same thing with atheism being just a very minor variation of Christianity. 



> They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of 
creation. And
they have the same belief in creation.


Yep Bruce was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty 
dictionary.

 > Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of 
God


And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist aristotelian is 
somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST physicist who ever lived and 
even in the field of philosophy was vastly overrated, just like all Greek philosophers


So why do you defend implicitly all the time his theology, and seems to deny or even not 
being aware of the theology of the Platonist.


Jason Resh shows you that my definition of God is the same as the Chinese, 
Indian, Greeks,


Are you claiming that all Chinese, Indians, and Greeks agree on a canonical definition for 
"God"?  That would certainly be remarkable (especially as "god" is an English word).



and it is even in the wiki.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

/God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of 
God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite 
knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), 
omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary 
existence. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, 
God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. Monotheism is the belief in 
the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. In pantheism, God is the universe 
itself. In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while God is deemed unknown or 
unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being 
incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the 
"greatest conceivable existent".[1]/



It is widespread, and it is used even by most jewish, christian, and even muslims (but 
they have regressed since some century on that). Only creationist and fundamentalist use 
the literal notion of God, as a person intelligent and with a will, having done 
literally the world.


So the Pope is a fundamentalist and creationist?  I think your "literal notion of God" is 
a straw man.  All jews, christians, and muslims believe in a god who is a person (or 
three) and is extremely powerful, knowledgeable, and morally perfect.  Since they use the 
word to designate what they believe in who are you to tell them their word means something 
entirely different?


Brent



Please buy the book by Proclus: element of theology. It sums well the whole Plato 
theology, with the "correction" mae by Plotinus and other neo-platonist. Or read my 
paper on Plotinus, to see the lexicon "Plato-Arithmetic", foreviewed by Plotinus in his 
chapter "on Numbers".






>> And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous 
impersonal
blob 



> You attribute me things that I have never said.


OK you can clear this up right now right here by answering just one question: By the 
English word "God" do you mean a intelligent conscious being who created the universe 
and knows everything including what our prayers are or do you not?


I don't mean that. I mean the original greek-indian notion (accepted by many jewishes, 
muslims, and more marginally by many christians). Some masons accepted it too, with the 
label "grand architect, although they add more from the timaeus, and less from the 
Parmenides.


Only people calling hemselves atheists seems to forget that the christian God theory 
might be a bit naive for that notion.


On the contrary, atheists remember that the theory is so naive that it's silly 
to believe it.





I think this question is very clear and does not require a paragraph of bafflegab to 
answer, a simple yes or no will do.


So it is NO. But of course, the math might show that this is less false than what we 
might think. We just don't know, Mathematical theology is in its infancy.


Then it shouldn't presume to provide meaning to ancient terms that already have a common 
meaning.






> Is God a blob or an intelligent person? Open problem with 
computationalism.


No this has nothing to do with computationalism or mathematics or logic or science or 
even theology, this has to do with the meaning of a English word and not

Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Capitalism is the ability to pass wealth on to one's descendants. Yes, a 
Darwinian-anthropological thing! One of the worst offenders was Ming China, 
which froze everything, which ruined Chinese civilization, and made it 
vulnerable to invasions by Mongols, Russians, and later the UK. 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Alberto G. Corona 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 3:04 am
Subject: Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization 
emerge again from a post-collapse earth?


 
I do not read this thread in detail but the people among you that do not 
understand that the reduction of workforce in agriculture to marginal levels 
while increasing many times the production has not been due to mechanical and 
crop engineering... you people have a serious problem understanding the 
reality, or merely, perceiving it. Maybe you have a problem in the synapstic 
connections form the senses to the brain interrupted by some kind of autonomous 
module that produces arbitrary histories. 
 
  
  
2015-04-22 6:57 GMT+02:00 LizR:   
   

Technology has revolutionised farming in Africa in the last ten years, thanks 
to the advent of mobile phones. This means farmers can know what to take to 
market, when to take it, and so on. 
  
 
 
(But I  'm not sure what socialism has to do with any of this, especially 
not your version of it. There has always been a certain amount of socialism 
involved in peasant farming, but so what? It's natural for people to help 
people they are related to, and sometimes others as well.) 


 
  
   
   
On 22 April 2015 at 14:51, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

When I think of africa and farming, I think poverty. I think hunger, but maybe 
I am wrong? Therefore, I look to technology as the best answer to nearly all 
troubles, and perhaps this is wrong as well? So the 400 year old concept of 
hydroponics, and greenhouse farming seems a good bet, and a good bet that would 
fill bellies, while sparing the land, and allowing wild life to flourish. I 
don't view socialism as an answer since it cuts wealth from being developed, so 
the idea of distributing an ever shrinking pie becomes ever problematical, 
plus, socialism seems ever more corrupt. Look at the goings on by the Clintons, 
for a real world example. Anymore, crony capitalist oligarchs run everything, 
so what's a serf to do?  

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
 
  
Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 10:38 PM   
Subject: Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization 
emerge again from a post-collapse earth?   
   
   

 
 I didn't say they didn't cut down forests, just that not being idiots, they 
kept the land viable (or at least tried to). And they did it without modern 
fertilisers, obviously - by crop rotation and so on.  
 My point about Ridley's agenda is that it has caused him to espouse views that 
appear inaccurate. That is, there is obviously a hierarchy of needs, but it 
isn't as he's portraying it.  
  
   
  
  
 Yes I don't buy the noble savage or steward of the land of captain of industry 
crap either, but that doesn't automagically make the guy with the right wing 
agenda right by default. Things are generally a bit more complex.  
  
   
  
  
 You're getting lots of money from the police? :)  
  
   
  
 
 
  
  
 On 22 April 2015 at 14:22, spudboy100 via Everything List   
 wrote:   
   
 Ridley has a political agenda? I have a political agenda! But that does not 
matter because I am just a serf. Just remember that the notion of the 
subsistence farmer being the noble steward of the land is false, and if you 
look at European history we see the practice of assarting used for centuries, 
which is extending one's land but cutting away the forests. If we are doing 
greenhouse cultivation, then we'd 99% less land use by the grower. Ridley must 
be correct in that money drives human behavior, and thus, psychology. My 
question would be, what needs to be developed before X crosses Y in greenhouse 
agriculture, in solar, in whatever??? Being a rather ignoble serf, me do not 
know and must leave the answers to the manor born. Now back to milking the 
pigs.   

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization 
emerge again from a post-collapse earth?


 
 

Re: God

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I was booted off when Natasha did her purge and went to Kurzweilai. I was 
almost booted from there for outing Nancy More as the list moderator who did 
the booting back in the day. I usually was not a troller and if people zinged 
me, I ignored it because I was there for Tipler - affirmative, stuff, not 
arguments. Kind of like here, except now if I fear that people will ally 
themselves with the elites, who now lean into some sort of neocommunism, that I 
do bitch back. Of God, it is less important to me if He functions as promised, 
more, I am concerned is how we sapiens are doing? When we disintegrate, can we 
get put back together, faster, better, smarter? That kind of thing. But that is 
my neurosis. 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: God


 
  
   
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 Dennis Ochei  wrote:   
   


> What are the other forums that people on everything list go to? How deep does 
> the rabbit hole go?

 


I've been posting to the Extropian List since the mid 1990s, at one time it was 
more active than this list, it's not as active as it once was but it's still my 
favorite because it still has a high signal to noise ratio. Over the years I've 
learned a lot there from some very smart people. 

 


 http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat  


 


  John K Clark 


 


 

 


 
  
   

 
  
   

 
  
   

 

   
  
 

   
  
 

   
  
 

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

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

Re: Liminal space

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 2:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:


In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in the
present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
anticipating an already set, but later, past?


On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think it would
be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."

I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
but the future is not - until it becomes the present.


Yes, that's Ellis'es concept.


But if the past
is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
present and not in the past?


Isn't whatever time of which we're conscious "the present", by definition?

Brent

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

Re: God

[John Mikes]

Dennis:

*"God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the
gaps of understanding ..."*

I don't need to "disprove" something that has not been "proven" - or at
least described as possible. BTW: nothing can be 'proven' except for
ignorance.
To keep pace with the unfathomable Everything (not the restricted physical
topic-content of this list) the flexibility of the human (ignorant) mind
requires a 'creator', a 'sustainer' a "BOSS" like a king for a country.
That is called 'GOD'.
You may believe (in) it. Know you cannot. So there is no way to disprove.
Sometimes 'God' fills the gaps of misunderstanding (ignorance) as well.

I don't believe that going back to more primitive times (less facts
included into our worldview) even the smartest(?) minds could LEAD our
ignorance to better wisdom. Aristotle's 'total' (in my pun: the "Aris -
Total") was MORE than the sum of HIS counted ingredients, which included
only the listable material parts. Then we have learned about functions,
attributes, connections, variants, variations etc. and added lots of
includable 'parts' to the total.
Plato did not even pretend to visualize the 'world': he imagined a SHADOW
of it on the wall as our percept of reality(?), situated BEHIND us
(=invisibly).

I esteem Bruno's ideas - am no mathematician - can rarely follow them, yet
I never got a reply to my question about "what are the NUMBERS" from him.
I consider 'computation' as (Lat) com (cum) - putare (thinking), mind's
work, to add 2 and 2 together, definitely not restricted to the numberical
terms. It may be also to add an animal, or plant to an environment. Real,
or fake.

Since the early 90s I participated on more than a dozen discussion lists,
this one has exciting and lesser exciting posts and posters.

Best regards
John Mikes

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Dennis Ochei 
wrote:

> I'm not gonna lie, i find this exchange rather entertaining. I dont know
> what side I'd pick, but I will say I've never been 100% clear on what Bruno
> meant by Aristotelian or Platonist before now. What does Bruno do with
> personal pronouns? I have to agree that at least some of Bruno's written
> correspondence is hard to follow, but esotericism is par for the course in
> philosophy anyway...
>
> God always means something just shy of disproven and always fills the gaps
> of understanding
>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 , LizR  wrote:
>>
>> > In order to participate in a forum like this you need to accept that
>>> certain shorthands are commonly used.
>>>
>>
>> None of Bruno's shorthands or acronyms are commonly used, they are used
>> on this list and nowhere else. And even here they are not used with any
>> rational consistency. And then Bruno uses common words in very uncommon
>> ways; I still don't know what the word "God" means in Brunospeak. And don't
>> get me started on personal pronouns!
>>
>> > For example "Aristotelian" just means anyone who assumes primary
>>> materialism
>>
>>
>> OK so now I know that in Bruno's Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a materialist
>> is someone who doesn't even pretend to know if mathematics begat physics or
>> physics begat mathematics.
>>
>>
>>> > Bruno shouldn't need to have to constantly explain what he means by
>>> these terms.
>>
>>
>> No, he needs to do exactly that. Bruno insists on using the Humpty-Dumpty
>> dictionary and he has the only copy, so he needs to constantly explain what
>> the hell he means; either that or throw away the Humpty-Dumpty
>> dictionary.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-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/ev

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Dennis Ochei]

Yes, I know it hasn't been done, but i think most people would agree that c
elegans could be scanned or that a small neuroprothesis is possible, which
is enough of a foothold to say uploading thought experiments are relevant
to human experience.

Of course none of this is deeply relevant to comp.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons.
> Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of
> which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain
> prothesis that would simulate a their function I should say yes doctor.
> Since modelling 1000 neurons at sufficient detail is possible, I leave it
> as an excercise for the reader to demonstrate that simulating a whole brain
> is possible.
>
>
> The complete neural structure of planaria has been mapped.  But that
> doesn't capture the "consciounsness" of the individual planaria.  You can't
> tell from the wiring diagram whether a particular planaria has learned to
> take the illuminated fork in the test maze.  So you might determine the
> generic brain structure of homo sapiens, but you would not thereby capture
> the consciousness of some particular person.  For that, presumably you
> would need to know the relative strength of all the synapses at a
> particular moment.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[meekerdb]

On 4/22/2015 12:26 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes should say 
yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would involve damaging the 1000 
neurons and there was a brain prothesis that would simulate a their function I should 
say yes doctor. Since modelling 1000 neurons at sufficient detail is possible, I leave 
it as an excercise for the reader to demonstrate that simulating a whole brain is possible.


The complete neural structure of planaria has been mapped.  But that doesn't capture the 
"consciounsness" of the individual planaria.  You can't tell from the wiring diagram 
whether a particular planaria has learned to take the illuminated fork in the test maze.  
So you might determine the generic brain structure of homo sapiens, but you would not 
thereby capture the consciousness of some particular person.  For that, presumably you 
would need to know the relative strength of all the synapses at a particular moment.


Brent

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

Origin of mathematics

[meekerdb]

Is mathematics neither invented nor discovered, but evoked?

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics/

Brent

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

Re: God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2015, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 >>>  Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's  
notion of God


>> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist  
aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the  
WORST physicist who ever lived and even in the field of philosophy  
was vastly overrated, just like all Greek philosophers


> So why do you defend implicitly all the time his theology, and  
seems to deny or even not being aware of the theology of the  
Platonist.


I'm not denying anything and I'm not talking about science or  
philosophy or theology, I just want to know the meaning of a  
particular word in your strange non-standard vocabulary. It would be  
silly of me to argue over definitions so I'll accept any meaning of  
the word "God" you give me as long as it's clear and you use it  
consistently.


God is by definition the ultimate reality or the ultimate truth which  
explains why you are here and now, and conscious,.






> Please buy the book by Proclus: element of theology.

Buy a book written by somebody almost as ignorant of modern science  
as a Republican presidential candidate? I don't think so.


Modern science hides theology under the rug.

The debate God or Not God hides the real question asked by the  
platonists: (primitive) Universe or not (primitive) Universe?


Is the physical reality the ontological reality, or is the physical  
reality the shadow of the fundamental reality?






>> OK you can clear this up right now right here by answering just  
one question: By the English word "God" do you mean a intelligent  
conscious being who created the universe and knows everything  
including what our prayers are or do you not?


> So it is NO.

Thank you, that was clear. So when I previously said that for you  
"the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous  
impersonal blob" and you responded with "You attribute me things  
that I have never said" you now admit that your response was  
incorrect and for you the word "God" really does mean a  
unintelligent non-conscious amorphous impersonal blob.



You confuse ~[]A with [] ~A.

I do not believe that god is an unintelligent blob, nor do I believe  
it is not an unintelligent blob.


As I said it is an open problem with computationalism. We just don't  
know yet if the reason of your existence is an intelligent blob or not.


With computationalism, God is approximated by the concept of  
arithmetical truth, and it is an open problem for us if that  
arithmetical truth/reality can be see as a knower itself. There are  
very subtle difficulties on that point, and the neoplatonist where  
aware of them.






> In science, it is never a question of vocabulary

I agree, but in philosophic and theologic debates it usually is just  
a question of vocabulary.


That is why I do science, and not debate, which are infinite, in that  
domain. You should read my paper on Plotinus, which gives a lexicon of  
the machine's theology, or phenomenological theology, and its  
translation in arithmetic, and why that is possible and necessary.
Even for neoplatonist, god is not part of the being, but is a simple  
first principle at the origin of the beings or the appearance of beings.




Definitions of words are arbitrary but both parties in a debate must  
agree on those meanings or they literally don't know what they're  
arguing about.



You talk like if some person have problem with all this. Only  
fundamentalist believers have problems here, not scientists (as far as  
I know).



A debate on if "God" exists would be pretty silly if nobody can  
agree on what the word means, but on this day you've cleared that up  
so I can now unequivocally and boldly shout to the world "I BELIEVE  
GOD EXISTS"  because I believe that unintelligent non-conscious  
amorphous impersonal blobs that didn't create the universe exist.


See above. I never said that I believe that God is such a blob.

Bruno




  John K Clark
















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

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


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



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

Re: God

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 >>>  Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion
>> of God
>
>

>> And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist
>> aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the WORST
>> physicist who ever lived and even in the field of philosophy was vastly
>> overrated, just like all Greek philosophers
>
>
> > So why do you defend implicitly all the time his theology, and seems to
> deny or even not being aware of the theology of the Platonist.
>

I'm not denying anything and I'm not talking about science or philosophy or
theology, I just want to know the meaning of a particular word in your
strange non-standard vocabulary. It would be silly of me to argue over
definitions so I'll accept any meaning of the word "God" you give me as
long as it's clear and you use it consistently.

> Please buy the book by Proclus: element of theology.
>

Buy a book written by somebody almost as ignorant of modern science as a
Republican presidential candidate? I don't think so.

>> OK you can clear this up right now right here by answering just one
>> question: By the English word "God" do you mean a intelligent conscious
>> being who created the universe and knows everything including what our
>> prayers are or do you not?
>
>
> > So it is NO.
>

Thank you, that was clear. So when I previously said that for you "the word
"God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous impersonal blob" and
you responded with "You attribute me things that I have never said" you now
admit that your response was incorrect and for you the word "God" really
does mean a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous impersonal blob.

> In science, it is never a question of vocabulary
>

I agree, but in philosophic and theologic debates it usually is just a
question of vocabulary. Definitions of words are arbitrary but both parties
in a debate must agree on those meanings or they literally don't know what
they're arguing about.  A debate on if "God" exists would be pretty silly
if nobody can agree on what the word means, but on this day you've cleared
that up so I can now unequivocally and boldly shout to the world "I BELIEVE
GOD EXISTS"  because I believe that unintelligent non-conscious amorphous
impersonal blobs that didn't create the universe exist.

  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: God

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Alberto,

On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:36, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Bruno,
I´m convinced that you are a larouchist:

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.PlatoAristotle

I agree in that there are two sides depending on if they value the  
mind or the matter as the primary thing. I also line up with the  
mind side, but Aristotle has little to do in this battle. Really the  
battle was initiated in the XII century with the nominalists.


It is not so important, but I think the battle was already present in  
Athene academy. Your link seems to agree. It was renewed with the  
nominalist in the XII century, or the eleventh I think.


That opposition is present in both Chinese and Indian schools. It is  
an important opposition.


To be clear, I am more on a neutral side, à-la-Spinoza, somehow. I am  
OK that mind is more fundamental than matter, but mind is not yet  
fundamental, as it relies on the numbers, a position which is not so  
far from the neoplatonists, and of course Pythagorus, who influenced a  
lot Plato.





Larouche says that nominalism is a extreme Aristotelism. It is not.


Hmm... I might side with Larouche, if you take "aristotelian" in the  
sense of the followers of Aristotle. Aristotle himself is still quite  
Platonists, but the bad tongues said that this was only to not make  
Plato (his master) too much angry.




It is the negation of platonism and aristotelism both of them. And I  
agree that it is the methaphisics behind the modern science and the  
modern world in general.


OK.

Bruno





2015-04-21 17:37 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

On 16 Apr 2015, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


> We are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary --  
words no longer have their ordinary, everyday meaning.


Yes. According to Bruno the words "atheist" and "Christian" mean  
almost the same thing with atheism being just a very minor  
variation of Christianity.


They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of  
creation. And they have the same belief in creation.




And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous  
impersonal blob


You attribute me things that I have never said.


that doesn't answer prayers and in fact doesn't do much of anything  
at all, nevertheless according to Bruno "God" exists and is very  
important for reasons never made clear.



I use God in the sense of Parmenides, Plato (who introduced the term  
"theology"), Plotinus, Proclus and many others, even the wiki. Only  
fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of  
God.


See the previous posts on this, by me and Jason Resch, and answer  
them instead, of making distracting rhetorics and false insinuations.


You would have mocked the greek sciences just by saying that they  
are ridiculous because they use the word "number" (= numerous) for  
one and two.


The advantage of defining God by the true reason of your  
consciousness here and now, is that it helps to see that physics is  
not a theology, and that a theory of truth is not a theology, but  
that physicalism is a theology, and that the theory God =  
(Arithmetical) Truth is a theology.


It helps also to remind us that what most call God today has been  
imposed through violence, exil, torture, etc.


For the greeks, theology is the theory of everything, which seeks to  
justify and unify all branches of knowledge.


Is God a blob or an intelligent person? Open problem with  
computationalism. Open problem too with Plotinus, actually.


Bruno


And "free will" means... well it means noise shaped air as near as  
I can tell.








  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- 
l...@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.



--
Alberto.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-li

Re: Liminal space

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2015, at 11:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:

In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now  
standing in the

present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
anticipating an already set, but later, past?


On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think  
it would

be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."


I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
but the future is not - until it becomes the present. But if the past
is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
present and not in the past?


May be Brent can add some explanations. I have also some difficulties  
about what could be an evolving (in time?) block-universe.


If that make sense, I would suggest to work with the block-block- 
universe.


Bruno






--
Stathis Papaioannou

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

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


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



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

Re: Liminal space

[LizR]

On 22 April 2015 at 21:21, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in
> the
> > present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
> > anticipating an already set, but later, past?
> >
> >
> > On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think it
> would
> > be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."
>
> I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
> thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
> but the future is not - until it becomes the present. But if the past
> is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
> present and not in the past?
>
> An evolving block universe has an extra time dimension along which it
evolves. This can be handily described as a 5D block universe. And so on,
turtles all the way down (and entirely pointless ones, the 4D block
universe works just fine).

What gets me about those who don't like BUs is their view on the past.
Apparently the past is a BU but the future isn't? Why? No obvious
answerSeems more like BS, TBH.

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

[Alberto G. Corona]

Bruno,
I´m convinced that you are a larouchist:

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.PlatoAristotle

I agree in that there are two sides depending on if they value the mind or
the matter as the primary thing. I also line up with the mind side, but
Aristotle has little to do in this battle. Really the battle was initiated
in the XII century with the nominalists.

Larouche says that nominalism is a
extreme Aristotelism. It is not. It is the negation of platonism and
aristotelism both of them. And I agree that it is the methaphisics behind
the modern science and the modern world in general.

2015-04-21 17:37 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 16 Apr 2015, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
> > We are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary -- words no
>> longer have their ordinary, everyday meaning.
>
>
> Yes. According to Bruno the words "atheist" and "Christian" mean almost
> the same thing with atheism being just a very minor variation of
> Christianity.
>
>
> They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of creation.
> And they have the same belief in creation.
>
>
>
> And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous
> impersonal blob
>
>
> You attribute me things that I have never said.
>
>
> that doesn't answer prayers and in fact doesn't do much of anything at
> all, nevertheless according to Bruno "God" exists and is very important for
> reasons never made clear.
>
>
>
> I use God in the sense of Parmenides, Plato (who introduced the term
> "theology"), Plotinus, Proclus and many others, even the wiki. Only
> fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's notion of God.
>
> See the previous posts on this, by me and Jason Resch, and answer them
> instead, of making distracting rhetorics and false insinuations.
>
> You would have mocked the greek sciences just by saying that they are
> ridiculous because they use the word "number" (= numerous) for one and two.
>
> The advantage of defining God by the true reason of your consciousness
> here and now, is that it helps to see that physics is not a theology, and
> that a theory of truth is not a theology, but that physicalism is a
> theology, and that the theory God = (Arithmetical) Truth is a theology.
>
> It helps also to remind us that what most call God today has been imposed
> through violence, exil, torture, etc.
>
> For the greeks, theology is the theory of everything, which seeks to
> justify and unify all branches of knowledge.
>
> Is God a blob or an intelligent person? Open problem with
> computationalism. Open problem too with Plotinus, actually.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> And "free will" means... well it means noise shaped air as near as I can
> tell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

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

Re: God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:




On Tue, Apr 21, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015  Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>>>  We are entering the realm of the Humpty-Dumpty dictionary --  
words no longer have their ordinary, everyday meaning.


>> Yes. According to Bruno the words "atheist" and "Christian" mean  
almost the same thing with atheism being just a very minor variation  
of Christianity.


> They have the same notion of the creator, and the same notion of  
creation. And they have the same belief in creation.


Yep Bruce was correct, we are entering the realm of the Humpty- 
Dumpty dictionary.


 > Only fundamentalist aristotelians have a problem with Plato's  
notion of God


And according to your Humpty-Dumpty dictionary a fundamentalist  
aristotelian is somebody who thinks that Aristotle was by far the  
WORST physicist who ever lived and even in the field of philosophy  
was vastly overrated, just like all Greek philosophers


So why do you defend implicitly all the time his theology, and seems  
to deny or even not being aware of the theology of the Platonist.


Jason Resh shows you that my definition of God is the same as the  
Chinese, Indian, Greeks, and it is even in the wiki. It is widespread,  
and it is used even by most jewish, christian, and even muslims (but  
they have regressed since some century on that). Only creationist and  
fundamentalist use the literal notion of God, as a person intelligent  
and with a will, having done literally the world.


Please buy the book by Proclus: element of theology. It sums well the  
whole Plato theology, with the "correction" mae by Plotinus and other  
neo-platonist. Or read my paper on Plotinus, to see the lexicon "Plato- 
Arithmetic", foreviewed by Plotinus in his chapter "on Numbers".






>> And the word "God" means a unintelligent non-conscious amorphous  
impersonal blob


> You attribute me things that I have never said.

OK you can clear this up right now right here by answering just one  
question: By the English word "God" do you mean a intelligent  
conscious being who created the universe and knows everything  
including what our prayers are or do you not?


I don't mean that. I mean the original greek-indian notion (accepted  
by many jewishes, muslims, and more marginally by many christians).  
Some masons accepted it too, with the label "grand architect, although  
they add more from the timaeus, and less from the Parmenides.


Only people calling hemselves atheists seems to forget that the  
christian God theory might be a bit naive for that notion.




I think this question is very clear and does not require a paragraph  
of bafflegab to answer, a simple yes or no will do.


So it is NO. But of course, the math might show that this is less  
false than what we might think. We just don't know, Mathematical  
theology is in its infancy.





> Is God a blob or an intelligent person? Open problem with  
computationalism.


No this has nothing to do with computationalism or mathematics or  
logic or science or even theology, this has to do with the meaning  
of a English word and nothing more.


In science, it is never a question of vocabulary, but on agreeing with  
definition. Only integrists hides conceptual problems into vocabulary  
quarrel.





I already know what most people on this planet mean by the word "God"


No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.



but I don't know what you mean,


Then it means that you have not read the posts, as I gave the very  
simple definition more that fifty times. See Jason resh post, which  
was excellent on that definition.






so all I need you to do is look up the word "God" in your Humpty- 
Dumpty dictionary and tell me what it says; I'd do it myself but I  
seem to have misplaced my copy.


You suffer from opportunistic lack of memory, all of the time. Why  
should I answer, given that I have already answered more than fifty  
times. Just look in the wiki, the last time I look, it contained my  
definition. Google on "God", or on "plato God" or "Proclus God", or  
"Plotinus One", etc.


Bruno





 John K Clark





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

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


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



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

Re: Liminal space

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 22 April 2015 at 10:49, meekerdb  wrote:

> In an evolving block universe how do we know that we are now standing in the
> present anticipating the evolving future rather than in the past
> anticipating an already set, but later, past?
>
>
> On a mailing list that puts so much weight on consciousness I think it would
> be obvious that "We're conscious of the present."

I may have misunderstood the idea of an evolving block universe. I
thought it meant that the past is, as it were, existent in the block,
but the future is not - until it becomes the present. But if the past
is existent in the block, how do we know that we are conscious in the
present and not in the past?


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:26, Dennis Ochei wrote:

Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons.  
Nematodes should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion  
of which would involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a  
brain prothesis that would simulate a their function I should say  
yes doctor. Since modelling 1000 neurons at sufficient detail is  
possible, I leave it as an excercise for the reader to demonstrate  
that simulating a whole brain is possible.


I don't think that this is relevant to grasp the consequence of  
computationalism, but I agree with you: emulating the brain might be  
technologically possible. But it is also quite complex, and the  
pioneers of digital, but physical, brain will probably feel quite  
"stoned".  In particular, we get more and more evidences that the  
glial cells plays important regulating roles in the brain, and even  
that they transmit information. They have no axons, but they  
communicate between themselves trough waves of chemical reactions,  
passing from membranes to membranes, and seems to be able to activate  
or inhibit the action of some neurons. So I would say yes to a doctor  
who emulates the neuron and the glial cells at the level of the  
concentration of the metabolites in the cells. That is not for  
tomorrow, but perhaps for after tomorrow.


Then with comp, we survive anyway in the arithmetical reality, but  
here, the problem is that there is still an inflation of  
possibilities, going from backtracking in our life, to becoming a sort  
of god. Only the progress in mathematical theology can give more  
clues. Plato's proof of the immortality of the soul remains intact in  
the arithmetical theology, but in that case, the soul can become  
amnesic, and the survival can have a strong "salvia divinorum  
experience" look. (You can see the report of such experiences on  
Erowid).The little ego might not survive, in that case, but before  
vanishing, you can realize internally that you are not the little ego.  
That form of personal identity might be an illusion, which can be  
consciously stopped. Note that some dream can lead to similar  
experience. It impose you a form of selfish altruism, as you realize  
that the suffering of the others are yours, in some concrete sense.


Bruno





On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett  
 wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:

What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or  
physics than mathematics,


I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion  
of theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates. The  
name of the field is another topic.


Also, you are unclear. you argue that comp is false, but reason like  
it makes sense, and that the reasoning is non valid, without saying  
where is the error. It is hard to figure out what you mean.


I think we are coming from entirely different starting points. From my
(physicist's) point of view, what you are doing is proposing a model  
and

reasoning about what happens in that model. Because it is your model,
you are free to choose the starting point and the ancillary  
assumptions

as you wish. All that matters for the model is that the logic of the
development of the model is correct.

What is happening in our exchanges is that I am examining what goes  
into

your model and seeing whether it makes sense in the light of other
knowledge. The actual logic of the development of your model is then  
of

secondary importance. If your assumptions are unrealistic or too
restrictive, then no matter how good your logic, the end result will  
not
be of any great value. These wider issues cannot be simply dismissed  
as

"off topic".

In summary, my objections start with step 0, the "yes doctor"  
argument.
I do not think that it is physically possible to examine a living  
brain
in sufficient detail to reproduce its conscious life in a Turing  
machine
without actually destroying the brain before the process is  
complete. I

would say "No" to the doctor. So even though I believe that AI is
possible, in other words, that a computer-based intelligence that can
function in all relevant respects like a normal human being is in
principle possible, I do not believe that I can be replaced by such an
AI. The necessary starting data are unobtainable in principle.

Consequently, I think the reasoning in the first steps of your model
could only apply to mature AIs, not to humans. The internal logic of  
the
model is then not an issue -- but the relevance to human experience  
is.


Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.

To post to this gro

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:


Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or  
physics than mathematics,
I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's  
notion of theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates.  
The name of the field is another topic.
Also, you are unclear. you argue that comp is false, but reason  
like it makes sense, and that the reasoning is non valid, without  
saying where is the error. It is hard to figure out what you mean.


I think we are coming from entirely different starting points. From my
(physicist's) point of view, what you are doing is proposing a model  
and

reasoning about what happens in that model. Because it is your model,
you are free to choose the starting point and the ancillary  
assumptions

as you wish. All that matters for the model is that the logic of the
development of the model is correct.


OK. What you call "model" is what logician call "theory". Logician use  
"model" for a mathematical object playing basically the role of a  
"reality" satisfying the axioms and theorems of the theory. (let us  
keep in mind this to avoid deaf dialog).





What is happening in our exchanges is that I am examining what goes  
into

your model and seeing whether it makes sense in the light of other
knowledge. The actual logic of the development of your model is then  
of

secondary importance. If your assumptions are unrealistic or too
restrictive, then no matter how good your logic, the end result will  
not
be of any great value. These wider issues cannot be simply dismissed  
as

"off topic".

In summary, my objections start with step 0, the "yes doctor"  
argument.
I do not think that it is physically possible to examine a living  
brain
in sufficient detail to reproduce its conscious life in a Turing  
machine
without actually destroying the brain before the process is  
complete. I

would say "No" to the doctor. So even though I believe that AI is
possible, in other words, that a computer-based intelligence that can
function in all relevant respects like a normal human being is in
principle possible, I do not believe that I can be replaced by such an
AI. The necessary starting data are unobtainable in principle.

Consequently, I think the reasoning in the first steps of your model
could only apply to mature AIs, not to humans. The internal logic of  
the
model is then not an issue -- but the relevance to human experience  
is.


Hmm, step seven shows that the practilcaness of the duplication is not  
relevant. I come back on this below.


Another point, given that you seem to accept the weaker thesis of  
strong AI (machine can be conscious), then the UDA works for them,  
they can understand it, and get the same conclusion. So such machine  
would prove correctly that either physics is a branch of arithmetic,  
or they are not machine. But we know that such AI are machine (in the  
comp sense), so that would be an even better proof than UDA, and  
indeed it is actually a good sketch of the mathematical translation of  
UDA in arithmetic.


But we don't need to go in UDA. You are right that the first steps of  
the UDA might not be realist, (although I doubt that too: see Ochei's  
post), but normally you should understand that at step seven, that  
absence of realism is no more a trouble, as the UD generates all  
computations, even the simulation of the whole Milky at the level of  
strings and branes.


The only thing which might perhaps prevent the reasoning to go through  
is if matter plays some non Turing emulable role for the presence of  
consciousness. But then we are no more postulating computationalism.


A rather long time ago, I thought that "UDA" and alike could be used  
to show that computationalism lead to a contradiction. But I got only  
"weirdness", and to test comp we need to compare the the comp  
weirdness and the empirical weirdness. And that is the point. I am not  
a defender of comp, or of any idea. I am a logician saying that IF we  
have such belief, and if we are rational enough, then we have to  
accept this or that consequence.


And, to be sure, I do find comp elegant, as it leads to a simple  
theory of arithmetic: elementary arithmetic.


I will try, (cf my promise to the Platonist Guitar Boy (PGC)) to make  
a summary of the math part (AUDA,, the machine interview), you might  
better appreciate, as it shows how complex the extraction of physics  
is, but how incompleteness leads already rather quickly to MWI and  
some quantum logic that we can compare to the empirical quantum logic.  
In fact we can already "implement" in the comp extracted physics some  
quantum gates, but may be some other could not, and once realized in  
nature that might lead to a refutation of comp or the classical theory  
of knowledge (or we are in a perverse simulation, to be complete). The  
main things is that the a

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>  What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or physics
>>> than mathematics,
>>>
>>
>> I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion of
>> theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates. The name of the
>> field is another topic.
>>
>> Also, you are unclear. you argue that comp is false, but reason like it
>> makes sense, and that the reasoning is non valid, without saying where is
>> the error. It is hard to figure out what you mean.
>>
>
> I think we are coming from entirely different starting points. From my
> (physicist's) point of view, what you are doing is proposing a model and
> reasoning about what happens in that model. Because it is your model,
> you are free to choose the starting point and the ancillary assumptions
> as you wish. All that matters for the model is that the logic of the
> development of the model is correct.
>
> What is happening in our exchanges is that I am examining what goes into
> your model and seeing whether it makes sense in the light of other
> knowledge. The actual logic of the development of your model is then of
> secondary importance. If your assumptions are unrealistic or too
> restrictive, then no matter how good your logic, the end result will not
> be of any great value. These wider issues cannot be simply dismissed as
> "off topic".
>
> In summary, my objections start with step 0, the "yes doctor" argument.
> I do not think that it is physically possible to examine a living brain
> in sufficient detail to reproduce its conscious life in a Turing machine
> without actually destroying the brain before the process is complete. I
> would say "No" to the doctor. So even though I believe that AI is
> possible, in other words, that a computer-based intelligence that can
> function in all relevant respects like a normal human being is in
> principle possible, I do not believe that I can be replaced by such an
> AI. The necessary starting data are unobtainable in principle.
>
> Consequently, I think the reasoning in the first steps of your model
> could only apply to mature AIs, not to humans. The internal logic of the
> model is then not an issue -- but the relevance to human experience is.


I don't see why you think it is impossible to scan a brain sufficiently to
reproduce it. For example, you could fix a the brain, slice it up with a
microtome and with microscopy establish all the synaptic connections. That
is the crudest proposal for so-called mind uploading, but it may be
necessary to go further to the molecular level and determine the types and
numbers of membrane proteins in each neuron. The next step would be the at
the level of small molecules and atoms, such as neurotransmitters and ions,
but this may be able to be deduced from information about the type of
neuron and macromolecules. It seems unlikely that you would need to
determine things like ionic concentrations at a given moment, since ionic
gradients collapse all the time and the person survives. In any case, with
the "yes doctor" test you would not be the first volunteer. It is assumed
that it will be well established, through a series of engineering
refinements, that with the brain replacement the copies seem to behave
normally and claim that they feel normal. The leap of faith (which, as I've
said previously, I don't think is such a leap) is that not only will the
copies say they feel the same, they will in fact feel the same.


-- 
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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Dennis Ochei]

Certainly we could scan a nematode, don't you think? 302 neurons. Nematodes
should say yes doctor. If I had a brain tumor, rescinsion of which would
involve damaging the 1000 neurons and there was a brain prothesis that
would simulate a their function I should say yes doctor. Since modelling
1000 neurons at sufficient detail is possible, I leave it as an excercise
for the reader to demonstrate that simulating a whole brain is possible.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>  What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or physics
>>> than mathematics,
>>>
>>
>> I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion of
>> theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates. The name of the
>> field is another topic.
>>
>> Also, you are unclear. you argue that comp is false, but reason like it
>> makes sense, and that the reasoning is non valid, without saying where is
>> the error. It is hard to figure out what you mean.
>>
>
> I think we are coming from entirely different starting points. From my
> (physicist's) point of view, what you are doing is proposing a model and
> reasoning about what happens in that model. Because it is your model,
> you are free to choose the starting point and the ancillary assumptions
> as you wish. All that matters for the model is that the logic of the
> development of the model is correct.
>
> What is happening in our exchanges is that I am examining what goes into
> your model and seeing whether it makes sense in the light of other
> knowledge. The actual logic of the development of your model is then of
> secondary importance. If your assumptions are unrealistic or too
> restrictive, then no matter how good your logic, the end result will not
> be of any great value. These wider issues cannot be simply dismissed as
> "off topic".
>
> In summary, my objections start with step 0, the "yes doctor" argument.
> I do not think that it is physically possible to examine a living brain
> in sufficient detail to reproduce its conscious life in a Turing machine
> without actually destroying the brain before the process is complete. I
> would say "No" to the doctor. So even though I believe that AI is
> possible, in other words, that a computer-based intelligence that can
> function in all relevant respects like a normal human being is in
> principle possible, I do not believe that I can be replaced by such an
> AI. The necessary starting data are unobtainable in principle.
>
> Consequently, I think the reasoning in the first steps of your model
> could only apply to mature AIs, not to humans. The internal logic of the
> model is then not an issue -- but the relevance to human experience is.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Step 3 - one step beyond?

[Bruce Kellett]

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Apr 2015, at 00:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:

What you are talking about has more to do with psychology and/or 
physics than mathematics,


I call that theology, and this can be justified using Plato's notion of 
theology, as the lexicon Plotinus/arithmetic illustrates. The name of 
the field is another topic.


Also, you are unclear. you argue that comp is false, but reason like it 
makes sense, and that the reasoning is non valid, without saying where 
is the error. It is hard to figure out what you mean.


I think we are coming from entirely different starting points. From my
(physicist's) point of view, what you are doing is proposing a model and
reasoning about what happens in that model. Because it is your model,
you are free to choose the starting point and the ancillary assumptions
as you wish. All that matters for the model is that the logic of the
development of the model is correct.

What is happening in our exchanges is that I am examining what goes into
your model and seeing whether it makes sense in the light of other
knowledge. The actual logic of the development of your model is then of
secondary importance. If your assumptions are unrealistic or too
restrictive, then no matter how good your logic, the end result will not
be of any great value. These wider issues cannot be simply dismissed as
"off topic".

In summary, my objections start with step 0, the "yes doctor" argument.
I do not think that it is physically possible to examine a living brain
in sufficient detail to reproduce its conscious life in a Turing machine
without actually destroying the brain before the process is complete. I
would say "No" to the doctor. So even though I believe that AI is
possible, in other words, that a computer-based intelligence that can
function in all relevant respects like a normal human being is in
principle possible, I do not believe that I can be replaced by such an
AI. The necessary starting data are unobtainable in principle.

Consequently, I think the reasoning in the first steps of your model
could only apply to mature AIs, not to humans. The internal logic of the
model is then not an issue -- but the relevance to human experience is.

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: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?

[Alberto G. Corona]

I do not read this thread in detail but the people among you that do not
understand that the reduction of workforce in agriculture to marginal
levels while increasing many times the production has not been due to
mechanical and crop engineering... you people have a serious problem
understanding the reality, or merely, perceiving it. Maybe you have a
problem in the synapstic connections form the senses to the brain
interrupted by some kind of autonomous module that produces arbitrary
histories.

2015-04-22 6:57 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> Technology has revolutionised farming in Africa in the last ten years,
> thanks to the advent of mobile phones. This means farmers can know what to
> take to market, when to take it, and so on.
>
> (But I*'m n*ot sure what socialism has to do with any of this, especially
> not your version of it. There has always been a certain amount of socialism
> involved in peasant farming, but so what? It's natural for people to help
> people they are related to, and sometimes others as well.)
>
> On 22 April 2015 at 14:51, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> When I think of africa and farming, I think poverty. I think hunger, but
>> maybe I am wrong? Therefore, I look to technology as the best answer to
>> nearly all troubles, and perhaps this is wrong as well? So the 400 year old
>> concept of hydroponics, and greenhouse farming seems a good bet, and a good
>> bet that would fill bellies, while sparing the land, and allowing wild life
>> to flourish. I don't view socialism as an answer since it cuts wealth from
>> being developed, so the idea of distributing an ever shrinking pie becomes
>> ever problematical, plus, socialism seems ever more corrupt. Look at the
>> goings on by the Clintons, for a real world example. Anymore, crony
>> capitalist oligarchs run everything, so what's a serf to do?
>>
>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 10:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial
>> civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?
>>
>>
>>  I didn't say they didn't cut down forests, just that not being idiots,
>> they kept the land viable (or at least tried to). And they did it without
>> modern fertilisers, obviously - by crop rotation and so on.
>> My point about Ridley's agenda is that it has caused him to espouse views
>> that appear inaccurate. That is, there is obviously a hierarchy of needs,
>> but it isn't as he's portraying it.
>>
>>  Yes I don't buy the noble savage or steward of the land of captain of
>> industry crap either, but that doesn't automagically make the guy with the
>> right wing agenda right by default. Things are generally a bit more
>> complex.
>>
>>  You're getting lots of money from the police? :)
>>
>>
>>  On 22 April 2015 at 14:22, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ridley has a political agenda? I have a political agenda! But that does
>> not matter because I am just a serf. Just remember that the notion of the
>> subsistence farmer being the noble steward of the land is false, and if you
>> look at European history we see the practice of assarting used for
>> centuries, which is extending one's land but cutting away the forests. If
>> we are doing greenhouse cultivation, then we'd 99% less land use by the
>> grower. Ridley must be correct in that money drives human behavior, and
>> thus, psychology. My question would be, what needs to be developed before X
>> crosses Y in greenhouse agriculture, in solar, in whatever??? Being a
>> rather ignoble serf, me do not know and must leave the answers to the manor
>> born. Now back to milking the pigs.
>>
>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Tue, Apr 21, 2015 10:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Interesting speculation: Could an advanced industrial
>> civilization emerge again from a post-collapse earth?
>>
>>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 10:38, spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Riddley is correct. When people have their lower rungs satisfied, as in
>> abe maslow's hierarchy of needs, then environment use becomes important-
>> but not if you need fire wood to live.
>>
>>
>>  Subsistence farmers will try to make sure they have food every year,
>> and that means being environmentalists. If there's a free lunch invovled
>> *then* you get the tragedy of the commons, but not beforehand. (PS I
>> think you'll find Matt Ridley has a political agenda if I remember rightly,
>> which comes across rather clearly here.)
>>
>>
>> Also, do not ignore improvements in the knowledge we already know-rather
>> than rely on breakthroughs.(I am paraphrasing Gerard O'Neil). Think of some
>> collection of tech that makes greenhouse agriculture cheaper then out door
>> agriculture-something like this. All of a su