Re: Samiya proved right
This discussion-post approaches some better reality-case than most of the others. Reminds me of the Worldview of my wife: we are here by decree of some ZOOKEEPER as long as 'they' want something we provide (for them). We do not know them, don't communicate with them. When our 'usefulness' is over, we perish. My - more human-logic based natural scientific agnosticism (call it common sense) - places the ORIGIN (incl.: the propagational steps) into the infinite complexity of this Universe (that may be much larger than whatever we call 'our' Cosmos) and an infinite composite - I call it 'Plenitude' - that does not tolerate complexities yet all ingredients fluctuate in ceaseless conflation. Complexity comes into play, when 'relatable' ingredients mass up in the fluctuation and screw up the equilibrium of the Plenitude. I call such violations 'Universes - they dissipate as they form (no time factor - maybe) with diverse complexity in such groups. It is not a 'created' world, not a deterministically forced order, not teleological or predetermined: it succumbs to the unlimited variations of the participants as they enter the image. Under such (self-controlled - iff??) conditions *our* Universe is of a lower complexity (SPACE - TIME SYSTEM?) and OTHERS MAY BE MORE SOPHISTICATED (the Zookeepers?). Accordingly 'prayer' is senseless, much more so 'praying' to a supernatural being with infinite wisdom and power (that would pretend to PRESCRIBE to such Being what to do BEST - as WE think of it). To 'praise' such Being? it may be ridiculous, if not supposing the 'narcisstic brutal nature' someone mentioned lately on this list. My example: 2 mothers 'pray' identically for the safe homecoming of their sons from the same war. Both are 'good' etc. One son comes home safe, the other in a body bag. Add a third one to my example and that 3rd one comes home mentally(bodily?) destroyed. Some bad guys come home safely. As a child, I was raised religiously, served even as a Catholic altar-boy and studied several religions and Scripts. My wife was educated by nuns. Just to tell my side John M On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:37 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hey, I grew up watching the Organians do their thing. You leave human reaction to wide open. You want to pray to a baddie, or kick the shins of a goodie? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Samiya proved right On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So if contact is made to the godlikes, assuming that he, she, it, they, should they be worshipped? No? What if these imaginary guys did something really nice for us? I think we should react to them as seems appropriate under the circumstances (like most things, really). PS See early Star Trek for more details on how to react to godlike beings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
Hi Brent
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/3/2015 7:16 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 2:16:31 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Jun 2015, at 20:10, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Grammatical systems just might be the type of thing Tegmark is looking
for that is a framework for all mathematical structures... or at least a
large class of them.
I am still exploring the idea of grammatical system induction.
I am not sure what you mean by grammatical induction. Is that not
equivalent with the omega-induction principles, like with PA?
It is described in this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDb4Yti4egpKfcO2oLcnGAH8UpC8_tKb7ivuH3AT7A/edit?usp=sharing
A couple of points I don't understand. First, G is a set of sentences.
I'm not sure what any means.
It means that G is a subset of the set of utterances.
Does it mean G is all grammatical sentences?
G is the set of grammatically-correct utterances for the formal system
(A,G,X,I). Yes, all of them. That does not mean that G needs to be the
entire set of utterances though.
Is G assumed finite, or countable?
There are no assumptions on G other than it is a subset of the set of all
utterances using symbols in the alphabet A.
Second, why is H defined as an element of G^n (Cartesian product of sets)
instead of just a subset of G?
H is a *subset* of a Cartesian power of G, not an *element* of a Cartesian
power of G.
It is possible that a rule of inference is not defined for all of G^n, so H
is the domain of the rule of inference in question. Modus ponens, for
instance, in the FOL (first order logic) formal system is only defined so
that it is this function:
Modus ponens = {( (p, p--q) , q ) : p is in element of G, p--q is an
element of G, and q is an element of G}. Modus ponens is not defined for
all of G^2. For instance, (p,q--p) is not in the domain of Modus Ponens.
In first order logic, n is usually 1 or 2.
Third, if [H-G] is a function doesn't that implies that T(H) ends with a
unique G, which is not generally true of inferences.
Well, I checked this list of some rules of inference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rules_of_inference
ALL of them have a single conclusion, which is an element of G.
Which inference rules have multiple conclusions? We can make the minor
adjustment that T is in [H--G^m] instead of T is in [H--G]. But I don't
see why we have 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: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
On 6/3/2015 7:16 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 2:16:31 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2015, at 20:10, Brian Tenneson wrote: Grammatical systems just might be the type of thing Tegmark is looking for that is a framework for all mathematical structures... or at least a large class of them. I am still exploring the idea of grammatical system induction. I am not sure what you mean by grammatical induction. Is that not equivalent with the omega-induction principles, like with PA? It is described in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDb4Yti4egpKfcO2oLcnGAH8UpC8_tKb7ivuH3AT7A/edit?usp=sharing A couple of points I don't understand. First, G is a set of sentences. I'm not sure what any means. Does it mean G is all grammatical sentences? Is G assumed finite, or countable? Second, why is H defined as an element of G^n (Cartesian product of sets) instead of just a subset of G? Third, if [H-G] is a function doesn't that implies that T(H) ends with a unique G, which is not generally true of inferences. 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.
The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on earth does it mean? A superposition seen from the 1p view, or A self-duplication seen from the 1p view That means peepee. or a result of measurement wih inomplete information, That start of randomness is subjective, a function of the observer not of the thing itself. or A string which is not algorithmically compressible, Yes, that is a very good example of an event without a cause. or etc. I'd like a little more detail on the etc. nobody has ever seen anything in the physical world that was not computable. I can agree with this. Then do you think maybe that fact is trying to tell you something rather important? That computationalism might be false. What the hell! Computationalism says that intelligent behavior is caused by physical computation, so how does the fact that nobody has ever seen a computation that wasn't physical imply that Computationalism might be false? But that is not yet proven too, as comp implies there is something non computable, but it might be just the FPI and the quantum FPI confirms this. I don't care, I'm not interested in comp or of the Foreign Policy Institute. Physicists only deal with things in nature so they have no need to worry about non computable stuff, and a good thing too because if a physical theory is non computable there is no way to prove it wrong and thus it is not science. Physics use a lot of non computable things in the background. Name one. It is intuitively obvious that no computation can be made without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. made is ambiguous. Bullshit. You systematically beg the question by defining existence, made ... by physical existence, physically made, etc. Existence is ambiguous. No problem with this, except that comp is false, OK fine, comp is false. And now that we both agree that comp is false can you please stop talking about comp. I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. I cannot, but that is not the point. But that is exactly precisely the point! If I said I had a proof of the Riemann hypothesis but I refuse to show it to you or to anybody else would you take me seriously? If you say non physical stuff can make a calculation, any calculation, I'm not going to believe it until you show me some non physical stuff that is actually calculating something. The arithmetical reality does it independently of me, Then have it do so and end this debate right now, have non-physical arithmetical reality calculate the solution to a problem from a first grade arithmetic book! A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics, Not at all. It does if you expect your Turing Machine to actually do anything. You mean do anything relatively to my body, Obviously I mean that because if it can't do anything relative to my body then it's invisible, and being invisible and being nonexistent look rather similar. but as we need to explain the appearance of body from the computations You would only need to do that if you assume the very thing you're trying to prove, that mathematics is more fundamental than physics. If Mr. Matyazevic really knows how a Turing Machine can be emulated by non-physical diophantine polynomial relations then why doesn't he stop talking about it and just do it? because he is a mathematician, studying computation. He is not an engineer implementing computations relatively to us. So Mr. Matyazevic is making invisible computations and I have a invisible proof the Riemann hypothesis. As I've said, being invisible and being nonexistent look rather similar. Again, the point is that if you agree that 2+2=4 is true independently of you I'm certain it's independent of me but I'm not certain it's independent of the entire physical universe; if 4 things didn't exist in the entire physical universe, or even two, then I'm not certain 2+2=4 would have any meaning, and even if it did I'm not certain who would be around to find it meaningful. then the computations are done, The 2+2=4 computation has been done but the computation to find the 10^100^100 digit of PI has not been done and it is probably impossible to compute it in the physical universe, so I don't know if that digit can be said to exist or not. Maybe yes maybe no. Why doesn't Mr. Matyazevic go into the computer hardware business and start the Diophantine Polynomial Corporation and become the world's first trillionaire? I think a computer chip company with zero manufacturing costs would be a wonderful business model. I sure wish I knew how to do it. You continue your joke I'm not joking, if he really knew how to do what you claimed he knows how to do, make calculations without matter that obeys the laws of physics, then he'd revolutionize the world, and become a trillionaire too.
Re: And now for more news
Yeah, he's good. Obviously some Americans do actually get satire, despite the stereotype. On 4 June 2015 at 03:27, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *Sometimes Borowitz really nails it…. It gave me a laugh… maybe you’ll get a chuckle* http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mccain-urges-military-strikes-against-fifa -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Samiya proved right
Ah, the plenitude, how about this? http://phys.org/news/2015-06-strange-behavior-quantum-particles-parallel.html Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 05:13 PM Subject: Re: Samiya proved right div id=AOLMsgPart_2_36fc52ae-c67f-42de-aefe-26436f992e0e div dir=ltr This discussion-post approaches some better reality-case than most of the others. Reminds me of the Worldview of my wife: we are here by decree of some ZOOKEEPER as long as 'they' want something we provide (for them). div We do not know them, don't communicate with them. When our 'usefulness' is over, we perish. My - more human-logic based natural scientific agnosticism (call it common sense) - places the ORIGIN (incl.: the propagational steps) into the infinite complexity of this Universe (that may be much larger than whatever we call 'our' Cosmos) and an infinite composite - I call it 'Plenitude' - that does not tolerate complexities yet all ingredients fluctuate in ceaseless conflation. Complexity comes into play, when 'relatable' ingredients mass up in the fluctuation and screw up the equilibrium of the Plenitude. I call such violations 'Universes - they dissipate as they form (no time factor - maybe) with diverse complexity in such groups. It is not a 'created' world, not a deterministically forced order, not teleological or predetermined: it succumbs to the unlimited variations of the participants as they enter the image. Under such (self-controlled - iff??) conditions buour/u/b Universe is of a lower complexity (SPACE - TIME SYSTEM?) and OTHERS MAY BE MORE SOPHISTICATED (the Zookeepers?). Accordingly 'prayer' is senseless, much more so 'praying' to a supernatural being with infinite wisdom and power (that would pretend to PRESCRIBE to such Being what to do BEST - as WE think of it). To 'praise' such Being? it may be ridiculous, if not supposing the 'narcisstic brutal nature' someone mentioned lately on this list. My example: 2 mothers 'pray' identically for the safe homecoming of their sons from the same war. Both are 'good' etc. One son comes home safe, the other in a body bag. Add a third one to my example and that 3rd one comes home mentally(bodily?) destroyed. Some bad guys come home safely. As a child, I was raised religiously, served even as a Catholic altar-boy and studied several religions and Scripts. My wife was educated by nuns. Just to tell my side John M /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:37 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arial font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif style=background-color:transparentHey, I grew up watching the Organians do their thing. You leave human reaction to wide open. You want to pray to a baddie, or kick the shins of a goodie? /font div style=color:black;font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt span-Original Message- From: LizR a target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a /span span Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Samiya proved right /span div class=aolmail_h5 div div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid So if contact is made to the godlikes, assuming that he, she, it, they, should they be worshipped? No? What if these imaginary guys did something really nice for us? span /span /blockquoteI think we should react to them as seems appropriate under the circumstances (like most things, really). div class=aolmail_gmail_quote /div div class=aolmail_gmail_quote PS See early Star Trek for more details on how to react to godlike beings. div class=aolmail_gmail_extra /div /div
Re: Samiya proved right
If people have some unknown psychic powers, prayers might do some good even without a God (unlikely, I imagine, but who knows?). Or maybe praying and believing someone is listening just does you good psychologically. On 4 June 2015 at 09:38, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Ah, the plenitude, how about this? http://phys.org/news/2015-06-strange-behavior-quantum-particles-parallel.html Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2015 05:13 PM Subject: Re: Samiya proved right This discussion-post approaches some better reality-case than most of the others. Reminds me of the Worldview of my wife: we are here by decree of some ZOOKEEPER as long as 'they' want something we provide (for them). We do not know them, don't communicate with them. When our 'usefulness' is over, we perish. My - more human-logic based natural scientific agnosticism (call it common sense) - places the ORIGIN (incl.: the propagational steps) into the infinite complexity of this Universe (that may be much larger than whatever we call 'our' Cosmos) and an infinite composite - I call it 'Plenitude' - that does not tolerate complexities yet all ingredients fluctuate in ceaseless conflation. Complexity comes into play, when 'relatable' ingredients mass up in the fluctuation and screw up the equilibrium of the Plenitude. I call such violations 'Universes - they dissipate as they form (no time factor - maybe) with diverse complexity in such groups. It is not a 'created' world, not a deterministically forced order, not teleological or predetermined: it succumbs to the unlimited variations of the participants as they enter the image. Under such (self-controlled - iff??) conditions *our* Universe is of a lower complexity (SPACE - TIME SYSTEM?) and OTHERS MAY BE MORE SOPHISTICATED (the Zookeepers?). Accordingly 'prayer' is senseless, much more so 'praying' to a supernatural being with infinite wisdom and power (that would pretend to PRESCRIBE to such Being what to do BEST - as WE think of it). To 'praise' such Being? it may be ridiculous, if not supposing the 'narcisstic brutal nature' someone mentioned lately on this list. My example: 2 mothers 'pray' identically for the safe homecoming of their sons from the same war. Both are 'good' etc. One son comes home safe, the other in a body bag. Add a third one to my example and that 3rd one comes home mentally(bodily?) destroyed. Some bad guys come home safely. As a child, I was raised religiously, served even as a Catholic altar-boy and studied several religions and Scripts. My wife was educated by nuns. Just to tell my side John M On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:37 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hey, I grew up watching the Organians do their thing. You leave human reaction to wide open. You want to pray to a baddie, or kick the shins of a goodie? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Samiya proved right On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So if contact is made to the godlikes, assuming that he, she, it, they, should they be worshipped? No? What if these imaginary guys did something really nice for us? I think we should react to them as seems appropriate under the circumstances (like most things, really). PS See early Star Trek for more details on how to react to godlike beings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: Apparently, even oil cmopanies want a carbon tax
On 6/3/2015 3:32 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/even-big-oil-wants-a-carbon-tax I believe that when James Inhofe votes for it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 4 June 2015 at 09:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on earth does it mean? A superposition seen from the 1p view, or A self-duplication seen from the 1p view That means peepee. Sadly Mr Clark's response to Bruno indicates that he (Mr Clark) doesn't know what he (Bruno) is talking about, so trying to engage in meaningful discussion with Mr Clark seems pointless. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Apparently, even oil cmopanies want a carbon tax
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/even-big-oil-wants-a-carbon-tax -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion
On 02 Jun 2015, at 22:38, John Mikes wrote: So, Bruno, what is that 'illusion-maker' I don't know, but IF computationalism is correct, then a little part of elementary arithmetic can be proved to be an illusion maker, and the UD-Argument shows that physics has to be justified by a relative statistics on those illusion. A priori those are too much, but the constraints of theoretical computer science suggest there are not worse than the one given by the empirical QM (without collapse). So, with comp, the illusion maker is a tiny part of arithmetic (the one named sigma_1 in my posts). Bruno John M On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Jun 2015, at 04:43, meekerdb wrote: On 6/1/2015 6:31 PM, LizR wrote: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness He doesn't actually say that (and he probably didn't write the headline). What he says is that your consciousness produces illusions and it's not so transparent as people tend to assume. I suspect a wordplay. Consciousness is make sense of all illusion, but the raw consciousness is the undoubtable fixed point, which is also non communicable, nor definable. The fixed point, in the normal state, is rather more transparent than what the consciousness might think about anything extending it, that is, possible reality. I can see consciousness as an illusion maker, not as an illusion itself as that would not make sense. Consciousness participates in the illusion ... of a primitive physical reality, apparently. The problem is to explain the persistence of the illusion, and what can we expect when and if waking up. Another illusion? We can try theories. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit 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: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion
On 02 Jun 2015, at 20:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote: our brains are actively fooling us. Laughing out loudly This phrase condensated the swallowness of modern thinking (I would not dare to call it philosophy) if for the materialist monists, the brain determines the mind, who is the us in the phrase? they are assuming that there is another us that is being deceived, the true us, not the us moved by the brain, which is fooling the true us. Therefore they are not monists, but dualists and they are hard dualists. Good point. So Dennet and the like contradict themselves is so fundamental ways that it is not worth to waste the time with such modern garbage. If you don't explain to the people you think are wrong, then teaching and progressing will be jeopardized. Dennett might be naive, but he try to solve a problem, even if sticking in a position where both historical and logical evidence shows it is hopeless. Bruno if the 2015-06-02 19:59 GMT+02:00 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru: Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us. I wonder if Dennett has mentioned what percentage of time his brain was actively fooling him during his talk. Am Dienstag, 2. Juni 2015 03:31:30 UTC+2 schrieb Liz R: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 01 Jun 2015, at 03:32, John Clark wrote: You've got it backward, the algorithm imperfectly instantiates the device; the device has something very important that the algorithm lacks, matter that obeys the laws of physics. You got it backward. It is the physical device which approximate the mathematical algorithm (program, Turing machine, combinators, ...), like a physical circle approximate a real circle. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 02 Jun 2015, at 18:57, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: An event without a cause is a metaphysical or theological notion. In the type of approach I have develkoped, you would need to make clear all the assumptions. I can't do that until you make clear what you mean by make clear. By listing what you assume. In the best case, you should do it formally in some first or second prder logic. And if randomness doesn't mean an event without a cause what on earth does it mean? A superposition seen from the 1p view, or A self-duplication seen from the 1p view, or A result of measurement wih inomplete information, or A string which is not algorithmically compressible, or etc. nobody has ever seen anything in the physical world that was not computable. I can agree with this. Then do you think maybe that fact is trying to tell you something rather important? That computationalism might be false. But that is not yet proven too, as comp implies there is something non computable, but it might be just the FPI and the quantum FPI confirms this. Although we can't find anything non-computable in nature, the physicists still use a highly non computable theories and ontologies. Physicists only deal with things in nature so they have no need to worry about non computable stuff, and a good thing too because if a physical theory is non computable there is no way to prove it wrong and thus it is not science. Physics use a lot of non computable things in the background. That is why some physicist are interested in constructive or digital form of physics, but they have not yet grasp that computationalism entails the existence of non computable events. Church thesis only equate a notion of intuitive computability, an ability to get a result following discrete well determined elementary digital steps, with computability in some formal system Only?! I meant without the need of assuming or using explicit concepts of physics. It is intuitively obvious that no computation can be made without the use of matter that obeys the laws of physics. made is ambiguous. How can you distinguish an event that you see in the Milky way, an event that is done in a virtual Milky way, emulated in the Milky way, and an event done in a virtual Milky made in arithmetic, when seen from inside? (lambda calculus, etc.) And one of the etc is a Turing Machine, a device made of matter that obeys the laws of physics. Come on. Most textbooks define a Turing machine by a non empty and finite set of quadruples, where a quadruple is an expression (a finite sequence) of symbols chosen from q1, q2, (called state symbol), S0, S1, S2, ... (tape symbols) and with the L (do on the left), and R (go on the right symbols). That's nice, but as I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. And a textbook is just ink on paper, it can't perform a calculation either. You systematically beg the question by defining existence, made ... by physical existence, physically made, etc. No problem with this, except that comp is false, and you have to find a non-computationalist theory of mind (or find a flaw in the UDA (a genuine one). the UDA problem can be defined by finite sequence of instantaneous description brought by a (universal) Turing machine. That's nice, but as I've said before you can't perform a calculation with a definition. I cannot, but that is not the point. The arithmetical reality does it independently of me, out of space and time. It is only by changing the definition of computation (for a vague one not yet given) that you can claim the contrary. It does not require the assumption that there is a physical universe. A Turing Machine does assume matter that obeys the laws of physics, Not at all. It does if you expect your Turing Machine to actually do anything. You mean do anything relatively to my body, but as we need to explain the appearance of body from the computations, the point is no more valid. matyazevic will shows of Turing machine can be emulated by diophantine polynomial relations (hardly physical stuff). If Mr. Matyazevic really knows how a Turing Machine can be emulated by non-physical diophantine polynomial relations then why doesn't he stop talking about it and just do it? because he is a mathematician, studying computation. He is not an engineer implementing computations relatively to us. Again, the point is that if you agree that 2+2=4 is true independently of you, then the computations are done, in all possible ways, already in arithmetic, with the standard sense of computations and implementations. You remark is similar to the critics of the block universe notion. If there is a block universe, why not look at it to predict the future? Of course that is not a
Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
On 02 Jun 2015, at 20:10, Brian Tenneson wrote: Grammatical systems just might be the type of thing Tegmark is looking for that is a framework for all mathematical structures... or at least a large class of them. I am still exploring the idea of grammatical system induction. I am not sure what you mean by grammatical induction. Is that not equivalent with the omega-induction principles, like with PA? I believe it can be used to provide an induction principle that allows one to prove something about all sets in ZFC (or any set theory). You will need transfinite induction. But with the usual (omega) induction, you get already Löbianity, and the self-reference logics will not been changed with addition. Applying the general grammatical system induction to formal systems, I believe there is a way to prove something about all theorems within a formal system, Yes, PA can prove that ZF proves things. For proving that a formal system does not prove something, you will need strionger systems, and by incompleteness such negative statements cannot be axiomatized in once system. perhaps providing a little insight into truth in general. Also, an induction principle applies to all proofs if one wants to prove something about all proofs in a formal system. The document in the first post has been updated to include all of this. There are some words I need to change so just notice the essence... Any feedback is appreciated! If you assume computationalism, simple (omega) induction is enough to get the machine psychology and theology, and to justify why machines will build more and more induction rules, but none will get the whole truth, which is beyond axiomatization and formalization (even assuming computationalism). You seem to try to do what the logicians have already done. You might study the little book by Torkel Franzen on the Inexhaustibility, which makes rather clear the elusive character of truth. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On 02 Jun 2015, at 19:47, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: A Turing Machine is actually an algorithm Yes, a algorithm that is a set of instructions that explains how to organize matter that obeys the laws of physics in such a way that it can make any finite calculation. It doesn't explain how to organise matter - which is obvious from the fact that all sorts of systems can be Turing-universal, There are many ways to make a computer and Turing's 1936 paper said nothing about the practicalities and engineering details, but he did prove that the logical schematic of any computer Any human computer. Computer did not exist at the time of Turing. Indeed, he is the discoverer of the mathematical abstract computer (modulo Babbage). can be reduced to something that we now call a Turing Machine; but you can't make a calculation with just a schematic, you need matter that obeys the laws of physics too. You cannot, but that has nothing to do with the fact that computations are mathematical objects, and that the space of all computation (constructively defined by the DU) is entirely executed, in the math sense, in a tiny part of arithmetic. With computationalism, this is exploited to extract the appearance of the physical laws, without committing an ontological commitment in a physical universe. The fact that to build one we have to use matter is a contingent fact; Yes, if you don't mind that your Turing Machine isn't actually making a calculation, or doing anything of any sort, then matter that obeys the laws of physics is unnecessary. In arithmetic, you have both the Turing machines, and their execution. They are immaterial, and not usable to get money, but they do exist (in the math sense), and the physical apparent (phenomenological) existence is explained through them. Similarly (to take a simpler example) there are many ways one can add two numbers together, but that doesn't mean that addition is a material process. Nobody has ever added two numbers together without using a physical process to do so, and nobody has the slightest idea of how non- material addition would even be possible. No Aristotelian physicists. (Not nobody). if performed correctly the calculation always gives the same result regardless of the physical medium used The calculations are all done in a different way, but without exception they all have one thing in common, they all need matter that obeys the laws of physics, otherwise nothing happens. This is refuted, unless you mean happens relatively to your body, but we don't assume such bodies, and on the contrary show that such notion does not make sense, once we postulate computationalism. You said once that you can conceive that the physical reality is not primary, but here you assume the existence of a primary physical universe all the time. which suggests that an abstract process is being instantiated physically, Which suggests a physical process that can be thought about abstractly. Turing did not get the computer from abstracting it from a physical computer or processes but by analysis of the human mind and how they compute with paper and pencil, or mentally. The notion of computation does simply not rely on anything physical. It is an arithmetical notion, definable in RA or PA. not that it is a physical process (if so, which one?). How about F=MA ? A force accelerates the Turing tape until it is under the read head then another force stops it, then yet another force accelerates ink to form either a 1 or a 0 on the tape. That plays a role in the physical implementation of a computer, but not in their arithmetical implementations, which is what concern us in the derivation of physics from arithmetics with the goal to test comp (and up to now, comp not only get right the non trivial quantum tautology, but it makes the weirdness into the expected). 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: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
On Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 2:16:31 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2015, at 20:10, Brian Tenneson wrote: Grammatical systems just might be the type of thing Tegmark is looking for that is a framework for all mathematical structures... or at least a large class of them. I am still exploring the idea of grammatical system induction. I am not sure what you mean by grammatical induction. Is that not equivalent with the omega-induction principles, like with PA? It is described in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1amDb4Yti4egpKfcO2oLcnGAH8UpC8_tKb7ivuH3AT7A/edit?usp=sharing I believe it can be used to provide an induction principle that allows one to prove something about all sets in ZFC (or any set theory). You will need transfinite induction. But with the usual (omega) induction, you get already Löbianity, and the self-reference logics will not been changed with addition. Applying the general grammatical system induction to formal systems, I believe there is a way to prove something about all theorems within a formal system, Yes, PA can prove that ZF proves things. For proving that a formal system does not prove something, you will need strionger systems, and by incompleteness such negative statements cannot be axiomatized in once system. perhaps providing a little insight into truth in general. Also, an induction principle applies to all proofs if one wants to prove something about all proofs in a formal system. The document in the first post has been updated to include all of this. There are some words I need to change so just notice the essence... Any feedback is appreciated! If you assume computationalism, simple (omega) induction is enough to get the machine psychology and theology, and to justify why machines will build more and more induction rules, but none will get the whole truth, which is beyond axiomatization and formalization (even assuming computationalism). You seem to try to do what the logicians have already done. You might study the little book by Torkel Franzen on the Inexhaustibility, which makes rather clear the elusive character of truth. I realized later that what I've done was done roughly in the 1930's. But no one has connected the notion of grammatical system to Max Tegmark's Level IV multiverse idea as far as I know. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 May 2015, at 20:12, Terren Suydam wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 May 2015, at 05:16, Terren Suydam wrote: Language starts to get in the way here, but what you're suggesting is akin to someone who is blind-drunk - they will have no memory of their experience, but I think most would say a blind-drunk is conscious. But I think the driving scenario is different in that my conscious attention is elsewhere... there's competition for the resource of attention. I don't really think I'm conscious of the feeling of the floor pressing my feet until I pay attention to it. My thinking on this is that human consciousness involves a unified/global dynamic, and the unifying thread is the self-model or ego. This allows for top-down control of attention. When parts of the sensorium (and other aspects of the mind) are not involved or included in this global dynamic, there is a significant sense in which it does not participate in that human consciousness. This is not to say that there is no other consciousness - just that it is perhaps of a lower form in a hierarchy of consciousness. I would highlight that human consciousness is somewhat unique in that the ego - a cultural innovation dependent on the development of language - is not present in animals. Without that unifying thread of ego, I suggest that animal consciousness is not unlike our dream consciousness, which is an arena of awareness when the thread of our ego dissolves. A visual I have is that in the waking state, the ego is a bag that encapsulates all the parts that make up our psyche. In dreamtime, the drawstring on the bag loosens and the parts float out, and get activated according to whatever seemingly random processes that constitute dreams. In lucid dreams, the ego is restored (i.e. we say to ourselves, *I* *am* dreaming) - and we regain consciousness. We regain the ego (perhaps the ego illusion), but as you say yourself above, we are conscious in the non-lucid dream too. Lucidity might be a relative notion, as we can never be sure to be awaken. The false-awakening, very frequent for people trained in lucid dreaming, illustrate somehow this phenomena. Right. My point is not that we aren't conscious in non-lucid dream states, but that there is a qualitative difference in consciousness between those two states, and that lucid-dream consciousness is much closer to waking consciousness than to dream consciousness, almost by definition. It's this fact I'm trying to explain by proposing the role of the ego in human consciousness. OK. usually I make that difference between simple universality (conscious, but not necessarily self-conscious), and Löbianity (self-conscious). It is the difference between Robinson Arithmetic and Peano Arithmetic (= RA + the induction axioms). It is an open problem for me if RA is more or less conscious than PA. PA has much stronger cognitive abilities, but this can filter more consciousness and leads to more delusion, notably that ego. I don't insist too much on this, as I am not yet quite sure. It leads to the idea that brains filter consciousness, by hallucinating the person. I'm not so sure that filtering is the best analogy, by itself anyway. No doubt that there is filtering going on, but I think the forms constructed by the brain may also have a *transforming *or *focusing* effect as well. It may not the case, in other words, that consciousness is merely, destructively, filtered by our egos, but there is a sense too in which the consciousness we experience is made sharper by virtue of being shaped or transformed, particularly by this adaptation of reifying the self-model. I make this remark because most of the time I use consciousness in its rough general sense, in which animals, dreamers, ... are conscious. Of course... my points are about what kinds of aspects of being human might privilege our consciousness, in an attempt to understand consciousness better. OK. I understand. Then, I am not sure higher mammals have not yet already some ego, and self-consciousness, well before language. Language just put the ego in evidence, and that allows further reflexive loops, which can lead to further illusions and soul falling situation. Right, one could argue that even insects have some kind of self-model. There is no doubt a spectrum of sophistication of self-models, but I would distinguish all of them from the human ego. I guess I was too quick before when I equated the two. The key distinction between a self-model and an ego is the ability to refer to oneself as an object - this, and the ability to *identify* with that object, reifies the self model in a way that appears to me to be crucial to human consciousness. I don't think this is really possible without language. Probably. But that identification is
Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia
On 03 Jun 2015, at 14:58, Terren Suydam wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 May 2015, at 20:12, Terren Suydam wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 May 2015, at 05:16, Terren Suydam wrote: Language starts to get in the way here, but what you're suggesting is akin to someone who is blind-drunk - they will have no memory of their experience, but I think most would say a blind-drunk is conscious. But I think the driving scenario is different in that my conscious attention is elsewhere... there's competition for the resource of attention. I don't really think I'm conscious of the feeling of the floor pressing my feet until I pay attention to it. My thinking on this is that human consciousness involves a unified/ global dynamic, and the unifying thread is the self-model or ego. This allows for top-down control of attention. When parts of the sensorium (and other aspects of the mind) are not involved or included in this global dynamic, there is a significant sense in which it does not participate in that human consciousness. This is not to say that there is no other consciousness - just that it is perhaps of a lower form in a hierarchy of consciousness. I would highlight that human consciousness is somewhat unique in that the ego - a cultural innovation dependent on the development of language - is not present in animals. Without that unifying thread of ego, I suggest that animal consciousness is not unlike our dream consciousness, which is an arena of awareness when the thread of our ego dissolves. A visual I have is that in the waking state, the ego is a bag that encapsulates all the parts that make up our psyche. In dreamtime, the drawstring on the bag loosens and the parts float out, and get activated according to whatever seemingly random processes that constitute dreams. In lucid dreams, the ego is restored (i.e. we say to ourselves, I am dreaming) - and we regain consciousness. We regain the ego (perhaps the ego illusion), but as you say yourself above, we are conscious in the non-lucid dream too. Lucidity might be a relative notion, as we can never be sure to be awaken. The false-awakening, very frequent for people trained in lucid dreaming, illustrate somehow this phenomena. Right. My point is not that we aren't conscious in non-lucid dream states, but that there is a qualitative difference in consciousness between those two states, and that lucid-dream consciousness is much closer to waking consciousness than to dream consciousness, almost by definition. It's this fact I'm trying to explain by proposing the role of the ego in human consciousness. OK. usually I make that difference between simple universality (conscious, but not necessarily self-conscious), and Löbianity (self- conscious). It is the difference between Robinson Arithmetic and Peano Arithmetic (= RA + the induction axioms). It is an open problem for me if RA is more or less conscious than PA. PA has much stronger cognitive abilities, but this can filter more consciousness and leads to more delusion, notably that ego. I don't insist too much on this, as I am not yet quite sure. It leads to the idea that brains filter consciousness, by hallucinating the person. I'm not so sure that filtering is the best analogy, by itself anyway. No doubt that there is filtering going on, but I think the forms constructed by the brain may also have a transforming or focusing effect as well. It may not the case, in other words, that consciousness is merely, destructively, filtered by our egos, but there is a sense too in which the consciousness we experience is made sharper by virtue of being shaped or transformed, particularly by this adaptation of reifying the self-model. I am OK with this. Brain does not just filter, they do a lot of information processing which adds a lot to the filtering, including the angles or points of view. I make this remark because most of the time I use consciousness in its rough general sense, in which animals, dreamers, ... are conscious. Of course... my points are about what kinds of aspects of being human might privilege our consciousness, in an attempt to understand consciousness better. OK. I understand. Then, I am not sure higher mammals have not yet already some ego, and self-consciousness, well before language. Language just put the ego in evidence, and that allows further reflexive loops, which can lead to further illusions and soul falling situation. Right, one could argue that even insects have some kind of self- model. There is no doubt a spectrum of sophistication of self- models, but I would distinguish all of them from the human ego. I guess I was too quick before when I equated the two. The key distinction between a self-model and an ego is the ability
RE: And now for more news
Sometimes Borowitz really nails it.. It gave me a laugh. maybe you'll get a chuckle http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mccain-urges-military-strikes -against-fifa -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You've got it backward, the algorithm imperfectly instantiates the device; the device has something very important that the algorithm lacks, matter that obeys the laws of physics. You got it backward. It is the physical device which approximate the mathematical algorithm A real physical device is much more complex, that is to say has many more attributes, than any of our algorithms. So if you have a simple thing and a complex thing you tell me which is making a simplified approximation of which. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Mr Clark's response to Bruno indicates that he (Mr Clark) doesn't know what he (Bruno) is talking about Correct. And Mr.Clark strongly suspects that Mr.Marchal doesn't either. 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: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: He doesn't actually say that (and he probably didn't write the headline). What he says is that your consciousness produces illusions and it's not so transparent as people tend to assume. I suspect a wordplay. Consciousness is make sense of all illusion, but the raw consciousness is the undoubtable fixed point, which is also non communicable, nor definable. [...] I can see consciousness as an illusion maker, not as an illusion itself as that would not make sense. This is one of those rare times when I agree with Bruno completely. The word illusion means something is not what we think it is, but if consciousness is an illusion then what we think is not what we think, and I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. 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: Samiya proved right
Hey, I grew up watching the Organians do their thing. You leave human reaction to wide open. You want to pray to a baddie, or kick the shins of a goodie? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:58 pm Subject: Re: Samiya proved right On 3 June 2015 at 14:56, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: So if contact is made to the godlikes, assuming that he, she, it, they, should they be worshipped? No? What if these imaginary guys did something really nice for us? I think we should react to them as seems appropriate under the circumstances (like most things, really). PS See early Star Trek for more details on how to react to godlike beings. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why would God make this? (part 3)
Read Pickover's fascinations with visitations with bouncing balls, robots, and giant mantis's. A regular feature. DMT Elves, whatever he called his book. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Why would God make this? (part 3) On 3 June 2015 at 14:58, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: A common hallucination reported by dmt users are praying manti. Really? Curiouser and curiouser. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Samiya proved right
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If people have some unknown psychic powers, prayers might do some good even without a God (unlikely, I imagine, but who knows?). Who knows? We know, and we know because if prayer could effect our world the way the religious say it does it could certainty be detected by the scientific method. There has been an extensive study of the power of prayer that lasted for 10 years and involved more than 1800 people. Nearly all scientists thought such a study was a waste of money but it was payed for by the Templeton Foundation which loves religious crap and does everything it can to promote it. The results were reported in 2006 but they were not what the Templeton Foundation had hoped for. From the March 31 2006 New York Times: Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found. And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested. Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for for years been the subject of speculation. 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.
