Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide

[Mark Buda]

Mark Buda  writes:

> Still busy, but things are looking up for finding the time. I'll have
> to revisit what I wrote before, though, because some of it was
> garbage. Nailed the red state blue state thing, though, even though I
> didn't explain adequately.

While I did nail it, I never actually said in the first place. I
misremembered that. Or I said it somewhere else, or just thought I did.

> I always had a problem with showing my work.

Yeah.

> On Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Buda wrote:
>
> I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, Jesse;
> unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to respond
> adequately.
> 
> I think it would greatly improve the signal-to-noise ratio on this
> list if everybody else kept quiet on this thread until you read my
> response to Jesse. Please be patient, I have a lot of stuff to do
> today.
> 
> Waiting is. :-)
> 
> -- 
> Mark Buda 
> I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
> 
> 
>
> 
> --
> On Jul 19, 2010 9:04 AM, Jesse Mazer 
> wrote: 
>
> How long ago did you see them? [...]
> As for the psychiatrist and therapist, did you also try to explain
> these sorts of grand ideas to them? How did they react?

Sort of irrelevant at this point.

> Mark, these kinds of sentences and paragraphs are completely
> solipsistic. Even if you have some sort of valid insight, you
> simply haven't provided enough context and intermediate steps of
> your reasoning to make it possible another person could
> *understand* why you think, for example, that "our sense of humor
> and our mathematical intuition and our genes form an impossible
> triangular loop". You're just making a lot of grand pronouncements
> whose only purpose seems to be to express how excited you are
> about your own brainstorms rather than to communicate with other
> human beings. This is, I think, one of the big reasons myself and
> others get the sense of a mental disorder from your
> posts--disorders like mania and schizophrenia are associated with
> losing the ability to (or no longer caring to) consider the the
> understanding of other people, to consider what background context
> will be shared enough that it doesn't need to be explained and
> what context is not shared and *does* need to be explained (for
> instance, on this list we can talk of 'quantum immortality'
> without explaining what it means, but with most people you'd have
> to launch into some background about the many-worlds
> interpretation before using the term), in order to communicate in
> a way that will make some sense to others.

Yes, well, exactly.

> Also, in a person with mania at least, I think this kind of
> partial mindblindness is related to being over-optimistic about
> the likelihood that others have understood/agreed with what you
> have said...in the case of the priest, you seem to have taken his
> lack of counterarguments as a sort of tacit agreement (or at least
> an acknowledgment that he found sense in your arguments), which
> may not be true at all. Did you ask him (or others you've talked
> to about your ideas) any questions to try to gauge their
> understanding of what you were saying? Along the lines of "do you
> follow" or "does this make sense to you"?

No, of course not. If I was not so self-absorbed that I bothered to ask
the question, I was certainly so self-absorbed that I ignored the
answer.

> > Back to the point. We don't have instincts to tell us how to
> care for our
> > young. We rely on culture for that. And culture is still really,
> really
> > young. The memes are just getting started! That's it! Richard
> Dawkins is
> > God, then, because he is the source of the idea of the meme.
> Whee! What a
> > marvelous yet annoying thing God hath made. Can't wait to see
> what's next.
> 
> Another example of the same solipsistic communication style here.
> *Why* does Richard Dawkin's invention of the concept of the meme
> make him "God"? It's a huge leap of logic and once again you seem
> to be too excited by your insight to bother with filling in any of
> the intermediate reasoning that might make this paragraph
> meaningful to anyone but yourself (and it doesn't really seem like
> you were thinking of the problem of whether others would
> understand when you wrote it).

Yeah.

Anyway, sorry about the delay. Some things had to be worked out. I'm
hoping to get started on explaining it soon. It really doesn't matter,
since, if I'm right, you're going to figure it out anyway. Those of you
who aren't philosophical zombies, anyway. You know who you are.
-- 
Mark Buda 

Re: Civilization-level quantum suicide

[Mark Buda]

Still busy, but things are looking up for finding the time. I'll have to 
revisit what I wrote before, though, because some of it was garbage. Nailed 
the red state blue state thing, though, even though I didn't explain 
adequately.

I always had a problem with showing my work.

On Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Buda wrote:
>
> I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, Jesse; unfortunately, 
> I don't have the time at the moment to respond adequately.
>
> I think it would greatly improve the signal-to-noise ratio on this list if 
> everybody else kept quiet on this thread until you read my response to 
> Jesse. Please be patient, I have a lot of stuff to do today.
>
> Waiting is. :-)
> -- 
> Mark Buda 
> I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.
>
>
> --
> On Jul 19, 2010 9:04 AM, Jesse Mazer  wrote: 
>
>
> > > Please, seek medical help. If you're right, you lose nothing and might
> > > convince at least the psychiatrist you talk to. If I'm right, you get
> > > cured. It can't do you any harm, but leaving what looks to me like a
> > > serious illness untreated may well do you some serious harm.
> > 
> > Look, I've already seen a psychiatrist and a priest and a therapist and
> > they don't see a problem here. 
>
> How long ago did you see them? Is it possible things have developed 
> somewhat since them? You did mention that you told the priest that you're 
> God. But what exactly does "don't see a problem" mean? Presumably the 
> priest didn't actually agree that you are God (unless he was a mystically 
> inclined priest who thought you were just saying that all of us are God), 
> so do you just mean that the priest didn't try to argue you were wrong? 
> Sometimes when people encounter someone with a mental problem their 
> instinct may be to try to show empathy and to guide the conversation in a 
> more human (less cosmic/grandiose) direction rather than trying to 
> dismantle their ideas through argument...
>
> As for the psychiatrist and therapist, did you also try to explain these 
> sorts of grand ideas to them? How did they react?
>
> > 
> > Every animal on this planet has evolved an instinctual means to care for
> > its young. Except us. We have no natural instinct. Or do we?
> > 
> > Holy crap. Richard Dawkins doesn't even understand the point of his own
> > books. Our sense of humor and our mathematical intuition and our genes
> > form an impossible triangular causal loop. Selfish gene, indeed.
>
> Mark, these kinds of sentences and paragraphs are completely solipsistic. 
> Even if you have some sort of valid insight, you simply haven't provided 
> enough context and intermediate steps of your reasoning to make it possible 
> another person could *understand* why you think, for example, that "our 
> sense of humor and our mathematical intuition and our genes form an 
> impossible triangular loop". You're just making a lot of grand 
> pronouncements whose only purpose seems to be to express how excited you 
> are about your own brainstorms rather than to communicate with other human 
> beings. This is, I think, one of the big reasons myself and others get the 
> sense of a mental disorder from your posts--disorders like mania and 
> schizophrenia are associated with losing the ability to (or no longer 
> caring to) consider the the understanding of other people, to consider what 
> background context will be shared enough that it doesn't need to be 
> explained and what context is not shared and *does* need to be explained 
> (for instance, on this list we can talk of 'quantum immortality' without 
> explaining what it means, but with most people you'd have to launch into 
> some background about the many-worlds interpretation before using the 
> term), in order to communicate in a way that will make some sense to others.
>
> Also, in a person with mania at least, I think this kind of partial 
> mindblindness is related to being over-optimistic about the likelihood that 
> others have understood/agreed with what you have said...in the case of the 
> priest, you seem to have taken his lack of counterarguments as a sort of 
> tacit agreement (or at least an acknowledgment that he found sense in your 
> arguments), which may not be true at all. Did you ask him (or others you've 
> talked to about your ideas) any questions to try to gauge their 
> understanding of what you were saying? Along the lines of "do you follow" 
> or "does this make sense to you"?
>
> > 
> > Back to the point. We don't have instincts to tell us how to care for our
> > young. We rely on culture for that. And culture is still really, really
> > young. The memes are just getting started! That's it! Richard Dawkins is
> > God, then, because he is the source of the idea of the meme. Whee! What a
> > marvelous yet annoying thing God hath made. Can't wait to see what's 
> next.
>
> Another example of the same solipsistic 

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrot​


>>
>>
>> *> 1  (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and
>> ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme
>> being. 2  (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit
>> worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a moon
>> god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu. • an image, idol, animal, or other
>> object worshiped as divine*
>
>
>
> *But maybe you don't like Google, let's see how the Merriam-Webster
>> dictionary defines the English word "God": *
>
>
>> * 1:   the supreme or ultimate reality:  the Being perfect in power,
>> wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
>> :  the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit :
>>  infinite Mind*
>
>
> ​> ​
> Very good definition.
>

​I agree.​


​> ​
> Then with the computationalist hypothesis, this role is well played by the
> notion of "arithmetical truth",
>

​No it is not. A
rithmetical truth
​ is not a being (superhuman or otherwise),
arithmetical truth
​ is not
wise,
​
arithmetical truth
​
is not the ​
source of all moral authority
​,​
arithmetical truth
​
is
not good (or bad), arithmetical truth
​
is not a spirit, and above all arithmetical truth
​
is not a mind
​. Oh and anyone who thinks ​
arithmetical truth
​ is deserving of worship is just a bit nuts.

​> ​
> All notions can be made mathematically precise in term of set of numbers.
>

​By "notions" I presume you mean physical notions, because otherwise all
you'd be saying in the above is numbers need numbers. And it works both
ways, numbers can be made physically precise ​in terms of physics; for
example the meaning of the number 2 can be made precise by illustrating it
with the rock hear and that other rock over there. You have no evidence
that mathematics is more fundamental than physics. None,

​> ​
> God is the thing by which all other things proceed.
>

​That may be a necessary ​
attribute ​​for God to have but it is not sufficient. What is indispensable
​is that anything that deserves the label "God" must be a intelligent
conscious omniscient omnipotent *BEING *who created the universe
​;​
and I'm sorry to say the multiplication table, useful as it is, just
doesn't fit the bill.


> ​> ​
> I don't remember any people in this list defining God has a blob,
>

​Hmm, I'm pretty sure somebody on the list did, I 'll see if I can find a
example of somebody equating God with a vague amorphous non-specific
non-person.


>
> ​> ​
> God is the Reality we hope exists.
>

​Wow, that didn't take long!​


​  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: From Atheism to Islam

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Feb 2017, at 00:50, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​You describe the word when used in everyday life natural  
language. Once we write scientific paper,


​You are not writing a scientific paper when you're posting to this  
list. ​


​> ​we use more technical definition.

​There is no technical definition of the word "God", and the  
natural language one certainly isn't a amorphous gray blob that  
can't think isn't a person and doesn't do anything.


>> This has NOTHING to do with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Plato,  
rationalists, materialists, theology or atheists; this has to do  
with vocabulary and the ​fact​ that words mean what the majority  
of people say they mean. And what the majority of people say a word  
means always changes; as of 2017 the English word "G-O-D" means a  
omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who created the  
universe. ​


> Not at all. Not for the expert in the field, even when christian.  
Just open a book on theology, even a modern one, or look at a  
dictionary. You confuse a concept, and a particular theory.


Confuse my ass! let's see how Google defines the English word "God":

1  (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator  
and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the  
supreme being.
2  (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit  
worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a  
moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.

• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine

But maybe you don't like Google, let's see how the Merriam-Webster  
dictionary defines the English word "God":


1:   the supreme or ultimate reality:  the Being perfect in power,  
wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the  
universe :  the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as  
eternal Spirit :  infinite Mind


Very good definition.

Then with the computationalist hypothesis, this role is well played by  
the notion of "arithmetical truth", and even "sigma_1 arithmetical  
truth" (i. the universal dovetailing) although this is not supposed to  
be justified by the creature (the identity belongs to G* minus G,  
somehow).


Indeed, the arithmetical truth defines and realizes all computations,  
and things like "physical universe", and many other god-like notion,  
are realized by the transfinitely many non computable relations, which  
can, or not, play the role of Oracle (in Turing sense).


All notions can be made mathematically precise in term of set of  
numbers. The machine can be identified by their sigma_1 set of  
beliefs, and the gods/oracles by more complex sets of propositions (or  
of their Gödel numbers).







2 :  a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes  
and powers and to require human worship; specifically :  one  
controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


Unfortunately for your argument I can't find anybody who defines the  
English word "God" as a blob that is nothing and can do nothing,



Of course!

God is the thing by which all other things proceed. I don't remember  
any people in this list defining God has a blob, still less a nothing  
doing nothing. God is the Reality we hope exists. It is hardly nothing  
for any consistent or sound machine, and certainly not a blob.



Bruno



and I can't find anyone who uses that meaning except for those who  
are too cowardly to say in a loud clear voice "I don't believe in  
God".


> I don't see the point of forgetting a millenium of honest inquiry  
in the field of theology,


And what has that honest millennium long inquiry in the field of  
theology discovered? After a thousand years it has produced exactly  
nothing, zero, zilch, goose egg.


> to use a definition known as the one which has kill the science to  
make it into a tool to prevent, and persecute the free research.


I don't know what that means.

> The result is that you are accomplice with those who keep theology  
out of science


Thank you, that's one on the nicest things anybody ever said to me.  
And by "nice" I don't mean "silly", although Shakespeare would have  
thought I did. But language and the meaning of words always changes.


> In the machine theology

I don't know what that means.

> like in the platonician theology, the question of seeing God as a  
person is an open, and well debated, problem.


No it is not. If you can really see God then God exists, if God  
exists then you are looking at a intelligent conscious person and  
the one who created the universe. That is not deep, it is not  
philosophy or even theology, it's just a tautology. The only  
question worth asking is "did a intelligent conscious person really  
create the universe?".  I say no but I'll debate that if you wish,  
but debating if "God" is a intelligent conscious person who created  
the universe is just silly. And I don't mean