subject:"Manifesto Rex"



On 23 Jan 2015, at 00:24, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it  
entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change  
anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same  
consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion  
that this is not the case (thus my previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that  
consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of  
being conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative  
contents.


But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.


That's why you cannot be sure that we have a different basic  
consciousness. We might be the same person, with different relative  
identity. In fact it is a benign move to bet that we are the same  
universal person (S4Grz(PA) or S4Grz(M))(*) with diverging  
experiences, like the W and M guy. With computationalism, we are God  
playing hide and seek with itself. Illumination is when you remember  
being that guy with no or few experience. It is comparable with the  
reminiscence of being a baby, but it is a universal baby.


(*) From now on, I will write X(M) for the interpretation of the modal  
logic X in the terms of the machine M. For example, without further  
ado, in G(PA) the box [] is for Gödel's beweisbar predicate.




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.


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: Manifesto Rex



On 22 Jan 2015, at 22:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:

Hi Telmo,

Is there a better starting point than consciousness?

My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution,  
taken to it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of  
reality into phenomenal and noumenal realms.


We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye  
towards what promotes survival and reproduction.  Consciousness  
isn't the least concerned with truth - only with usefulness.


Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in  
this group.


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it  
entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change  
anything?


That's essentially the thesis of William S. Cooper's book "The  
Origin of Reason" - that our language, logic and mathematics were  
driven by evolution.  And he suggests how it may go further.   
Whether you agree with him or not, it's a thought provoking book  
(and not a long one).



Define "evolutionary usefulness" without using the notion of truth.  
I doubt that this is possible. You need the truth of the existence  
of organism, survival, etc.


That's because you identify true and real.


Not at all. Real is defined by what exists, and something exists when  
it is true that something exists (in some model, or conception of  
reality).





The only advantage of the evolution theory is that it needs noting  
more than arithmetical truth.


It needs copying with variation.


Which is generously provided by the (sigma_1) truth.






It is a mechanist theory.\


Indeed, that's why it has explanatory and predictive power.


Yes. Diderot defined rationalism by mechanism. Those are indeed  
related, although today we know form of rationalism which are non- 
mechanist, like with oracles, or infinite machines. Of course we have  
no evidences for them in nature, but they are not contradictory. They  
just seem non necessary, the FPI seems to provide the infinities we  
need in computationalism (that is what we can test, and the first test  
confirms this, through the many-worlds aspect of reality and its  
quantum logic).






Then computationalism shows that this explanation by evolution must  
be extended to the appearance of matter from a sort of genetical  
evolution of machine dreams.


What does it mean to say an explanation "must be extended"?  It  
seems to say in order to save my theory...?


Yes. To keep computationalism (by the UDA) and to avoid magical  
thinking, like Darwin proposed a better explanation of the development  
of species (better than a white male doing all the job in six days).


Bruno





Brent

It looks like this progress is today as much problematical than  
Darwin was at the beginning.


Bruno





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.


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- 
l...@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: Manifesto Rex



On 22 Jan 2015, at 13:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Rex,

Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been  
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).


It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that  
are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently  
rejected as lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc.


These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we  
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal  
because time itself is a dream. That there is only one  
consciousness and we are all fundamentally the same entity, from  
the amoeba on. Quantum immortality. This sort of thing. They start  
with consciousness as the brute fact, as you posit.


Well, not computationalism. It accepts the existence of  
consciousness and use it, in the weaker "first person diary" sense,  
but eventually it *explains* consciousness, by using the notion of  
truth. Consciousness is only the instinctive belief that there is a  
reality:


Who's belief?


The owner of consciousness. (It might be the unique universal person,  
or not. It is not relevant right here).






it a form of hard wired faith in self-consistency,

Hard wired into what?


Not sure I understand what you mean by "into".
I just mean that most animals have a routine which makes them predict/ 
extrapolate some reality unifying their beliefs, and making them able  
to disbelieve something, which is not justifiable (in the ideal case)  
as it is equivalent with self-consistency. All proposition having the  
shape ~[]#, that is <> ~ # implies self-consistency. To be consistent  
or conscious implies disbelieving at least one proposition.







and its role is to accelerate the relative computations.

In comp, isn't time itself a dream of the computations? What does  
"accelerate" mean at this level?


It means having a more efficacious algorithm in term of number of  
steps, or memory space. Like a program playing more quickly ping-pong  
than another. It is useful to escape a prey. There is no time, but  
there is a lot of relative time for interacting programs.









You run faster when you take the predator existence seriously.

Starting from consciousness is more comp-correct than starting from  
matter, but it remains as much non satisfying for those who want  
explain consciousness, notably through computationalism.






I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I  
definitely feel a resistance to them.


So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears  
maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less  
preoccupied with survival and reproduction. So it's not so  
surprising that we evolved to reject such ideas but this leads to a  
terrible doubt: can we trust ourselves to do science?


Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct*  
behind nerds and geeks being bullied.


It is the problem with theology, or with shrooms, LSD or salvia: it  
cures the fear of death, and that can be exploited by some other  
people (to make a suicide-bombers, for example, or to build an  
army). It is the theological trap: its motivation transcends the  
usual biological motivation for which we have been hardwired.


Yes and the prohibition makes this much worse, because it prevents  
the open development of good-faith use of these substances. As you  
keep saying and I completely agree.


Yes, the more I study this, the more I think that prohibitionism is  
the enemy number 1 on this planet. But programmed obsolescence, and  
all tricks to create false jobs to just keep employment, despite the  
good intentions, is very bad too. We must work to live, and not live  
to work. We should think the economy differently, promote the  
contemplating jobs, arts, musics, and install universal allocations,  
and stop humiliating people without job. We should promote laziness  
and leisure somehow.


Best,

Bruno









A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the  
future, if we transcend Darwinism.


This will push the same problem at a higher level. It is part of the  
role of consciousness to handle that transcendence. That has  
evolutionary advantage too, despite it can change the things a lot.  
But in the development of life, this problem appears with brains,  
all the time. Up to now we proceed forwards, by adding new layers of  
universality, in the brains, then in books and computers.


But there will be a point when people will desire less brain, and  
eventually, content themselves with the arithmetical "paradise",  
plausibly. Well, there are many problem here, and at some level, the  
fundamental science can change our basic motivations, like drugs can  
do that, and like religion is supposed to do that. That is why it is  
important to be rigorous there too.


Bruno






C

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 22 Jan 2015, at 13:27, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen  
 wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a  
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true  
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.



The purpose of brains is to find/discover useful inferences about  
their environments. If our environment is ultimately some type of  
mathematical universe, then why should it be impossible for it to  
generate beings that can discover this fact and develop true beliefs  
about the environment they're born into?


They can discover that IF there are machines, then the environment is  
given by an infinite sum on infinite computations, which are  
mathematical objects, and that this imposes testable constraints that  
are verifiable, like the theorem of X1* and Z1*.






Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a  
random (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial  
conditions lead to the development of beings who are then able to  
correctly (or even approximately) discover those physical laws and  
initial conditions.



Who says the selection of laws is random? The beings who have brains  
in a sense "self-select" those universes where there is utility in  
having a brain. If the reality (laws and initial conditions) aren't  
discernible/exploitable/inferable then there's no sense in  
developing a brain in those universes (nor even storing a memory of  
failed evolutionary experiments in DNA (or any medium)) and you  
don't get life or beings with brains to appreciate such disordered/ 
unpredictable/nonsensical universes.


If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since  
evolution seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not  
truth.  So how do evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory  
like that?



False beliefs are detrimental to survival.


I agree, but only for some long run. Locally "false belief" can have  
survival value, especially if you are the prey, and your predator have  
have false belief (like believing you are an non edible ant, when you  
are an edible spider). There are example of false beliefs in nature,  
and in arithmetic.




E.g. if a society believed that winter would not come again, they  
might not store food away for those harder times. If another society  
didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS  
satellites and be able to efficiently navigate from point A to point  
B with satellite navigation. Again, all this gets back to the  
utility of brains. Why would it make sense to devote 25% of our  
metabolic energy to this "thinking thing" if it did not in some way  
make up for its cost via improved rates of survival?


However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not  
true) - this is more consistent - since it also predicts that  
evolved beings will develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories.



Does everything that is true have to be useful? Are the digits of Pi  
beyond the first thousand or so useful for anything (aside from  
thought experiments)?


I think you gave the answer in another post. Without those digits  
value, e^i*pi + 1 would not equal 0, and the SWE would not have  
solution. The infinite digits are needed for the consistency of our  
thinking in that matter.


Bruno






Jason


Rex


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:
I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will  
see my posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines  
(evolution is a very  very bad name for natural selection).


But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of  
view is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that  natural  
selection is what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since  
evolution makes the mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a  
priory truths that are self evident and toward which we can not  
create any simpler explanation.


You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk  
metaphysics of today: There are an external reality that is  
inaccessible to us, and that external reality is the "True Reality".  
Kant called phenomena what we observe and the external inaccessible  
reality is what Kant call noumena. Only by means of experimentation  
on phenomena we can known something about the true external  
reality . The results are scientific models and theories. Internally  
there are only subjective things : feelings, values etc. Only what  
is objectivated by science are facts. the subjective gain objective  
status by means of science or direct shared observation. Since  
internal states are not observable, this positivistic metaphisics  
despise all of this, including metaphysincs. So it is self  
reinforcing and self contradictory at the same time.


But I think that this is not that way.  the noumenal external  
reality does not exist. the realit

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 22 Jan 2015, at 10:27, Kim Jones wrote:




On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb  wrote:


On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look,  
the universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the  
limitation to our minds is intentional or "we" are enjoying a ride  
of some sort where we are real and the ride is the simulation. I  
go for that interpretation - that's comp.


ISTM that in comp, computation is fundamental.



Well, number is fundamental.


Exactly. In the TOE which has been chosen, we can say that only the  
(natural) numbers exists, and only the laws of addition and  
multiplication are assumed. Computations, prime numbers, ... are  
defined notions.




Computation is a way of extracting reality from number. I see it  
like that. Computation is a way of seeing. A form of perception. How  
numbers see each other. I am equally baffled by statements like this  
as you.


We can extract the appearance of reality. Computation is a way of  
dreaming. It is like seeing, but the physical seeing is when the dream  
are coherent (co-consistent) enough.








Everything true is equally real, just not equally fundamental.



Yes




All true relations are considered real.



Yes


Provable relations are both real and believed and there are sets of  
belief that are related so as to constitute the consciousness of  
persons.



I would say yes. Persons are constellations of beliefs. Just as the  
body is a constellation of other discreet entities, persons are made  
of modules of beliefs that give rise to their perception (as  
emergent quality of comsciousness or as comsciousness itself). This  
can be checked by changing someone's perception of something and you  
will instantly see their belief about that thing change as well. K




OK.

Bruno







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- 
l...@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: Manifesto Rex

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:28 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

 On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> >> A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you
> a prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
> the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
> must do it so every single one of those small steps immediately improves
> the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of
> some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet.  If the tire on your
> car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution
> could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off
> you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With
> evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be an immediate
> improvement over the previous one.
>
> > The general idea is right, but it's NOT the case that every change must
> be an improvement.  It is only the case that it must not make things worse.
>

Yes, I'll concede that point.

  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: Manifesto Rex

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Well I was referring to long run as being multigenerational timescales.

Evolution is not interested in multigenerational timescales.

> > to me short run means within my lifetime.

To Evolution short run is the only run, and it means one generation.

> Evolution simply does not act on such short timescales.
>

Of course it does, it's the only timescale Evolution acts on!! The change
from one generation to the next will be very very small, but that's how
Evolution makes huge changes, lots and lots and lots of tiny steps.  And
that's why it's fortunate that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

> But, to be fair, John may have had a deep time perspective in mind, say
> millions of years,

No, that's not what I had in mind at all.

> > instead of the centuries I had in mind.
>

Centuries is far too long, the timescale Evolution works on depends on the
species, for bacteria its about 25 minutes for humans its about 25 years.

 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: Manifesto Rex

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
> >> That is incorrect.  Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better
>> in the *SHORT* run.
>>
>
> > There is a point where the antropomorphisation of evolution breaks,
>

Yes, but I'm very far from that point.

 > Evolution favours nothing.
>

That is incorrect. Evolution favors getting genes into the very next generation
and Evolution favors absolutely positively NOTHING else.

> > There are trees of organisms descending from other organisms. Sometimes
> a mutation will create a local advantage that is maladaptive in the long
> run.
>

That is certainly true, and because Evolution has no wisdom and has no long
term plan that mutant gene that was successful for one generation will go
extinct after that.

> Meanwhile, another population that suffered a more subtle mutation with
> advantages in the long run, does not suffer from resource depletion and
> ends up enjoying the benefits of a mutation that is better in the long run.
>

And it doesn't matter one bit how wonderful that gene would be in the long
run, if it is unsuccessful for just one generation it will go extinct. That
would never happen if Evolution was smart, but it isn't. And if Evolution
was smart it would see that it is a pointless arms race to increase the
muscles in a prey animal so it could run faster and get away from predators
and then increase the muscles in predator animals so they can run faster
and catch the faster prey. The genes of both predator and prey would be
better off if the muscle size was kept the same and all that energy was put
into having more offspring, it would be the smart thing to do, it would be
the wise thing to do, but Evolution is neither of those things.

> The condom is one of these things. It seems like a disadvantage in the
> short run but transforms into an advantage in the long run. Poor
> populations that are stuck in the catholic reproductive algorithm suffer
> from resource depletion, while condom users prosper in the long run.
>

And Evolution figured all this out 500,000 years ago did it? Don't be
ridiculous.

> A phenotypical improvement is only possible if it can be produced by a
> sequence of genetic mutations such that every intermediary organism is
> viable.
>

Obviously.

> This doesn't mean that every intermediary organism has to be better.
>

It doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to be equal to or better
than the competition. And by "better" I mean the ability to get genes into
the very next generation.

> In the long term, neutral mutations + survival bias can lead to something
> that looks like foresight.
>

Neutral mutations are not stable, there is no pressure for them to be so.
To a creature who lives it's entire life in a dark cave a mutation in the
gene that produces the eye is neutral, that's why cave animals have no eyes.

> You talk as if evolution had a goal, but it does not.
>

It does have a goal, get genes into the very next generation, but that's
the end of the story. You're the one who talks as if Evolution had some
sort of  long range master plan and knew all about condoms and Catholics
and the educational aspirations the poor have for their children and had a
cunning way to exploit these things to it's advantage.

  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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread meekerdb


On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
Not that I can see. And in addition to condoms is lifetime celibacy also a reproductive 
strategy,


It is for memes - that's why we still have priests.

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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread meekerdb


On 1/23/2015 11:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a prop engine 
and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while the engine is running, you 
must do it in one million small steps, and you must do it so every single one of those 
small steps immediately improves the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get 
an improved engine of some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet.  If the tire 
on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution 
could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off you have 
temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step 
(generation), no matter how many, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous one. 


The general idea is right, but it's NOT the case that every change must be an 
improvement.  It is only the case that it must not make things worse.  There can be an 
accumulation of neutral changes in DNA that suddenly become functional improvements with 
one more change (in the DNA or in the environment).


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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 09:00:13AM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24 Jan 2015, at 8:15 am, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish  
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
> > 
> > That is incorrect.  Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in 
> > the SHORT run. That's why Evolution is such a dreadful designer and was 
> > never able to come up with something as simple and obviously useful as a 
> > macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees. 
> > 
> > And that is why the eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, the nerves 
> > and capillaries of the retina are on the wrong side so light must pass 
> > through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt th
> 
> ...blah blah blah..etc.
> 
> I think everyone on this list would probably have under stood
Russell's "in the long run" to mean pretty much "in the short run"
given the timescale that evolution works to, but far be it from you to
pass up on the opportunity to sieze on a word or phrase and then to
act like a theocrat who is confronted by a heretic.

Well I was referring to long run as being multigenerational
timescales. To me short run means within my lifetime. Evolution simply
does not act on such short timescales.

But, to be fair, John may have had a deep time perspective in mind,
say millions of years, instead of the centuries I had in mind.

Cheers
-- 


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

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


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

Re: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread meekerdb

On 1/23/2015 2:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it
entirely
with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?

I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
consciousness. It
is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the
case
(thus my previous rant).

If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that
consciousness if
not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.

I don't agree that that follows. You can realise this intuitively from the
experience of dreaming: you can dream that you are someone else, or in
completely
different circumstances and forget that you're in a dream.

But that's not separate, I remember the dream. If I don't remember the
dream, is it
me? Is it me because the dream and reality share a body that can't be both
at once?

Depends on what you mean by "me". If you mean the contents of the experience of being
Brent, then you're someone else. But the point here is that, if we start with
consciousness, then we could all be different experiential contents for the same thing.

Consider this toy model: ultimate reality is a direct acyclic graph of all possible
observer moments. Links represent possible transformations of one observer moment to
another. Theoretical physics essentially approximates the transformation function,
telling us which transformations are valid. Every observer moment is eternal in a sense,
because the illusion of time arises "inside" the moment. With consciousness as a brute
fact, the observer moments where I feel like I'm me and you feel like you're you are
just that -- observer moments in the eternal graph. Time and separation are contents of
the many dreams. Specifically, time is an illusion created by the structure of the
graph: all downstream moments in terms of the generation function feel like the past.

I have no confidence in this model -- I am just trying to illustrate how a single
consciousness can be consistent with our perceptions of reality.

But you don't say what a single consciousness is in the model. I'd it's connected sets
that have no branches, in which case there are a lot of different ones and they're not shared.

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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
>
> > Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
>>
>
> That is incorrect.  Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in
> the *SHORT* run.
>

There is a point where the antropomorphisation of evolution breaks, and I
think we are past this point for the purpose of this discussion. Evolution
favours nothing.

There are trees of organisms descending from other organisms. Sometimes a
mutation will create a local advantage that is maladaptive in the long run.
Perhaps an organism is mutated to reproduce at a much higher rate than its
peers. This branch appears to be winning for a bit, but is then completely
weeded out by resource depletion. Meanwhile, another population that
suffered a more subtle mutation with advantages in the long run, does not
suffer from resource depletion and ends up enjoying the benefits of a
mutation that is better in the long run.

The condom is one of these things. It seems like a disadvantage in the
short run but transforms into an advantage in the long run. Poor
populations that are stuck in the catholic reproductive algorithm suffer
from resource depletion, while condom users prosper in the long run.

> That's why Evolution is such a dreadful designer and was never able to
> come up with something as simple and obviously useful as a macroscopic body
> part that could move in 360 degrees.
>

> And that is why the eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, the nerves
> and capillaries of the retina are on the wrong side so light must pass
> through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt this
> degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was reversed as it
> is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for
> that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable.
> Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very
> difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are found.
>

Yes, but this conflates several issues. Evolution is necessarily iterative.
A phenotypical improvement is only possible if it can be produced by a
sequence of genetic mutations such that every intermediary organism is
viable. This doesn't mean that every intermediary organism has to be
better. There is a lot of evidence for neutral search -- random walks
through neutral mutations eventually enabling a big improvement.

In the long term, neutral mutations + survival bias can lead to something
that looks like foresight.

> That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric system is
> clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows when  Apple is clearly
> superior. Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things but it
> doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also work
> because Evolution has absolutely no foresight, it knows nothing about "the
> long run".
>

This is a bit nonsensical. Evolution generates the long run. You talk as if
evolution had a goal, but it does not. There seems to be an arrow of
increasing complexity associated with evolution, but even there it is not
clear of this isn't just an artefact of the low-complexity initial
conditions of the universe. Nobody even knows if the complexity increase is
unbounded.

Telmo.

>
> That's also why humans have all the old brain structures that lizards have
> as well as new ones.
>
>   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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Kim Jones

On 24 Jan 2015, at 8:15 am, John Clark  wrote:

>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
> 
> That is incorrect.  Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in the 
> SHORT run. That's why Evolution is such a dreadful designer and was never 
> able to come up with something as simple and obviously useful as a 
> macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees. 
> 
> And that is why the eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, the nerves 
> and capillaries of the retina are on the wrong side so light must pass 
> through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt th

...blah blah blah..etc.

I think everyone on this list would probably have under stood Russell's "in the 
long run" to mean pretty much "in the short run" given the timescale that 
evolution works to, but far be it from you to pass up on the opportunity to 
sieze on a word or phrase and then to act like a theocrat who is confronted by 
a heretic. You are a never-ending source of amusement JK - the proverbial 
"grumpy old bastard". And a wanker to boot - given your inability to see past 
your own beliefs and to so continually flaunt your self-righteous NEED to flame 
and flail others for their otherness. 

Kim Jones

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Evolution will favour whichever strategy is better in the long run
>

That is incorrect.  Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better in
the *SHORT* run. That's why Evolution is such a dreadful designer and was
never able to come up with something as simple and obviously useful as a
macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees.

And that is why the eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards, the nerves
and capillaries of the retina are on the wrong side so light must pass
through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt this
degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was reversed as it
is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for
that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable.
Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very
difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are
found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric
system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows when  Apple is
clearly superior. Nature is enormously conservative, it may add new things
but it doesn't abandon the old because the intermediate stages must also
work because Evolution has absolutely no foresight, it knows nothing about
"the long run".

That's also why humans have all the old brain structures that lizards have
as well as new ones.

  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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:44:43PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > >> So yes, Evolution invented the brain that invented condoms, and if
> >> Evolution had any foresight it would have certainly taken steps to ensure
> >> that the brain never even thought of the idea of a condom;
> >>
> >
> > > We don't know that. In fact, evolution creates all sorts of mechanisms
> > to limit procreation in response to environmental conditions. Maybe condoms
> > increase the survivability of our species, by allowing us to be more
> > selective on the moment when we invest our resources to procreate.
> >
> 
> So you think that somehow random mutation and natural selection came up
> with some deep convoluted plan that humans can not understand and will take
> many generations to implement, that is just ridiculous, evolution has no
> foresight,  it can only see one step ahead and is only interested in what
> gets the most genes into the next generation, it neither knows nor cares
> about the generation after that.
> 
> The vagus nerve connects the brain to the larynx, in a giraffe the two
> organs are less than a foot apart, but the vagus nerve is more than 15 feet
> long, it runs all the way down the neck and then double backs and goes back
> up the neck to the larynx.  If Evolution could think ahead that would never
> happen, but it can't and it can't backtrack either and start over because
> every change it makes must improve things *right now*
> 
> A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
> prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
> the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
> must do it so every single one of those small steps immediately improves
> the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of
> some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet.  If the tire on your
> car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution
> could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off
> you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With
> evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be an immediate
> improvement over the previous one.
> 
> >> But that is not a reproductive strategy, with a condom sex no longer has
> >> anything to do with reproduction.
> >>
> >
> > > Well, it still has something to do with reproduction...
> >
> 
> Not that I can see. And in addition to condoms is lifetime celibacy also a
> reproductive strategy, or homosexuality, or vasectomies, or infanticide or
> suicide?

In biology, there is a range of reproductive strategies from
r-strategists (breeding like rabbits) to K-strategists, such as
elephants or blue whales. Humans are more K-strategists than
r-strategists - it is better to invest lots of resources in bringing up a
few kids, than to have many kids that are not looked after by the
parents.

In times past, humans needed to be more r-strategists, because of high
infant mortality. Now, with lower infant mortality, K-strategy works
better, and contraception, in general, tunes us more towards the K end
of reproductive strategies. Evolution will favour whichever strategy
is better in the long run, but right now, there is no evidence that
subpopulations limiting their levels of breeding (eg educated first
world people) are being outcompeted by the higher breeders (eg
populations in islamic countries, where women have few rights, and
contraception is discouraged).

So I agree with Telmo, condoms do have something to do with
reproduction.

As for homosexuality, apparently genes promoting homosexuality are
kin-selected, so its a somewhat different mechanism to
contraception. Infanticide could be considered a form of contraception
- it is practised as such in certain Amazonian tribes, I believe.

Don't know about suicide, though. It may have some adaptive value if
it happens late in life, but more likely it is just natural
selection's way of weeding out defective individuals.


-- 


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

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


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

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

> >> So yes, Evolution invented the brain that invented condoms, and if
>> Evolution had any foresight it would have certainly taken steps to ensure
>> that the brain never even thought of the idea of a condom;
>>
>
> > We don't know that. In fact, evolution creates all sorts of mechanisms
> to limit procreation in response to environmental conditions. Maybe condoms
> increase the survivability of our species, by allowing us to be more
> selective on the moment when we invest our resources to procreate.
>

So you think that somehow random mutation and natural selection came up
with some deep convoluted plan that humans can not understand and will take
many generations to implement, that is just ridiculous, evolution has no
foresight,  it can only see one step ahead and is only interested in what
gets the most genes into the next generation, it neither knows nor cares
about the generation after that.

The vagus nerve connects the brain to the larynx, in a giraffe the two
organs are less than a foot apart, but the vagus nerve is more than 15 feet
long, it runs all the way down the neck and then double backs and goes back
up the neck to the larynx.  If Evolution could think ahead that would never
happen, but it can't and it can't backtrack either and start over because
every change it makes must improve things *right now*

A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
must do it so every single one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of
some sort, but it wouldn't look anything like a jet.  If the tire on your
car is getting worn you can take it off and put a new one on, but evolution
could never do something like that, because when you take the old tire off
you have temporarily made things worse, now you have no tire at all. With
evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter how many, MUST be an immediate
improvement over the previous one.

>> But that is not a reproductive strategy, with a condom sex no longer has
>> anything to do with reproduction.
>>
>
> > Well, it still has something to do with reproduction...
>

Not that I can see. And in addition to condoms is lifetime celibacy also a
reproductive strategy, or homosexuality, or vasectomies, or infanticide or
suicide?

> In human society, condoms allow us to make strategic decisions. For
> example, a young couple might decide to further their education before
> reproducing. Then they will have a shorter reproductive window, but their
> offspring will inherit more resources.
>

So 500,000 years ago Evolution knew that  someday a young couple might
decide to further their education. Does this reasoning also explain the
invention of the vasectomy?

> >> But I am not Evolution nor am I my genes so I don't care,  Evolution
>> and my genes have their opinion and I have mine.
>>
>
> > That's impossible to know. Your brain is the product of evolution and it
> could be betraying you at a very deep level.
>

Of course you can know that! There is no way, absolutely no way Evolution
could know all the thoughts my brain would come up with. Evolution had its
reasons for inventing the brain, and I have my reasons on how to use it.

  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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it
>>> entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>>>
>>
>>  I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
>> consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this
>> is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>>
>>
>> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that
>> consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
>>
>
>  I don't agree that that follows. You can realise this intuitively from
> the experience of dreaming: you can dream that you are someone else, or in
> completely different circumstances and forget that you're in a dream.
>
>
> But that's not separate, I remember the dream.  If I don't remember the
> dream, is it me?  Is it me because the dream and reality share a body that
> can't be both at once?
>

Depends on what you mean by "me". If you mean the contents of the
experience of being Brent, then you're someone else. But the point here is
that, if we start with consciousness, then we could all be different
experiential contents for the same thing.

Consider this toy model: ultimate reality is a direct acyclic graph of all
possible observer moments. Links represent possible transformations of one
observer moment to another. Theoretical physics essentially approximates
the transformation function, telling us which transformations are valid.
Every observer moment is eternal in a sense, because the illusion of time
arises "inside" the moment. With consciousness as a brute fact, the
observer moments where I feel like I'm me and you feel like you're you are
just that -- observer moments in the eternal graph. Time and separation are
contents of the many dreams. Specifically, time is an illusion created by
the structure of the graph: all downstream moments in terms of the
generation function feel like the past.

I have no confidence in this model -- I am just trying to illustrate how a
single consciousness can be consistent with our perceptions of reality.

Telmo.


>
> Brent
>
>
>  If the same consciousness dreams everything, why couldn't this
> everything contain all sorts of observer moments with illusions of
> separateness?
>
>  Telmo.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-23 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Moreover, I think that you are inconsistent. If consciousness precedes
everything including logic, truth existence etc. Then you can not demote
what consciousness perceive to mere "usefulness". Neiter you can call what
is consciously perceived as false, and posit something unknown and external
as the true reality. Neiter you can say that we are deceived by
consciousness. Consciousness is the only thing you have. Consciousness is
you and your reality full stop, even if you have a theory about how the
mind came to be.

You can not reverse the hierarchy and call the theory as the reality and
consciousness as the product. It is the other way around; What is useful is
that (incomplete) theory to acquire better knowledge of the true reality
that you experience, not the other way around.

What you say is that because there are

IMHO a coherent evolutionary metaphysics coming from natural selection,
with a detailed definition and use of "usefulness" in the context of social
beings can be found in my post entitled "robotic truth". By the way,
unsurprisingly the conclussions are related with classical philosophy,
since classical philosophy is pure unbiased introspection
.

2015-01-20 3:33 GMT+01:00 Rex Allen :

> Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.  Axioms and
> logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa.  Consciousness
> comes before everything else.
>
> It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.  However, what
> consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-evident.  Further,
> what any particular conscious experience “means” is also not self-evident.
>
> For example:  The experience of color is directly known and
> incontrovertible.  But what the experience of color *means* is not directly
> known - any proposed explanation is inferential and controvertible.
>
> We do not have direct access to meaning.
>
> We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.
>
> So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside (i.e.,
> objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness, by conscious
> processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.
>
> Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based entirely
> on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning, and arrived at
> via conscious processes which are equally lacking in intrinsic meaning.
>
> It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are what
> they are.  And what else do we have other than the way things “seem”?  I
> experience what I experience - nothing further can be known.
>
> HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t.
>
> For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting,
> believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied conscious
> experiences just keep piling up.
>
> Why is this?
>
> Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it just
> a brute fact that has no explanation.
>
> If there is no explanation, then we should just accept our non-acceptance,
> our non-stoppingness, and let it go.  Or not.  Doesn’t matter.
>
> Alternatively, if there is an explanation - then there are two options:
>
>
>1.
>
>The explanation is not accessible to us because our conscious
>experiences do not “point” towards the truth of the way things are.
>2.
>
>The explanation is accessible to us, because our conscious experiences
>*do* point towards the truth of the way things are.
>
>
> Again, if we believe that option 1 is correct, we can just stop.  Or not.
> It doesn’t matter.
>
> So - let’s *provisionally* assume that option 2 is correct.
>
> I say “provisionally” instead of “axiomatically” because we will revisit
> this assumption.  Once we’ve gone as far as we can in working out the
> implications of it being true - we will return to this assumption and see
> if it still makes sense in light of where we ended up.
>
> At this point I am willing to grant that modern science provides the best
> methodology for translating (extrapolating?) from our truth-pointing
> conscious experiences to models that represent the accessible parts of how
> things “really” are.
>
> To the extent that anything can be said about how things really are
> “outside of” conscious experience - science says it.
>
> But we never have direct access to the truth - all we have are our models
> of the truth, which (hopefully) improve over time as we distill out the
> valid parts of our truth-pointing conscious experiences.
>
> Okay - now, having said all of that - what models has modern science
> developed?  Apparently there are two fundamental theories:  General
> Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of gravity
> for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and
> high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand,
> QFT is a theoretical frame

Re: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 9:44 PM, Kim Jones wrote:


On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely
with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It 
is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case (thus 
my previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness if 
not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being 
conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.


But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.

Brent


You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are deluding 
yourself here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your consciousness to that of 
another. You cannot experience the experience of another but you will come as close 
to experiencing it as you can without actually experiencing it  - via mirror neurons.


If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody would 
bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way interesting to one 
another and everyone would revert to their visceral mistrust of one another.


How about mirror gonads?  I think that'd work too.


Just watch someone receive a swift kick to the gonads and try to resist 
crossing your legs





If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what the 
people onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all one person 
sharing  one vast, utterly vast consciousness.


They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - through 
perception.   You do realize when watching a porno that it's an image on a screen. No 
neurons are involved, except yours.




But neurons were clearly involved by others in the making of the image by the 
participants onscreen, clearly. You are introducing the time postulate which would 
seem to break the link between the two consciousnesses. I don't think it does. The 
information about neuronal excitation (hence consciousness) is present however, EVEN 
when it's only a movie.


Information about bodily positions is usually in the video - but information about 
neuronal excitations?  Was that there in the visuals before anybody knew about neurons?


Brent


Yes. But how else could perception work except via pattern recognition which comes 
across in films? The film invites you to 'recognise' an experience you are having which 
is describes by the contents of the film. The film does not describe something external 
to,you. The film describes your experience as you watch the film. Before anybody knew 
about neurons, people still had neurons and they worked. The point is - using porn as an 
example (you could of course use anything involving the self witnessing someone else's 
experience of something, even torture) that you vicariously experience someone else's 
experience which makes you a participant in that experience at another level of meaning 
which is perhaps the whole point of it. You undergo a delayed parallel neuronal 
excitation process. You don't need to be up on neuroscience to understand why porn has 
an effect, or watching base-jumping clips or whatever rings your bell. It's all to do 
with shared consciousness - in this case via a VR simulation for you of what you want to 
experience.


But you don't need special base jumping neurons or special porn neurons or special mirror 
neurons - the respones can all equally be explained by the organization of the neurons.


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: Manifesto Rex

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 4:06 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
>> 
 On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

 On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb  wrote:

>> On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
>>> 
 On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it 
> entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?

 I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same 
 consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that 
 this is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>>> 
>>> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that 
>>> consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
>> 
>> I guess you mean "is not shared".
>> 
>> But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being 
>> conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.
> 
> But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.
> 
> Brent

 You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are 
 deluding yourself here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your 
 consciousness to that of another. You cannot experience the experience of 
 another but you will come as close to experiencing it as you can without 
 actually experiencing it  - via mirror neurons. 

 If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, 
 nobody would bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any 
 way interesting to one another and everyone would revert to their visceral 
 mistrust of one another.
> 
> How about mirror gonads?  I think that'd work too.

Just watch someone receive a swift kick to the gonads and try to resist 
crossing your legs

> 

 If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by 
 what the people onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We 
 are all one person sharing  one vast, utterly vast consciousness.
>>> 
>>> They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - 
>>> through perception.   You do realize when watching a porno that it's an 
>>> image on a screen.  No neurons are involved, except yours.
>>> 
>> 
>> But neurons were clearly involved by others in the making of the image by 
>> the participants onscreen, clearly. You are introducing the time postulate 
>> which would seem to break the link between the two consciousnesses. I don't 
>> think it does. The information about neuronal excitation (hence 
>> consciousness) is present however, EVEN when it's only a movie.
> 
> Information about bodily positions is usually in the video - but information 
> about neuronal excitations?  Was that there in the visuals before anybody 
> knew about neurons?
> 
> Brent

Yes. But how else could perception work except via pattern recognition which 
comes across in films? The film invites you to 'recognise' an experience you 
are having which is describes by the contents of the film. The film does not 
describe something external to,you. The film describes your experience as you 
watch the film. Before anybody knew about neurons, people still had neurons and 
they worked. The point is - using porn as an example (you could of course use 
anything involving the self witnessing someone else's experience of something, 
even torture) that you vicariously experience someone else's experience which 
makes you a participant in that experience at another level of meaning which is 
perhaps the whole point of it. You undergo a delayed parallel neuronal 
excitation process. You don't need to be up on neuroscience to understand why 
porn has an effect, or watching base-jumping clips or whatever rings your bell. 
It's all to do with shared consciousness - in this case via a VR simulation for 
you of what you want to experience.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 7:58 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely 
with
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is 
evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case (thus my 
previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness if not 
shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being conscious, 
even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.


But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.

Brent


You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are deluding yourself 
here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your consciousness to that of another. You 
cannot experience the experience of another but you will come as close to experiencing 
it as you can without actually experiencing it  - via mirror neurons.


If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody would 
bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way interesting to one 
another and everyone would revert to their visceral mistrust of one another.


How about mirror gonads?  I think that'd work too.



If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what the people 
onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all one person sharing 
 one vast, utterly vast consciousness.


They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - through 
perception.   You do realize when watching a porno that it's an image on a screen.  No 
neurons are involved, except yours.




But neurons were clearly involved by others in the making of the image by the 
participants onscreen, clearly. You are introducing the time postulate which would seem 
to break the link between the two consciousnesses. I don't think it does. The 
information about neuronal excitation (hence consciousness) is present however, EVEN 
when it's only a movie.


Information about bodily positions is usually in the video - but information about 
neuronal excitations?  Was that there in the visuals before anybody knew about neurons?


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: Manifesto Rex




> On 23 Jan 2015, at 2:15 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb  wrote:
>> 
 On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
> 
>> On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it 
>>> entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>> 
>> I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same 
>> consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that 
>> this is not the case (thus my previous rant).
> 
> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that 
> consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
 
 I guess you mean "is not shared".
 
 But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being 
 conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.
>>> 
>>> But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>> 
>> You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are 
>> deluding yourself here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your 
>> consciousness to that of another. You cannot experience the experience of 
>> another but you will come as close to experiencing it as you can without 
>> actually experiencing it  - via mirror neurons. 
>> 
>> If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody 
>> would bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way 
>> interesting to one another and everyone would revert to their visceral 
>> mistrust of one another.
>> 
>> If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what 
>> the people onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all 
>> one person sharing  one vast, utterly vast consciousness.
> 
> They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - 
> through perception.   You do realize when watching a porno that it's an image 
> on a screen.  No neurons are involved, except yours.
> 

But neurons were clearly involved by others in the making of the image by the 
participants onscreen, clearly. You are introducing the time postulate which 
would seem to break the link between the two consciousnesses. I don't think it 
does. The information about neuronal excitation (hence consciousness) is 
present however, EVEN when it's only a movie. This returns us to the MGA. 

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 6:57 PM, Kim Jones wrote:




On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb > wrote:



On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely 
with
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is 
evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case (thus my 
previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness if not 
shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being conscious, 
even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.


But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.

Brent


You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are deluding yourself 
here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your consciousness to that of another. You 
cannot experience the experience of another but you will come as close to experiencing 
it as you can without actually experiencing it  - via mirror neurons.


If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody would 
bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way interesting to one 
another and everyone would revert to their visceral mistrust of one another.


If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what the people 
onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all one person sharing  one 
vast, utterly vast consciousness.


They link my neurons to others the same way they link my neurons to rocks - through 
perception.   You do realize when watching a porno that it's an image on a screen.  No 
neurons are involved, except yours.


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: Manifesto Rex

> On 23 Jan 2015, at 10:24 am, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
>>> 
 On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely 
> with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?

 I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same 
 consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that 
 this is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>>> 
>>> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness 
>>> if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
>> 
>> I guess you mean "is not shared".
>> 
>> But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being 
>> conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative contents.
> 
> But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.
> 
> Brent

You are. Here you kid yourself. Even without comp we can say you are deluding 
yourself here. You have "mirror neurons" which link your consciousness to that 
of another. You cannot experience the experience of another but you will come 
as close to experiencing it as you can without actually experiencing it  - via 
mirror neurons. 

If something like mirror neurons were not present in the human brain, nobody 
would bother with anyone else at all as humans would not be in any way 
interesting to one another and everyone would revert to their visceral mistrust 
of one another.

If you have ever watched a porno and found yourself getting aroused by what the 
people onscreen were doing - that's mirror neurons at work. We are all one 
person sharing  one vast, utterly vast consciousness.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely 
with
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. It is 
evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case (thus my 
previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness if not 
shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of being conscious, even 
if we don't share the exact same relative contents.


But I'm not conscious of you being conscious.

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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-22 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> Hi Telmo,
>
>  Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
>
>  My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to
> it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into
> phenomenal and noumenal realms.
>
>  We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye
> towards what promotes survival and reproduction.  Consciousness isn't the
> least concerned with truth - only with usefulness.
>
>  Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in this
> group.
>
>  If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely
> with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>
>
> That's essentially the thesis of William S. Cooper's book "The Origin of
> Reason" - that our language, logic and mathematics were driven by
> evolution.  And he suggests how it may go further.  Whether you agree with
> him or not, it's a thought provoking book (and not a long one).
>
>
>
>  Define "evolutionary usefulness" without using the notion of truth. I
> doubt that this is possible. You need the truth of the existence of
> organism, survival, etc.
>
>
> That's because you identify true and real.
>
>
You keep saying this over and over again, despite that both Bruno and I
clarified that there is a distinction between true and real.

Notably in Sanskrit there is only one word for "truth" and "what exists".

Jason

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

Re: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that winter would 
not come again, they might not store food away for those harder times. If another 
society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have been able to make GPS satellites and be 
able to efficiently navigate from point A to point B with satellite navigation. Again, 
all this gets back to the utility of brains. Why would it make sense to devote 25% of 
our metabolic energy to this "thinking thing" if it did not in some way make up for its 
cost via improved rates of survival?


Most thinking is not mathematical inference though, it's thinking about how to interact 
with other people, to gain their cooperation to manipulate them, to seduce them...all very 
useful to Darwinian evolution.


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: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 4:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it 
entirely with
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same consciousness. 
It is
evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this is not the case 
(thus my
previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that consciousness 
if not
shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I don't agree that that follows. You can realise this intuitively from the experience of 
dreaming: you can dream that you are someone else, or in completely different 
circumstances and forget that you're in a dream.


But that's not separate, I remember the dream.  If I don't remember the dream, is it me?  
Is it me because the dream and reality share a body that can't be both at once?


Brent



If the same consciousness dreams everything, why couldn't this everything contain all 
sorts of observer moments with illusions of separateness?


Telmo.


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.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex


On 1/22/2015 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:

Hi Telmo,

Is there a better starting point than consciousness?

My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to it's logical 
conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into phenomenal and noumenal realms.


We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye towards what 
promotes survival and reproduction.  Consciousness isn't the least concerned with 
truth - only with usefulness.


Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in this group.

If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely with 
"evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


That's essentially the thesis of William S. Cooper's book "The Origin of Reason" - that 
our language, logic and mathematics were driven by evolution.  And he suggests how it 
may go further.  Whether you agree with him or not, it's a thought provoking book (and 
not a long one).



Define "evolutionary usefulness" without using the notion of truth. I doubt that this is 
possible. You need the truth of the existence of organism, survival, etc.


That's because you identify true and real.

The only advantage of the evolution theory is that it needs noting more than 
arithmetical truth.


It needs copying with variation.


It is a mechanist theory.\


Indeed, that's why it has explanatory and predictive power.

Then computationalism shows that this explanation by evolution must be extended to the 
appearance of matter from a sort of genetical evolution of machine dreams.


What does it mean to say an explanation "must be extended"?  It seems to say in order to 
save my theory...?


Brent


It looks like this progress is today as much problematical than Darwin was at 
the beginning.

Bruno





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.


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.

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:

I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a  
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true  
beliefs about the mathematical nature of the universe.


But Gödel + Church + Kleene + Post + Turing +  Matiyazevich...  
discovery *is* the discovery that just the arithmetical reality if  
full of entities, machines, and non-machines, which struggle  to  
understand what happens, and develop true and false beliefs around the  
subject.


This is proved. What is not proved is that they are conscious, but  
they need to be if you assume that there is no magic (actual  
infinities, non-local 3p influences, 3p indeterminacies) playing in  
the brain.




Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a  
random (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial  
conditions lead to the development of beings who are then able to  
correctly (or even approximately) discover those physical laws and  
initial conditions.


If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since  
evolution seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not  
truth.  So how do evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory  
like that?


But a scientist will never say that  is true. He will just  
say what he believes in, knowing he might be wrong.
We can only hope getting close to the truth, but even in arithmetic,  
lies can be consistent, and truth can depart from wishes, etc.







However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not  
true) - this is more consistent - since it also predicts that  
evolved beings will develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories.


"usefulness" would reduce science to instrumentalism, and then the  
question which will be forbid will be "instrument for what"? Torture?


But you are right, truth is not always useful, but lies makes things  
harder, and should be avoided in most situations, I think.


I think I understand why you think consciousness "precedes" logic and  
arithmetic. I think that this is coherent with the first person view  
of the "universal person", as consciousness is atemporal at that  
level, and is the origin of all possible consciousness content. But  
that is still an inside view. That general consciousness is the  
atemporal consciousness of the löbian machine, and perhaps even just  
the universal one. It is something approximated by


 <>t?  & <>t

It is an unconscious "Am I consistent?" in consistent situation. It is  
also a semantical fixed point. It provides the meaning of "meaning"  
somehow, and let the senses filtered it into consistent scenarios.


Bruno






Rex


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:
I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will  
see my posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines  
(evolution is a very  very bad name for natural selection).


But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of  
view is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that  natural  
selection is what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since  
evolution makes the mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a  
priory truths that are self evident and toward which we can not  
create any simpler explanation.


You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk  
metaphysics of today: There are an external reality that is  
inaccessible to us, and that external reality is the "True Reality".  
Kant called phenomena what we observe and the external inaccessible  
reality is what Kant call noumena. Only by means of experimentation  
on phenomena we can known something about the true external  
reality . The results are scientific models and theories. Internally  
there are only subjective things : feelings, values etc. Only what  
is objectivated by science are facts. the subjective gain objective  
status by means of science or direct shared observation. Since  
internal states are not observable, this positivistic metaphisics  
despise all of this, including metaphysincs. So it is self  
reinforcing and self contradictory at the same time.


But I think that this is not that way.  the noumenal external  
reality does not exist. the reality is in the mind. The external  
reality is purely mathematical an evolution creates the conscious  
experiences, the values, feelings and perceptions  (including  
tacticle and visual) necessary to maintain the body in this  
mathematical four dimensional reality along the time dimension.


Then there are no two realities but a single meaningful one, that is  
mental. and the models are the true external reality or an  
approximation to it, that is mathematical. we share almost identical  
internal realities because we share the same mind functional  
architecture.


But there is more. QM and GR are not the only mathematical  
structures out there. Both need other mathematical structures to  
work  and the s

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 21 Jan 2015, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it  
entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same  
consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion  
that this is not the case (thus my previous rant).


If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that  
consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.


I guess you mean "is not shared".

But are you not conscious right now, we do share the experience of  
being conscious, even if we don't share the exact same relative  
contents.


Bruno






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.


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: Manifesto Rex

Hi John,

I just have a simple question then. Do you know you're conscious?

Cheers!
Telmo.

Brent, Telmo and all others 'consciousness' anchored members:
>
> It is an easy cop-out to say the "c" term is too complicated to be
> identified.
> If we want to use it we better knowWHAT we wnt to use. My definition is
> "response to relations" - another cop-out, because it is hard to identify
> RELATION (and of course: a 'response' to it). But it widens the scope from
> a 'human mental summersault' into a characteristic of the 'existence' (what
> is THAT?) applicable all over.
> OUR OWN "Consciousness" is a fine attribute as usually applied, not
> satisfactory for me. I tried to make it more extended/expanded - universal.
> E.g. an electrode is conscious of a nearby charge (and vice versa) and a
> mass-particle about another one feeling gravitation, if we identified all
> these terms. I did not.
>
> It also reverberates on the term 'conscious' of course. A.S.O.
> John M
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:27 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it
>>> entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>>>
>>
>>  I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
>> consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this
>> is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>>
>>
>> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that
>> consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of 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.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Rex,
>
> Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
> about, along these lines (I believe).
>
> It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that are
> prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently rejected as
> lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc.
>
> These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are
> not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because time
> itself is a dream. That there is only one consciousness and we are all
> fundamentally the same entity, from the amoeba on. Quantum immortality.
> This sort of thing. They start with consciousness as the brute fact, as you
> posit.
>
>
> Well, not computationalism. It accepts the existence of consciousness and
> use it, in the weaker "first person diary" sense, but eventually it
> *explains* consciousness, by using the notion of truth. Consciousness is
> only the instinctive belief that there is a reality:
>

Who's belief?


> it a form of hard wired faith in self-consistency,
>

Hard wired into what?


> and its role is to accelerate the relative computations.
>

In comp, isn't time itself a dream of the computations? What does
"accelerate" mean at this level?


> You run faster when you take the predator existence seriously.
>
> Starting from consciousness is more comp-correct than starting from
> matter, but it remains as much non satisfying for those who want explain
> consciousness, notably through computationalism.
>
>
>
>
> I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I definitely feel
> a resistance to them.
>
> So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears
> maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less preoccupied
> with survival and reproduction. So it's not so surprising that we evolved
> to reject such ideas but this leads to a terrible doubt: can we trust
> ourselves to do science?
>
> Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct* behind
> nerds and geeks being bullied.
>
>
> It is the problem with theology, or with shrooms, LSD or salvia: it cures
> the fear of death, and that can be exploited by some other people (to make
> a suicide-bombers, for example, or to build an army). It is the theological
> trap: its motivation transcends the usual biological motivation for which
> we have been hardwired.
>

Yes and the prohibition makes this much worse, because it prevents the open
development of good-faith use of these substances. As you keep saying and I
completely agree.


>
>
> A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the
> future, if we transcend Darwinism.
>
>
> This will push the same problem at a higher level. It is part of the role
> of consciousness to handle that transcendence. That has evolutionary
> advantage too, despite it can change the things a lot. But in the
> development of life, this problem appears with brains, all the time. Up to
> now we proceed forwards, by adding new layers of universality, in the
> brains, then in books and computers.
>
> But there will be a point when people will desire less brain, and
> eventually, content themselves with the arithmetical "paradise", plausibly.
> Well, there are many problem here, and at some level, the fundamental
> science can change our basic motivations, like drugs can do that, and like
> religion is supposed to do that. That is why it is important to be rigorous
> there too.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
> Telmo.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex Allen 
> wrote:
>
>> Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.  Axioms and
>> logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa.  Consciousness
>> comes before everything else.
>>
>> It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.  However, what
>> consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-evident.  Further,
>> what any particular conscious experience “means” is also not self-evident.
>>
>> For example:  The experience of color is directly known and
>> incontrovertible.  But what the experience of color *means* is not directly
>> known - any proposed explanation is inferential and controvertible.
>>
>> We do not have direct access to meaning.
>>
>> We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.
>>
>> So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside (i.e.,
>> objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness, by conscious
>> processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.
>>
>> Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based
>> entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning, and
>> arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in intrinsic
>> meaning.
>>
>> It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are what
>> they are.  And what else do we have oth

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:49 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>  >> the man who invented the condom transcend Darwinism.
>>>
>>
>> >I disagree. We are all still all the product of Darwinist processes. We
>> are all at the end of a long line of machines that successfully produced
>> viable offspring.
>>
>
> Absolutely true, Evolution invented brains because the genome is not
> nearly big enough to hardwired a animal on the best way to behave in every
> environmental situation to get genes into the next generation.
>

Ok.

> So yes, Evolution invented the brain that invented condoms, and if
> Evolution had any foresight it would have certainly taken steps to ensure
> that the brain never even thought of the idea of a condom;
>

We don't know that. In fact, evolution creates all sorts of mechanisms to
limit procreation in response to environmental conditions. Maybe condoms
increase the survivability of our species, by allowing us to be more
selective on the moment when we invest our resources to procreate.

If you play even with simple evolutionary algorithms you will realise that
your intuition betrays you constantly.

I'll tell you about a simple example that happened to me. I was coding a
simple alife simulation and I had these creatures that looked for food. To
test the evolutionary algorithm, I decided to make it evolve the vision
range of the creatures. I assumed the algorithm would maximize the vision
range, because a larger range had no cost whatsoever. Instead it stabilised
at an intermediary value. Then I realised that limited information actually
helped these simple creatures, because it made them stay in their local
environment instead of going in long runs after big deposits of food that
could be found by someone else meanwhile.

Now, in an environment as complex as real biology, we must remain very
humble in regards to our ability to understand all the incentives at play.

> but Evolution has no foresight, not even the smallest speck of it,
> Evolution doesn't have the concept of one step backwards and 2 steps
> forward, it is only interested in things that improve reproductive success
> *right now*.
>
>
>> > The condom is just a recent change in reproductive strategies. Changes
>> in reproductive strategies have been happening since the first life-forms
>> appeared.
>>
>
> But that is not a reproductive strategy, with a condom sex no longer has
> anything to do with reproduction.
>

Well, it still has something to do with reproduction...

> Inventing condoms was not the reason Evolution invented brains, and I
> realize that neither Evolution nor my genes would like that invention (and
> I also realize I'm using anthropomorphic language) because to them the only
> important thing in life is to get as many genes into the next generation as
> possible.
>

I use anthropomorphic language also, as a shortcut. But we have to be very
careful.

If creature A in region 1 makes as many copies of itself as it can, and
creature B in region 2 makes only a few copies, reacting to environmental
clues, creature A appears to be winning in the short term. But if you run
this for a few iterations, creatures A's offspring will be all weeded out
by resource depletion while creature B's offspring, while less numerous in
the beginning, actually makes it past a few generations.

This is a cartoonish example, of course, but I think you get my drift.

In human society, condoms allow us to make strategic decisions. For
example, a young couple might decide to further their education before
reproducing. Then they will have a shorter reproductive window, but their
offspring will inherit more resources.

> But I am not Evolution nor am I my genes so I don't care,  Evolution and
> my genes have their opinion and I have mine.
>

That's impossible to know. Your brain is the product of evolution and it
could be betraying you at a very deep level.

Telmo.

>
>
>   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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-22 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rex Allen  wrote:

> I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
> mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
> about the mathematical nature of the universe.
>
>
The purpose of brains is to find/discover useful inferences about their
environments. If our environment is ultimately some type of mathematical
universe, then why should it be impossible for it to generate beings that
can discover this fact and develop true beliefs about the environment
they're born into?


> Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random
> (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions
> lead to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even
> approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions.
>
>
Who says the selection of laws is random? The beings who have brains in a
sense "self-select" those universes where there is utility in having a
brain. If the reality (laws and initial conditions) aren't
discernible/exploitable/inferable then there's no sense in developing a
brain in those universes (nor even storing a memory of failed evolutionary
experiments in DNA (or any medium)) and you don't get life or beings with
brains to appreciate such disordered/unpredictable/nonsensical universes.


> If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution
> seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not truth.  So how do
> evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory like that?
>
>
False beliefs are detrimental to survival. E.g. if a society believed that
winter would not come again, they might not store food away for those
harder times. If another society didn't believe in GR, they wouldn't have
been able to make GPS satellites and be able to efficiently navigate from
point A to point B with satellite navigation. Again, all this gets back to
the utility of brains. Why would it make sense to devote 25% of our
metabolic energy to this "thinking thing" if it did not in some way make up
for its cost via improved rates of survival?


> However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not true) -
> this is more consistent - since it also predicts that evolved beings will
> develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories.
>
>
Does everything that is true have to be useful? Are the digits of Pi beyond
the first thousand or so useful for anything (aside from thought
experiments)?

Jason



> Rex
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
> wrote:
>
>> I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will see my
>> posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines (evolution is a very
>> very bad name for natural selection).
>>
>> But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of view
>> is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that  natural selection is
>> what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since evolution makes the
>> mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a priory truths that are self
>> evident and toward which we can not create any simpler explanation.
>>
>> You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk
>> metaphysics of today: There are an external reality that is inaccessible to
>> us, and that external reality is the "True Reality". Kant called phenomena
>> what we observe and the external inaccessible reality is what Kant call
>> noumena. Only by means of experimentation on phenomena we can known
>> something about the true external reality . The results are scientific
>> models and theories. Internally there are only subjective things :
>> feelings, values etc. Only what is objectivated by science are facts. the
>> subjective gain objective status by means of science or direct shared
>> observation. Since internal states are not observable, this positivistic
>> metaphisics despise all of this, including metaphysincs. So it is self
>> reinforcing and self contradictory at the same time.
>>
>> But I think that this is not that way.  the noumenal external reality
>> does not exist. the reality is in the mind. The external reality is purely
>> mathematical an evolution creates the conscious experiences, the values,
>> feelings and perceptions  (including tacticle and visual) necessary to
>> maintain the body in this mathematical four dimensional reality along the
>> time dimension.
>>
>> Then there are no two realities but a single meaningful one, that is
>> mental. and the models are the true external reality or an approximation to
>> it, that is mathematical. we share almost identical internal realities
>> because we share the same mind functional architecture.
>>
>> But there is more. QM and GR are not the only mathematical structures out
>> there. Both need other mathematical structures to work  and the space time
>> generate other structures along the time dimension,seen locally as
>> evolution: it generates structures that are in the

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 1/21/2015 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>  If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely
>> with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>>
>
>  I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
> consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this
> is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>
>
> If you "start with consciousness" then it is fundamental that
> consciousness if not shared - otherwise I'd be conscious of it.
>

I don't agree that that follows. You can realise this intuitively from the
experience of dreaming: you can dream that you are someone else, or in
completely different circumstances and forget that you're in a dream.

If the same consciousness dreams everything, why couldn't this everything
contain all sorts of observer moments with illusions of separateness?

Telmo.


>
> 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.

Re: Manifesto Rex



> On 22 Jan 2015, at 6:07 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
>> On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>> But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the 
>> universe is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our 
>> minds is intentional or "we" are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are 
>> real and the ride is the simulation. I go for that interpretation - that's 
>> comp.
> 
> ISTM that in comp, computation is fundamental. 


Well, number is fundamental. Computation is a way of extracting reality from 
number. I see it like that. Computation is a way of seeing. A form of 
perception. How numbers see each other. I am equally baffled by statements like 
this as you. 


> Everything true is equally real, just not equally fundamental. 


Yes



> All true relations are considered real. 


Yes


> Provable relations are both real and believed and there are sets of belief 
> that are related so as to constitute the consciousness of persons.


I would say yes. Persons are constellations of beliefs. Just as the body is a 
constellation of other discreet entities, persons are made of modules of 
beliefs that give rise to their perception (as emergent quality of 
comsciousness or as comsciousness itself). This can be checked by changing 
someone's perception of something and you will instantly see their belief about 
that thing change as well. K


> 
> 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.

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 20 Jan 2015, at 21:43, Kim Jones wrote:




On 20 Jan 2015, at 11:43 pm, Telmo Menezes   
wrote:


These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we  
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal  
because time itself is a dream. That there is only one  
consciousness and we are all fundamentally the same entity, from  
the amoeba on. Quantum immortality. This sort of thing. They start  
with consciousness as the brute fact, as you posit.


I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I  
definitely feel a resistance to them.



Do you equally feel a resistance to the mainstream, standard,  
canonical, textbook, safe, establishment versions of reality? I only  
ask because it appears there are definitely good intellectual  
reasons to stand up and challenge some of those.





So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears  
maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less  
preoccupied with survival and reproduction.


That is a thought that has crossed my mind, too. People who sit  
around pulling bongs and studying shadows on cave walls tend not to  
go on and have business empires, large families and lots of  
possessions and become captains of industry, no. Survival and  
reproduction is indeed the name of the game. I also note that we are  
currently surviving and reproducing ourselves straight to oblivion  
and catastrophe so, Houston - we have a problem.



So it's not so surprising that we evolved to reject such ideas but  
this leads to a terrible doubt: can we trust ourselves to do science?


While the exact and human sciences remain at loggerheads I would say  
no. Science is forever a blunt instrument because it wants to say  
there are places where science cannot go. So, the Aristotelian  
universe seems to run out of steam at a certain point and leaves the  
important stuff about the human soul to madmen, criminals,  
charlatans and the merely credulous.


Right.
Can we trust ourselves to do science?
Well, should have we trust going out of the ocean? Or of the mother  
womb?


The entire idea of having a brain put us in that situation, and that  
is even why science by itself is often considered as a dangerous  
thing, but it is not more dangerous than life, it is part of life. It  
is part of the infinite trip from G to G*, and it can be fatal,  
indeed. Welcome to the insecure world of free thinking number, where  
absolute security is already the same as death.


That is why we have a left (searching security) and a right (searching  
freedom): we want both, but they are incompatible, so we dovetail  
between them, infinitely.


Bruno









K

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
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: Manifesto Rex



On 21 Jan 2015, at 04:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:

Hi Telmo,

Is there a better starting point than consciousness?

My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken  
to it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality  
into phenomenal and noumenal realms.


We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye  
towards what promotes survival and reproduction.  Consciousness  
isn't the least concerned with truth - only with usefulness.


Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in  
this group.


If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it  
entirely with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?


That's essentially the thesis of William S. Cooper's book "The  
Origin of Reason" - that  our language, logic and mathematics  
were driven by evolution.  And he suggests how it may go further.   
Whether you agree with him or not, it's a thought provoking book  
(and not a long one).



Define "evolutionary usefulness" without using the notion of truth. I  
doubt that this is possible. You need the truth of the existence of  
organism, survival, etc. The only advantage of the evolution theory is  
that it needs noting more than arithmetical truth. It is a mechanist  
theory.
Then computationalism shows that this explanation by evolution must be  
extended to the appearance of matter from a sort of genetical  
evolution of machine dreams.
It looks like this progress is today as much problematical than Darwin  
was at the beginning.


Bruno





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.


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: Manifesto Rex



On 20 Jan 2015, at 13:43, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Rex,

Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been  
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).


It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that  
are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently  
rejected as lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc.


These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we  
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal  
because time itself is a dream. That there is only one consciousness  
and we are all fundamentally the same entity, from the amoeba on.  
Quantum immortality. This sort of thing. They start with  
consciousness as the brute fact, as you posit.


Well, not computationalism. It accepts the existence of consciousness  
and use it, in the weaker "first person diary" sense, but eventually  
it *explains* consciousness, by using the notion of truth.  
Consciousness is only the instinctive belief that there is a reality:  
it a form of hard wired faith in self-consistency, and its role is to  
accelerate the relative computations. You run faster when you take the  
predator existence seriously.


Starting from consciousness is more comp-correct than starting from  
matter, but it remains as much non satisfying for those who want  
explain consciousness, notably through computationalism.






I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I definitely  
feel a resistance to them.


So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears  
maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less  
preoccupied with survival and reproduction. So it's not so  
surprising that we evolved to reject such ideas but this leads to a  
terrible doubt: can we trust ourselves to do science?


Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct*  
behind nerds and geeks being bullied.


It is the problem with theology, or with shrooms, LSD or salvia: it  
cures the fear of death, and that can be exploited by some other  
people (to make a suicide-bombers, for example, or to build an army).  
It is the theological trap: its motivation transcends the usual  
biological motivation for which we have been hardwired.




A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the  
future, if we transcend Darwinism.


This will push the same problem at a higher level. It is part of the  
role of consciousness to handle that transcendence. That has  
evolutionary advantage too, despite it can change the things a lot.  
But in the development of life, this problem appears with brains, all  
the time. Up to now we proceed forwards, by adding new layers of  
universality, in the brains, then in books and computers.


But there will be a point when people will desire less brain, and  
eventually, content themselves with the arithmetical "paradise",  
plausibly. Well, there are many problem here, and at some level, the  
fundamental science can change our basic motivations, like drugs can  
do that, and like religion is supposed to do that. That is why it is  
important to be rigorous there too.


Bruno






Cheers
Telmo.


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex Allen   
wrote:
Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.   
Axioms and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice  
versa.  Consciousness comes before everything else.


It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.  However,  
what consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self- 
evident.  Further, what any particular conscious experience “means”  
is also not self-evident.


For example:  The experience of color is directly known and  
incontrovertible.  But what the experience of color *means* is not  
directly known - any proposed explanation is inferential and  
controvertible.


We do not have direct access to meaning.

We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.

So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside  
(i.e., objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness,  
by conscious processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.


Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based  
entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning,  
and arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in  
intrinsic meaning.


It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are  
what they are.  And what else do we have other than the way things  
“seem”?  I experience what I experience - nothing further can be  
known.


HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t.

For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting,  
believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied  
conscious experiences just keep piling up.


Why is this?

Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it  
just a brute fact that has no explanation.

Re: Manifesto Rex



On 20 Jan 2015, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

We need not transcend Darwinism. Darwin doesn't explain the entire  
universe, but much of it rather successfully, perhaps as Lee Smolin  
indicates, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc as well? My interest  
and guess is that QI, and other such matters are based, deep, down,  
upon the knowledge of Digital Physics and Philosophy. Digi seems to  
rationally explain things.


Digi mind explains things, but it entails non-digi matter a priori, or  
the need to explain digi matter in case matter is digi, but this does  
not seem to be entirely the case: the continuum lurks even in quantum  
mechanics.


I agree that we have to transcend Darwinism (to explain the origin of  
matter), but that is not a problem, as the universal machine is a  
champion in the task of transcending above what she can saw. We don't  
need to add anything above the machine's interview, just listen to the  
machine and taken her seriously enough.


Bruno





-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Jan 20, 2015 7:43 am
Subject: Re: Manifesto Rex

Hi Rex,

Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been  
thinking about, along these lines (I believe).


It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that  
are prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently  
rejected as lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc.


These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we  
are not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal  
because time itself is a dream. That there is only one consciousness  
and we are all fundamentally the same entity, from the amoeba on.  
Quantum immortality. This sort of thing. They start with  
consciousness as the brute fact, as you posit.


I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I definitely  
feel a resistance to them.


So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears  
maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less  
preoccupied with survival and reproduction. So it's not so  
surprising that we evolved to reject such ideas but this leads to a  
terrible doubt: can we trust ourselves to do science?


Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct*  
behind nerds and geeks being bullied.


A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the  
future, if we transcend Darwinism.


Cheers
Telmo.


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex Allen   
wrote:
Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.   
Axioms and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice  
versa.  Consciousness comes before everything else.


It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.  However,  
what consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self- 
evident.  Further, what any particular conscious experience “means”  
is also not self-evident.


For example:  The experience of color is directly known and  
incontrovertible.  But what the experience of color *means* is not  
directly known - any proposed explanation is inferential and  
controvertible.


We do not have direct access to meaning.

We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.

So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside  
(i.e., objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness,  
by conscious processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.


Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based  
entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning,  
and arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in  
intrinsic meaning.


It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are  
what they are.  And what else do we have other than the way things  
“seem”?  I experience what I experience - nothing further can be  
known.


HOWEVER - while we could just stop there - most of us don’t.

For most of us, it seems that non-accepting, questioning, doubting,  
believing, disbelieving, desiring, grasping, wanting, unsatisfied  
conscious experiences just keep piling up.


Why is this?

Well - it seems like there is either an explanation for this - or it  
just a brute fact that has no explanation.


If there is no explanation, then we should just accept our non- 
acceptance, our non-stoppingness, and let it go.  Or not.  Doesn’t  
matter.


Alternatively, if there is an explanation - then there are two  
options:


The explanation is not accessible to us because our conscious  
experiences do not “point” towards the truth of the way things are.
The explanation is accessible to us, because our conscious  
experiences *do* point towards the truth of the way things are.


Again, if we believe that option 1 is correct, we can just stop.  Or  
not.  It doesn’t matter.


So - let’s *provisionally* assume that option 2 is correct.

I say “provisionally” instead

Re: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-21 Thread meekerdb


On 1/21/2015 10:09 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the universe is a setup 
job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our minds is intentional or 
"we" are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are real and the ride is the 
simulation. I go for that interpretation - that's comp.


ISTM that in comp, computation is fundamental.  Everything true is equally real, just not 
equally fundamental.  All true relations are considered real. Provable relations are both 
real and believed and there are sets of belief that are related so as to constitute the 
consciousness of persons.


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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-21 Thread meekerdb


On 1/21/2015 8:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote:


If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution seems to only 
care about survival and reproduction - not truth.  So how do evolved beings like us 
arrive at a true theory like that?


Because inferring from one thing to another is very useful evolutionarily and inference is 
just preserving the truth of the premises.  The premise will not in general be an 
inference, it will be some direct experience,"I see bear."  But language and inference 
allows us to learn from others and to reason "Bears can't climb trees. Therefore if I 
climb that tree the bear can't get me."


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: Manifesto Rex

2015-01-21 Thread Kim Jones

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen  wrote:
> 
> I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a mathematical 
> universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs about the 
> mathematical nature of the universe.

Under Bruno's neoplatonic framework there is no universe at all. A mathematical 
universe or any kind of universe cannot generate beings. You don't generate 
beings because beings are all that is real (comp). This was, is, and forever 
will be the case. The universe? Just a set of appearances. The Samsara. The 
Maya. It may even "end" one "day" but the beings will presumably still 
be."there". 

The "universe" is what the infinity of numerical relationships look like to 
themselves. Nothing is generating anything. In fact nothing is happening at all 
because there is no time where all of this is "happening". All that exists is 
"possibility". What is possibility? A huge torrent of information in which YOU 
are presumably located as part of the information. That YOU part of the 
information cannot be located in the multiverse due to a factor called First 
Person Indeterminacy. You can only feel you are somewhere, but actually you are 
nowhere all at once, the computations supporting you smeared out over the MV.

The mind that interfaces with your brain presumably filters this down to 
something hugely smaller than the torrent of information corresponding to the 
evolution of the SWE. You only think there is a universe because that's the 
interpretation that evolution has given you algorithms for. But there is much, 
much more - corresponding to all the world (ie particle) histories and the 
whole MWI shebang, Everett etc.

> 
> Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random 
> (i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions lead 
> to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even 
> approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions.

But the laws surely are not random. Laws cannot be random. Look, the universe 
is a setup job. Either we are simulated and the limitation to our minds is 
intentional or "we" are enjoying a ride of some sort where we are real and the 
ride is the simulation. I go for that interpretation - that's comp.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex

That is not what I was thinking, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015  Rex Allen  wrote:
>
> > Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.
>>
>
> That would be consistent with my idea that consciousness is easy but
> intelligence is hard and is the reason Evolution developed animals that
> were conscious of environmental stimuli and could use induction as far back
> as the Cambrian Explosion, but took another 500 million years for Evolution
> to develop animals that could deduce answers to problems by using logic.
>
>   John K Clrk
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 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: Manifesto Rex

I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature of the universe.

Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random
(i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions
lead to the development of beings who are then able to correctly (or even
approximately) discover those physical laws and initial conditions.

If we say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is true - this is a problem, since evolution
seems to only care about survival and reproduction - not truth.  So how do
evolved beings like us arrive at a true theory like that?

However - if we only say that GR+QFT+IC+Evo is *useful* (and not true) -
this is more consistent - since it also predicts that evolved beings will
develop useful (i.e., survival-enabling) theories.

Rex


On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
wrote:

> I used to think that way. If you examine previous posts, you will see my
> posts reasoning along these natural-selection lines (evolution is a very
> very bad name for natural selection).
>
> But now I think that this is incomplete. More or less your point of view
> is similar to the Konrad Lorentz when he said that  natural selection is
> what introduces the Kantian a prioris in the mind since evolution makes the
> mind. Kant is famous for positing synthetic a priory truths that are self
> evident and toward which we can not create any simpler explanation.
>
> You are following the Kantian lines, that are part of the folk metaphysics
> of today: There are an external reality that is inaccessible to us, and
> that external reality is the "True Reality". Kant called phenomena what we
> observe and the external inaccessible reality is what Kant call noumena.
> Only by means of experimentation on phenomena we can known something about
> the true external reality . The results are scientific models and theories.
> Internally there are only subjective things : feelings, values etc. Only
> what is objectivated by science are facts. the subjective gain objective
> status by means of science or direct shared observation. Since internal
> states are not observable, this positivistic metaphisics despise all of
> this, including metaphysincs. So it is self reinforcing and self
> contradictory at the same time.
>
> But I think that this is not that way.  the noumenal external reality does
> not exist. the reality is in the mind. The external reality is purely
> mathematical an evolution creates the conscious experiences, the values,
> feelings and perceptions  (including tacticle and visual) necessary to
> maintain the body in this mathematical four dimensional reality along the
> time dimension.
>
> Then there are no two realities but a single meaningful one, that is
> mental. and the models are the true external reality or an approximation to
> it, that is mathematical. we share almost identical internal realities
> because we share the same mind functional architecture.
>
> But there is more. QM and GR are not the only mathematical structures out
> there. Both need other mathematical structures to work  and the space time
> generate other structures along the time dimension,seen locally as
> evolution: it generates structures that are in the physiology of living and
> non living beings but also in the mind of inteligent beings. It could be
> said that a perfect mind is also a mathematical structure toward which our
> mind is evolving. natural selection does not produce arbitrary forms, but
> optimize designs close to an optimum of efficiency and simplicity for a
> task, many times in ways that apparently look weird but other times are
> very clear. there are mathematical relations in living beings.
>
> In terms of behaviours, there are also mathematical relations in game
> theory that may be used in the future to relate love, goodness, evil and so
> on to mathematical entities, and degrees of good and evil in terms of
> variations of entropy. Being will be also something objectivable
> mathematically in the future. I think that a notion of mind or soul, can be
> also a ideal mathematical structure towards which our evolved minds try to
> imitate in his evolved imperfection, in the same way that by convergent
> evolution the fin of a dolphin and a shark tend to the same ideal dorsal
> fin. And this Mind really encloses not phisically, but mathematically, the
> universe and we are part of it and this Mind is the ultimate reality. It is
> not an evolved mind but a "mathematical" one in the platonic sense but also
> in the same way that we are not maths, but math is our model, He is not
> only that.
>
> 2015-01-20 3:33 GMT+01:00 Rex Allen :
>
>> Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.  Axioms and
>> logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa.  Consciousness
>> comes before everything else.
>>
>> It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.

Re: Manifesto Rex

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Telmo,
>>
>> Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
>>
>
> No.
>
>
>>
>> My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to
>> it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian division of reality into
>> phenomenal and noumenal realms.
>>
>
> Yes, I think I got your point. You could say that the Plato's cave becomes
> a metaphor for being stuck inside survival machinery, and not necessarily
> truth-seeking machinery, no?
>

Basically correct, yes.

Though it might be better to say that we *are* survival machinery, instead
of just being stuck inside of survival machinery.

In that we can't act against our evolved nature.

>
>
>>
>> We are entities whose consciousnesses are shaped only with an eye towards
>> what promotes survival and reproduction.  Consciousness isn't the least
>> concerned with truth - only with usefulness.
>>
>
> But here I feel you contradict your initial point of "starting from
> consciousness", because you seem to implicitly assume that consciousness
> emerges from matter. I would have no problem if you replaced
> "consciousness" with "brain" in the above sentences.
>

I am kind of thinking that our conceptions of both matter *and*
consciousness are artifacts of our evolutionary history.  Neither is
"true".

Or, if either conception does happen correspond to the way things are, then
it is just due to luck circumstances - in that blind evolution forced us to
that view.

Rex

>
>
>>
>> Maybe this explains many of the conundrums that are pondered in this
>> group.
>>
>> If you completely discard the concept of "truth" and replace it entirely
>> with "evolutionary usefulness" - does that change anything?
>>
>
> I think it might. For example, suppose we all share the same
> consciousness. It is evolutionary useful to maintain the illusion that this
> is not the case (thus my previous rant).
>
> Telmo.
>
>
>>
>> Rex
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Telmo Menezes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rex,
>>>
>>> Interesting read. I will just start with something I've been thinking
>>> about, along these lines (I believe).
>>>
>>> It is interesting that there are a number of models of reality that are
>>> prima facie as plausible as any other but are more consistently rejected as
>>> lunacy, woo, new-age-mambo-jambo, etc.
>>>
>>> These models tend to have something in common: they suggest that we are
>>> not what we appear to be, that we are not mortal or immortal because time
>>> itself is a dream. That there is only one consciousness and we are all
>>> fundamentally the same entity, from the amoeba on. Quantum immortality.
>>> This sort of thing. They start with consciousness as the brute fact, as you
>>> posit.
>>>
>>> I have no intellectual reason to reject such ideas, but I definitely
>>> feel a resistance to them.
>>>
>>> So it also occurred to me that believing in such things appears
>>> maladaptive. Intuitively, such beliefs may lead you to be less preoccupied
>>> with survival and reproduction. So it's not so surprising that we evolved
>>> to reject such ideas but this leads to a terrible doubt: can we trust
>>> ourselves to do science?
>>>
>>> Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct*
>>> behind nerds and geeks being bullied.
>>>
>>> A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the
>>> future, if we transcend Darwinism.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex Allen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Consciousness precedes axioms.  Consciousness precedes logic.  Axioms
 and logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa.
 Consciousness comes before everything else.

 It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences.  However, what
 consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is not self-evident.  Further,
 what any particular conscious experience “means” is also not self-evident.

 For example:  The experience of color is directly known and
 incontrovertible.  But what the experience of color *means* is not directly
 known - any proposed explanation is inferential and controvertible.

 We do not have direct access to meaning.

 We only have direct access to bare uninterpreted conscious experience.

 So - any attempted explanation of consciousness from the outside (i.e.,
 objectively) must be constructed from inside consciousness, by conscious
 processes, on a foundation of conscious experience.

 Not a promising situation - because any explanation must be based
 entirely on conscious experiences which have no intrinsic meaning, and
 arrived at via conscious processes which are equally lacking in intrinsic
 meaning.

 It “seems” like we could just stop here and accept that things are what
 they are.  And what else do we have other than the way things “

Re: Manifesto Rex