Exciting Updates on Mind Uploading Technology

[John Clark]

Exciting Updates on Mind Uploading Technology
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMOvKBaBf2s>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
35v

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2x1TOfOBFnrNnK0M05BcaZJT2fuh1BSjx%3DggHTSTotyw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 May 2018, at 22:42, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​> ​You invoke your God “Matter”
> 
> ​Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before.​ 

You did. By God I mean a supernatural force capable of doing magical things. 
That is how you are using the primary universe (often called the Second God of 
Aristotle) constantly to avoid the mechanist logical consequence. You seem to 
believe that a Physical Universe, is able to select what computation is felt pr 
not felt, or real or not real, among the computations emulated in arithmetic. 
That requires magic, of a sort not available when we assume mechanism.


>  
> ​> ​to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis.
> 
> The consequence of the physics is more fundamental hypothesis is that we'd 
> expect to find lots of examples of physics doing mathematics but no examples 
> of mathematics doing physics, and that is exactly precisely what we do in 
> fact see.  


You have clairvoyance?

Primary matter is a concept in metaphysics. You identify physics and 
physicalism: that is begging the question by providing the answer, and then 
finding confirmation, and not listening to the debunking.





>> ​>​>>​ ​It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the 
>> quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with 
>> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all 
>> computations, not just the quantum one. 
>> 
>> ​​>> ​I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does 
>> either.​
> 
> ​> ​Yes, OK. I summed up what follows from after step 3. 
> 
> Then that is yet another good reason for me to have stopped reading after you 
> couldn't defend step 3 by answer even the simplest questions about it; 
> apparently things get even more incoherent after that point, not that it 
> matters, if step 3 is wrong then step 4, whatever it may be, is irrelevant.   
> ​ 


You have made unintelligible statements, or just drop the necessary nuances 
brought by the existence of self-duplication until now.

If you have a new argument state it. But the last one where shown invalid.




> 
> ​​>> ​Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all 
> these years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines.​
> 
> ​> ​Those two lines have made some people building LISP machines already.
> 
> ​Every single LISP machine in existence is made of atoms that obey the laws 
> of physics.


In your theory, shown inconsistent with computationalism.

Bruno



> There are no exceptions.​ 
> 
> ​>> ​to do that you need physics.
> 
> ​> ​In your theory. But then you should not say yes to a future “doctor” as 
> you did. I’m afraid you are inconsistent.
> 
> ​I said I am the way atoms behave when they are organized in a ​Johnkclarkian 
> way, and I said physics is more fundamental than mathematics. Where in the 
> world is the inconsistency in that? 
> 
> ​>> ​you need INTEL's microchips. ​
> 
> ​> ​They would not exist if their cousins were not discovered before (in 
> arithmetic, combinator logic, etc.).
> 
> ​I agree, humans need the language of mathematics to help them understand 
> whats going on at the physical level so they can make the chips. But the 
> question I keep asking and you are unable to answer is if mathematics is more 
> fundamental than physics why do INTEL microchips even NEED to exist?  
>  
> ​> ​You say a truism: to get a universal physical number, we need the 
> physical.
> 
>  I have no idea what a "universal physical number" is and I doubt anybody 
> other than you does either but never mind, whatever it means you just 
> admitted physics can do something that mathematics can't.
>   
> Why would any book be able to do a computation?
> 
> ​You tell me!! Every time I say pure mathematics can't calculate anything you 
> say some textbook is a counterexample to my claim. ​ 
>  
> ​> ​if you succeed in understanding the chapter 4 of the Davis book​ ​​you 
> would understand that​ [...]​
> 
> ​... ​chapter 4 of the Davis book​ can't calculate one damn thing
> 
>  ​> ​you have to describe me the “physical oracle”
> 
> ​Oh it would be easy to describe one, its a small rectangular box and you may 
> have one in your pocket right now, its called a "iPhone".
>   
> ​> ​You just impose your god ​[...] ​In your religion.​ [...] ​You invoke 
> your God “Matter”
> 
> ​Bruno, you really need to get some fresh material, ​I humbly suggest "1001 
> insults and put-downs", its only $9.95 on Amazon:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Insults-Put-Downs-Comebacks-Steven-Price/dp/1599210738 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> You invoke your God “Matter”
>

​Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before.​



> ​> ​
> to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis.
>

The consequence of the physics is more fundamental hypothesis is that we'd
expect to find lots of examples of physics doing mathematics but no
examples of mathematics doing physics, and that is exactly precisely what
we do in fact see.

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> *​**It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have
>>> the quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with
>>> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all
>>> computations, not just the quantum one. *
>>
>>
>> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does either.​
>
> ​> *​*
> *Yes, OK. I summed up what follows from after step 3. *
>

Then that is yet another good reason for me to have stopped reading after
you couldn't defend step 3 by answer even the simplest questions about it;
apparently things get even more incoherent after that point, not that it
matters, if step 3 is wrong then step 4, whatever it may be, is irrelevant.
  ​


​
>> ​>> ​
>> Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all these
>> years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines.​
>
>
> ​> ​
> *Those two lines have made some people building LISP machines already.*
>

​Every single LISP machine in existence is made of atoms that obey the laws
of physics. There are no exceptions.​


​>> ​
>> to do that you need physics.
>
>
> *​> ​In your theory. But then you should not say yes to a future “doctor”
> as you did. I’m afraid you are inconsistent.*
>

​I said I am the way atoms behave when they are organized in a
​Johnkclarkian way, and I said physics is more fundamental than
mathematics. Where in the world is the inconsistency in that?

​>> ​
>> you need INTEL's microchips. ​
>
>
> ​> ​
> *They would not exist if their cousins were not discovered before (in
> arithmetic, combinator logic, etc.).*
>

​
I agree, humans need the language of mathematics to help them understand
whats going on at the physical level so they can make the chips. But the
question I keep asking and you are unable to answer is if mathematics is
more fundamental than physics why do INTEL microchips even *NEED* to exist?



> ​> ​
> You say a truism: to get a universal physical number, we need the physical.
>

 I have no idea what a "universal physical number" is and I doubt anybody
other than you does either but never mind, whatever it means you just
admitted physics can do something that mathematics can't.


> Why would any book be able to do a computation?
>

​You tell me!! Every time I say pure mathematics can't calculate anything
you say some textbook is a counterexample to my claim. ​



> ​> ​
> if you succeed in understanding the chapter 4 of the Davis book
> ​ ​
> ​
> you would understand that
> ​ [...]​
>

​... ​
chapter 4 of the Davis book
​ can't calculate one damn thing


> ​> ​
> *you have to describe me the “physical oracle”*


​
Oh it would be easy to describe one, its a small rectangular box and you
may have one in your pocket right now, its called a "iPhone".


> ​> ​
> *You just impose your god*
> ​[...]
> ​
> *In your religion.*
> *​* [...] ​
> *You invoke your God “Matter”*
>

​Bruno, you really need to get some fresh material, ​I humbly suggest "1001
insults and put-downs", its only $9.95 on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Insults-Put-Downs-Comebacks-Steven-Price/dp/1599210738



 John K Clark








>

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 May 2018, at 00:28, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
> ​> ​Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation.
> 
> I don't need Peano or Plato to know that computations exist because I can 
> produce one right now, 2+2=4; but then unlike stuff in Plato's mystical 
> universe I am made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.


I don’t need Plato’s mystical universe. I need only very elementary arithmetic 
to get all computations emulated.

You are the one invoking a supplementary assumption that there is some mystical 
primary stuff capable of disrupting the “consciousness flux” that the (sigma_1) 
arithmetical reality determines.

You invoke your God “Matter” to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis.



> 
> ​> ​It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the 
> quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with 
> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all 
> computations, not just the quantum one. 
> 
> ​I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does either.​

Yes, OK. I summed up what follows from after step 3. 



>  
> 
> ​> ​Study the first chapter of Martin Davis
> 
> 
> Only if the first chapter of Martin Davis's book can calculate 2+2 as well as 
> I just did.
> 
> ​> ​Sometimes I have the feeling that you take for granted a physical 
> ontology, but that is automatically doubtful once you understand that the 
> notion of computation does not require any physical assumption. In fact K, S 
> and the combination (x y): (K K) …(S S), ((K K) K) ((K K) S), … with only the 
> two laws
> 
> ((K x) y) = x
> (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))
> 
> Is enough.
> 
> ​Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all these 
> years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines.​ 


Those two lines have made some people building LISP machines already. Your 
remarks are distracting and non relevant for the logical point.




>  
> ​> ​(3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is either true or false independently of 
> you verifying this or not.
> 
> I agree, but verifying is what calculation is all about,

Good inside. The whole point of Gödel-… Kleene is that the numbers can do those 
verifications, they are called “programs” or “digital machine”, and the notion 
of “doing by a universal machine” is explained entirely in term of any 
elementary universal system, and it happens that elementary arithmetic, without 
the induction axioms is such a system. Those axioms are used by all physical 
theories. I explain that if you assume mechanism, we have the task assume much 
less than usual, and to retrieve the physical from a statistics defined 
internally by the universal machine.

You just make fun of mathematical logic and computer science.





> and to do that you need physics.

In your theory. But then you should not say yes to a future “doctor” as you 
did. I’m afraid you are inconsistent.




> And that's why I say physics is more fundamental than mathematics, physics 
> can do math but math can't do physics.​

Only because you ignore the history of the universal machine. You just impose 
your god by mocking those who are skeptical.



> Correct calculations are not the only things that exist, incorrect ones do 
> too, to sort the correct from the incorrect you need physics,


In your religion.




> you need INTEL's microchips. ​

They would not exist if their cousins were not discovered before (in 
arithmetic, combinator logic, etc.).

You say a truism: to get a universal physical number, we need the physical. No 
one doubt this. It is neutral on what will be derived from what.

Everett use mechanism, so it has to justify the quantum universal dovetailing 
from the sum on all dovetailing in arithmetic.

Then I explain my contribution in that direction, and your negative comments 
are not helping.

If you believe that a universal machine can distinguish from its first person 
point of view (without external clues) if she is run by a physical reality or 
an arithmetical reality, you are the one having to explain how the physical can 
do that, and what is it?


>  
> 
> ​> ​You seem also to have a problem to distinguish a description of 
> computation, which also exist in arithmetic, and the fact that participating 
> to some true arithmetical relations, a computation is truly emulated. That 
> confuse syntax and semantic, and is well explained in mathematical logic 
> textbooks.
> 
> And yet, as I've pointed out over and over again and over again. every one of 
> those mathematical logic textbooks would get a big fat F on a first grade 
> arithmetic test because they can't make even the simplest calculation, but if 
> math was more fundamental than physical mechanism and more real as you claim 
> then those books certainly should be able to.

Why would 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 10:42 pm, John Clark  wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>> All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some
>> mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need
>> matter to sort out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the
>> good books from the gibberish
>> ​;​
>> matter in the form of a calculating machine in one case and the author
>> Jorge Luis Borges in the other.
>>
>
> *​> ​In general, yes: it could be said that there is a computation, but it
> is of no use to us. But what if the computation is one that implements a
> virtual world with conscious observers? In that case, it is still of no use
> to us, but I can't see any reason why the consciousness of those observers
> should be dependent on us.*
>

I may be living in a virtual world right now but It makes no difference to
me or to any conscious observer if that's true or not because even if it is
true if we want to make a calculation we're going to have to make use of
matter that obeys the laws of physics, because somewhere down the road our
entire virtual world must be running on a physical computer made of matter.
I maintain it is an undeniable fact that physics can do mathematics, as the
existence of even the simplest calculator proves, but nobody has ever
found a single example of mathematics doing physics, it just can't be
derived from the axioms of pure mathematics. And that is why we
need experiment. From that fact it isn't difficult to conclude physics is
the more fundamental of the two and mathematicians are correct when they
say it is a language. English is a language too but you can't get eggs from
the word "chicken", to get eggs you need about 6.02*10^23 atoms arranged in
a particular way that humans have put into a general category they call
"chicken".

 John K Clark
​

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 10:42 pm, John Clark  wrote:

All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some
> mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need
> matter to sort out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the
> good books from the gibberish
> ​;​
> matter in the form of a calculating machine in one case and the author
> Jorge Luis Borges in the other.
>

In general, yes: it could be said that there is a computation, but it is of
no use to us. But what if the computation is one that implements a virtual
world with conscious observers? In that case, it is still of no use to us,
but I can't see any reason why the consciousness of those observers should
be dependent on us.

>

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation.
>

I don't need Peano or Plato to know that computations exist because I can
produce one right now, 2+2=4; but then unlike stuff in Plato's mystical
universe I am made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.

​> ​
> It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the
> quantum, phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with
> mechanism, we have to to justify the quantum from the sum on all
> computations, not just the quantum one.
>

​I don't have a clue what that means and I doubt anyone else does either.​


​> ​
> Study the first chapter of Martin Davis
>


Only if the first chapter of Martin Davis's book can calculate 2+2 as well
as I just did.

​> ​
> Sometimes I have the feeling that you take for granted a physical
> ontology, but that is automatically doubtful once you understand that the
> notion of computation does not require any physical assumption. In fact K,
> S and the combination (x y): (K K) …(S S), ((K K) K) ((K K) S), … with only
> the two laws
>
> ((K x) y) = x
> (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))
>
> Is enough.
>

​Don't tell me, tell INTEL that they've been wasting their time all these
years making microchips when all they needed was those two lines.​



> ​> ​
> (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is either true or false independently of you
> verifying this or not.
>

I agree, but verifying is what calculation is all about, and to do that you
need physics. And that's why I say physics is more fundamental than
mathematics, physics can do math but math can't do physics.
​ Correct calculations are not the only things that exist, incorrect ones
do too, to sort the correct from the incorrect you need physics, you need
INTEL's microchips. ​


​> ​
> You seem also to have a problem to distinguish a description of
> computation, which also exist in arithmetic, and the fact that
> participating to some true arithmetical relations, a computation is truly
> emulated. That confuse syntax and semantic, and is well explained in
> mathematical logic textbooks.
>

And yet, as I've pointed out over and over again and over again. every one
of those mathematical logic textbooks would get a big fat* F* on a first
grade arithmetic test because they can't make even the simplest
calculation, but if math was more fundamental than physical mechanism and
more real as you claim then those books certainly should be able to. I can
make a calculation because the atoms in my brain are organized in a way
than enables me to do so but the atoms in those textbooks are not.

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 May 2018, at 14:42, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>>​I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.
> 
> ​> ​That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a 
> computation to just exist.
> 
> I don't think so. A random collection of atoms is unlikely to be able to 
> perform a calculation and a random collection of mathematical symbols is 
> unlikely to be a proof of anything. In both cases the interesting part is not 
> the individual atoms or the individual mathematical symbols, it is the way 
> they are organized. That's why I said information is as close as you can get 
> to the traditional religious concept of the soul and still remain within the 
> scientific method. 
>  
>  
> ​> ​If not, where is the problem to accept the facts that not only the 
> arithmetical reality contains all computations,
> 
> All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some mystical 
> Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need matter to sort 
> out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the good books from 
> the gibberish​;​ matter in the form of a calculating machine in one case and 
> the author Jorge Luis Borges in the other.   


The arithmetical relations are not random, and indeed,, they are Turing 
universal. Ypiu don’t need any “mystical platonic universe”, you need only to 
believe in the arithmetical reality, and actually only the sigma_1 reality, 
which is that if a number are some verifiable property it exist a program 
capable of finding it. The set of partial recursive functions is the basic of 
computer science. 

The mechanist hypothesis makes impossible for any universal machine to 
distinguish any computations, below their substitiution level, making any use 
of an ontological physical universe similar to the use of particles by Bohm to 
eliminate the other branches of the wave.

Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation. PA  
proves its own incompleteness relatively to its most probable 
computations/continuations, and the fact that below its level of substitution 
it can see only the map of its undistinguishable continuations, a bit like an 
electronic orbital gives you the place where you can find an electron, and the 
orbital distinguish only the position relevant to first person conservation.

It is not a matter of choice. Everett use mechanism, one we have the quantum, 
phase randomisation explains the white rabbit away, but with mechanism, we have 
to to justify the quantum from the sum on all computations, not just the 
quantum one. 

Study the first chapter of Martin Davis, to get the fact that the notion of 
computation is an arithmetical notion. Like you say, it is the relation which 
counts, and it happens that the (sigma_1) relations can mimic exactly all 
computations, in all programming language, or computer, or 
universal/machine/number/coombiantor...


Sometimes I have the feeling that you take for granted a physical ontology, but 
that is automatically doubtful once you understand that the notion of 
computation does not require any physical assumption. In fact K, S and the 
combination (x y): (K K) …(S S), ((K K) K) ((K K) S), … with only the two laws

((K x) y) = x
(((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))

Is enough.

Don’t add metaphysics where nothing more is asked that the belief that  (3^3) + 
(4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is either true or false independently of you verifying 
this or not.

You seem also to have a problem to distinguish a description of computation, 
which also exist in arithmetic, and the fact that participating to some true 
arithmetical relations, a computation is truly emulated. That confuse syntax 
and semantic, and is well explained in mathematical logic textbooks.

Bruno




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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.
>
>
> ​> ​
> *That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a
> computation to just exist.*
>

I don't think so. A random collection of atoms is unlikely to be able to
perform a calculation and a random collection of mathematical symbols is
unlikely to be a proof of anything. In both cases the interesting part is
not the individual atoms or the individual mathematical symbols, it is the
way they are organized. That's why I said information is as close as you
can get to the traditional religious concept of the soul and still remain
within the scientific method.



> ​>* ​*
> *If not, where is the problem to accept the facts that not only the
> arithmetical reality contains all computations,*
>

All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some
mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need
matter to sort out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the
good books from the gibberish
​;​
matter in the form of a calculating machine in one case and the author
Jorge Luis Borges in the other.

​ John K Clark​




>
>
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 19:52, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, 
 and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
 metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to 
 believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just 
 forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful 
 and precise.
>>> You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from the 
>>> truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.
>> 
>> Where?
>> 
>> You might elaborate. I do not understand.
> 
> The common example is belief in life-after-death, something believed on 
> faith, as all the evidence is against it, but all the hope is for it. 

Mechanism, or even just with QM without collapse, provides more reason to doubt 
that death is a (first person) ending than the contrary. You need a primary 
matter (or a magical god) to sustain a mind-brain identity thesis allowing you 
to end from your first person view.
And that is not hope, but more like terrifying thinking, especially that we 
survive the nearest place from where we die (in the eyes of the others in the 
normal history), making the idea of agony, especially when it is painful, even 
more frightening.

As there is no evidence at all for primary matter, and strong evidences for 
mechanism, the ending conception of death, the “rest in peace” might be the 
wishful thinking. Things might be more subtle than naive materialism wants us 
to believe.





> It was a common idea which Julian Jaynes provides one possible explanation.  
> Plato built a whole morality tale around it.

Plato is vast. Which text are you referring too? 



> 
>> If someone believe anything because it is hope or wishful thinking, that is 
>> blind faith, and has few things to do with faith from evidence, usually 
>> based on adductive induction, which is reasonable by default, but prove 
>> nothing. As long as it works, it is the best option, but we have to remember 
>> that is a theory, a question.
>> 
>> It is the separation of theology from science which makes some people 
>> believing that in science we can prove things about reality, but that is bad 
>> metaphysics. We can’t. We cannot even prove that there is a reality, that is 
>> what the greeks understood in the metaphysical/theological domain. And that 
>> is what the Churches of all kinds want us to forget.
> I agree with that.  But you seem to imply that there is a separate discipline 
> "theology" which can prove there is a reality

Not at all. When theology is done with the scientific method, the notion of 
reality, and its nature, are interrogated, in the form of theoretical 
hypothesis, like materialism, deisme, or the sober Pythagorean arithmeticalism 
(close to the theology of the universal machine), This is done in a precise way 
so that the assumption can be debunked, refuted, and at the least, freely 
discussed around a table and a black board.

The problem is that the God/non-God debate hides the original questions and 
insight: the material reality might be only an appearance growing from a 
simpler reality. That was the debate among the early theologians and spiritual 
inquirers. 

Unfortunately, that debate has been made impossible by the persecution and 
banishing of all -thinkers in that domain, and, as I have lived, still today, a 
non negligeable part of the academicians can just not accept the idea that 
physics is not the fundamental science (actually the physicists are the more 
open minded here: the opposition comes mainly from non-physicists, and 
especially materialist philosophers). We have just not the right to doubt 
primary matter, despite today we have not yet find any evidence for it. Of 
course, the knocking table argument is how some philosophers, like Aristotle, 
identify the matter that we see with the primary matter. But that cannot work 
with mechanism, which has been used by materialist to eliminate the mind-body 
problem, when it can only be used to formulate it. To grasp this, people must 
be familiarised with the original discovery of the notion of computability by 
mathematicians, and which does not rely on any material or physical ontological 
commitment. 




> and tell us about it.  Yet theologians have been nothing but muddled armchair 
> philosophers supporting the political power of organized religions.

That is unfair. Most who have resisted the authoritarians have been burned 
alive or persecuted in one way or another. You forget that theology has not yet 
come back to science since 1500 years. What you call theologian has few things 
to do with the scientific method, although many are not 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 16:26, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> ​>​>>​ ​like most pseudo-religious believers.
>> 
>> ​​>>​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​ 
> 
> ​>​You illustrate that the God/Non-God debate is a trick in between 
> materialist (believer in Aristotle
> 
> Aren't you creative enough to refer to an authority who could at least pass a 
> fourth grade science test?
>  
> ​> ​the original question asked by the Indians and the greeks​  [...] ​ with 
> respect to Aristotle theology 
> 
> ​Well I guess not.​
> 
> ​> ​You illustrate that so called atheists defend the main dogma of the 
> church Matter.
> 
> I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.


That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a computation 
to just exist. If not, where is the problem to accept the facts that not only 
the arithmetical reality contains all computations, but also executes them (in 
the model, not the theory: the execution is semantical, based on the notion of 
truth).

Bruno




> If you’ve seen one hydrogen atom you’ve seen them all, matter only starts to 
> do really interesting stuff when it is organized in certain ways.   
> 
> ​> ​“pseudo-religious believer” is not an insult,
> Then BULLSHIT is not a insult either so stop whining about ad hominem.
> 
> ​> ​Non agnostic atheism is indeed a fake religion​.
> Now you sound like Trump. I'm sorry that was a low blow, you’re not 
> *that* bad. Actually what you say is true, non agnostic atheism is indeed a 
> fake religion, in other words it is not a religion at all.
> 
> 
>  John K Clark​ 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and 
the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to believe 
the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just forget this, and 
wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful and precise.

You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from the 
truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.


Where?

You might elaborate. I do not understand.


The common example is belief in life-after-death, something believed on 
faith, as all the evidence is against it, but all the hope is for it.  
It was a common idea which Julian Jaynes provides one possible 
explanation.  Plato built a whole morality tale around it.



If someone believe anything because it is hope or wishful thinking, that is 
blind faith, and has few things to do with faith from evidence, usually based 
on adductive induction, which is reasonable by default, but prove nothing. As 
long as it works, it is the best option, but we have to remember that is a 
theory, a question.

It is the separation of theology from science which makes some people believing 
that in science we can prove things about reality, but that is bad metaphysics. 
We can’t. We cannot even prove that there is a reality, that is what the greeks 
understood in the metaphysical/theological domain. And that is what the 
Churches of all kinds want us to forget.
I agree with that.  But you seem to imply that there is a separate 
discipline "theology" which can prove there is a reality and tell us 
about it.  Yet theologians have been nothing but muddled armchair 
philosophers supporting the political power of organized religions.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*​>​>>​ ​like most pseudo-religious believers.*
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> ​>>​
>> Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​
>>
>>
>
> *​>​You illustrate that the God/Non-God debate is a trick in between
> materialist (believer in Aristotle*
>

Aren't you creative enough to refer to an authority who could at least pass
a fourth grade science test?


> ​>* ​*
> *the original question asked by the Indians and the greeks​  [...] ​ with
> respect to Aristotle theology *
>

​Well I guess not.​

​> ​
> You illustrate that so called atheists defend the main dogma of the church
> Matter.
>

I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter.
If you’ve seen one hydrogen atom you’ve seen them all, matter only starts
to do really interesting stuff when it is organized in certain ways.

​> *​*
> *“pseudo-religious believer” is not an insult,*
>
Then *BULLSHIT* is not a insult either so stop whining about ad hominem.

> ​>* ​*
> *Non agnostic atheism is indeed a fake religion​.*
>
Now you sound like Trump. I'm sorry that was a low blow, you’re not
*that* bad. Actually what you say is true, non agnostic atheism is indeed a
fake religion, in other words it is not a religion at all.

 John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, 
>> and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
>> metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to 
>> believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just forget 
>> this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful and 
>> precise.
> 
> You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from the 
> truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.


Where?

You might elaborate. I do not understand. If someone believe anything because 
it is hope or wishful thinking, that is blind faith, and has few things to do 
with faith from evidence, usually based on adductive induction, which is 
reasonable by default, but prove nothing. As long as it works, it is the best 
option, but we have to remember that is a theory, a question.

It is the separation of theology from science which makes some people believing 
that in science we can prove things about reality, but that is bad metaphysics. 
We can’t. We cannot even prove that there is a reality, that is what the greeks 
understood in the metaphysical/theological domain. And that is what the 
Churches of all kinds want us to forget.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
> ​> ​You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow,
> No, the sun has risen the next day many billions of times so you can use 
> indiction to conclude it will probably rise tomorrow too, I say probably 
> because induction is not foolproof but it is a very good rule of thumb. But 
> nobody has risen from the dead so you need faith to conclude Jesus rose from 
> the dead. We couldn't operate for 5 minutes without induction, but faith is a 
> vice not a virtue because it makes us stupid. 
> 
> > you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology [...] The difference of 
> > conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is[...] they use 
> > Aristotle theology all the times[...] backtracking to Plato[...]
> Bruno, you are stuck in a rut. For you its Greeks Greeks Greeks 24/7 wall to 
> wall as if the human race hasn’t learned a damn thing in 2500 years. It’s 
> time to move on!
> 
> ​> ​like most pseudo-religious believers.
> 
> ​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​ 

You illustrate that the God/Non-God debate is a trick in between materialist 
(believer in Aristotle primary matter) to hide the original question asked by 
the Indians and the greeks: is there a primary universe?

You illustrate that so called atheists defend the main dogma of the church 
Matter.

You criticise me for referring to the greeks, but you are the one mocking the 
idea that we could come back to reason and change our mind with respect to 
Aristotle theology.

And “pseudo-religious believer” is not an insult, it is the fact that you are 
constantly illustrating very well. I thank you for that. Non agnostic atheism 
is indeed a fake religion, that is a domain of study based on lies and argument 
per authority, mockery, etc.

Bruno




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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope 
for, and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in 
“serious metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need 
already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the 
everyday life we just forget this, and wisely so. Yet in metaphysics 
we have to be more careful and precise.


You forget the faith that distinguishes the falsehoods we hope for from 
the truths we'd rather not believe but which the evidence points to.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​> ​
> You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow,
>
No, the sun has risen the next day many billions of times so you can use
indiction to conclude it will probably rise tomorrow too, I say probably
because induction is not foolproof but it is a very good rule of thumb. But
nobody has risen from the dead so you need faith to conclude Jesus rose
from the dead. We couldn't operate for 5 minutes without induction, but
faith is a vice not a virtue because it makes us stupid.

> > *you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology [...] The difference
> of conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is[...] they use
> Aristotle theology all the times[...] backtracking to Plato[...]*

Bruno, you are stuck in a rut. For you its Greeks Greeks Greeks 24/7 wall
to wall as if the human race hasn’t learned a damn thing in 2500 years.
It’s time to move on!

> *​> ​like most pseudo-religious believers.*


​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​


​ ​
​John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or equivalently 
>> (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the (logical) equation x 
>> <-> ~[]x.
> 
> ?? What does this proof look like? 

?

That is Gödel’s second theorem, axiomatised in G. p is a sentence equivalent 
with its non provability (p <-> ~[]p), and Gödel, already in his 1931 papers 
suggests that this entails that p is equivalent with consistency (<>t).

That has been proved by Hilbert and Bernays later, and generalised and 
simplified by Löb.




> Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ?

? 

That is true for an inconstant theory. (Typo error?).

If the theory is consistent then 

1) t <-> ~[]f(t, not f),

2) but the theory/machine/Löbian-number  cannot prove “1)”.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:41, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. 
>> The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
>> extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can 
>> show old theories to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need some 
>> faith.
> 
> When it's based on evidence, it's not faith.

It is not blind faith. But still faith if the believe pertains on a reality. 
Any belief in a fundamental reality requires faith. Nobody can prove the 
existence of any reality.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
 understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis 
 facts).
>>> 
>>> That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in "Do 
>>> you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can agree on 
>>> facts.  The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to prove that the 
>>> Earth is round to the head of the Flat Earth Society is a cautionary tale 
>>> about that.
>> 
>> Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when 
>> metaphysics is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will not 
>> start with “do you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like
>> 
>> 0 ≠ s(x)
>> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
>> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
>> x+0 = x
>> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>> x*0=0
>> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>> 
>> And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. For 
>> example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, the 
>> teacher, say, will say to wait when they will study an axiomatisation of all 
>> integers, but that today they axiomatise only the non negative integers.
>> 
>> Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when used 
>> informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic method, and 
>> there is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology scientifically, 
>> your own private opinion in the matter is kept silent.
>> 
>> The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that since 
>> 1500 years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical 
>> verification in that field. We tolerate the argument of authority since 
>> long, or we have no choice, or become dissident, etc.
> 
> But a scientific theory does not consist of axioms alone (or even mostly).  
> It must also include interpretations to connect it to observation. 

That is the point under debate. You assume Aristotle theology: that there is 
something to be observed.



> So it is literally meaningless to say you have derived science by an 
> axiomatic method.

I say that if mechanism is correct, very elementary arithmetic is the most that 
we can assume, and the illusion of a physical universe is entirely explain from 
inside, in the mind of the numbers who believes usually more than the axioms, 
in particular, they believe in the axioms + the induction axioms (which do not 
operate at the ontological level).

Bruno 




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 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 https://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 https://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 https://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 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:38, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.
>>> That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.
>> Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood)
> 
> To insert "well understood" is just to repeat the no true Scotsman fallacy.

It was a jokingly way to say that this requires the reading of the greek 
neoplatonist, or the knwoledge of the conclusion of the UD reasoning, or some 
knowledge of G*.

Of course (you know it. You are disingenuous again!

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> makes people recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the 
>> root, for example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G.
>> 
>> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
 forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they 
 take a religion for granted without knowing.
>>> You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
>>> Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think 
>>> material processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter 
>>> is primary, or even have the concept of primary matter.
>> What would be their alternate primitive notions?
> 
> I don't know.  Why should they agree on one.  Maybe they have different ideas 
> or consider it an unanswered question.  If I explain that my car gets energy 
> from burning gasoline are you going to complain that I haven't said what my 
> primitive notion is?


Only if you claim that you car is a theory of mind or of everything. In this 
case, the point is that Dennett and the Churchland are inconsistent.



> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are 
>>> many levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings.
>> But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
>> things existing primitively.
> 
> Maybe.  You believe numbers exist primitively.  So what?  It hasn't helped 
> you explain quarks and electrons.

It explains already two things missed by physicalism:

- it explains why such kind of things seems to exist.

-it provides a precise road to see if those things are persistent.

Physics do not try to do that, very wisely, because it is not physics, but 
metaphysics/theology, which is another field. 

But physicalist does, and I just point out that it cannot work, unless they 
postulate a non computational theory of mind.



>> 
>> 
>>> And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter 
>>> or deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.
>> Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even 
>> say that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed 
>> brain. Not that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non 
>> material.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; 
>>> but you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.
>> Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :
>> 
>> 1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
>> Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
>> matter and matter).
> 
> But it doesn't actually to that.  At best it makes primary matter otiose, and 
> it does so at the cost of making many things exist for which there is no 
> evidence.

Which one?



> 
>> 
>> 2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, 
>> experimental evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for 
>> which there has never been any evidence at all).
> 
> There is a great deal of evidence for materialism. 

?

You confuse (I guess) the evidence for matter, and the evidence for primary 
matter (needed for materialism).



> It has succeeded as the basis for theories that not only explain but also 
> predict almost everything that is explained at all. 

It does not. Physics measures  numbers, and  extrapolate numbers relation, and 
fails to explain the relation with our subjective measuring of those numbers. 
Then with mechanism, I have explained why it *cannot* work at all.




> In contrast Platonism has never successfully predicted anything.  As Sean 
> Carroll put it, "All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on 
> the wall.”


Then we are condemned to live in the shadows, and abandon the goal of 
understanding anything. But I disagree, even the main discoveries in physics 
are based on the idea that there is something beyond the shadows, if only 
mathematical relations.

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 https://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 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:25, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Bruno Marchal > wrote:
> 
> > The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. 
> > The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
> > extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can 
> > show old theories to be wrong. So [...]
> 
> 
> So? If reason doesn’t work how can you have a “so”,


I did not say that reason did not work. Only that it does not work necessarily.




> how can you use reason to reach a conclusion about reason, or a conclusion 
> about anything else? 

By using lucky enough some true premise, but I can only use them as hypothesis.

A scientist who says “I know” is either talking colloquially, or is a con man.



> 
> 
>  > when applying a theory, we need some faith.
>  
> A tentative scientific hypothesis has as much to do with faith as an 
> amorphous grey vague blog has to do with God. You like the word “faith” 
> because you know your opponents don’t like it,

Procès d’intention.

Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and 
the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious 
metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to believe 
the sun will rise tomorrow, but in the everyday life we just forget this, and 
wisely so. Yet in metaphysics we have to be more careful and precise.



> and you like the sound of the word “God” even though you don’t believe in the 
> concept the word symbolizes.  And none of the ignorant Greeks who have been 
> dead for thousands of years and would flunk a forth grade science test can 
> change that fact.  

That explains why you are unable to think out of Aristotle theology, which you 
take for granted, like most pseudo-religious believers. 

The difference of conception of reality between Aristotle and Plato is the main 
fundamental metaphysical divide, but since theology has been taken back from 
science, most scientists are no more ware that they use Aristotle theology all 
the times, even when the facts accumulates against it, both with cognitive 
science and physics. Without backtracking to Plato, its normal to get lost in 
theological delusion.

If you believe in primary matter, and in mechanism, you are inconsistent. You 
might also try to provide just one evidence in favour of primary matter.

Bruno





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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or 
equivalently (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the 
(logical) equation x <-> ~[]x.


?? What does this proof look like?  Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ?

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be 
false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local 
extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence 
can show old theories to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need 
some faith.


When it's based on evidence, it's not faith.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis 
facts).


That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in 
"Do you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can 
agree on facts.  The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to 
prove that the Earth is round to the head of the Flat Earth Society 
is a cautionary tale about that.


Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when 
metaphysics is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will 
not start with “do you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. 
For example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, 
the teacher, say, will say to wait when they will study an 
axiomatisation of all integers, but that today they axiomatise only 
the non negative integers.


Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when 
used informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic 
method, and there is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology 
scientifically, your own private opinion in the matter is kept silent.


The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that 
since 1500 years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical 
verification in that field. We tolerate the argument of authority 
since long, or we have no choice, or become dissident, etc.


But a scientific theory does not consist of axioms alone (or even 
mostly).  It must also include interpretations to connect it to 
observation.  So it is literally meaningless to say you have derived 
science by an axiomatic method.


Brent



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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.

That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.

Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood)


To insert "well understood" is just to repeat the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Brent


makes people recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the 
root, for example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G.

Bruno


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a 
religion for granted without knowing.

You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think material 
processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter is primary, 
or even have the concept of primary matter.

What would be their alternate primitive notions?


I don't know.  Why should they agree on one.  Maybe they have different 
ideas or consider it an unanswered question.  If I explain that my car 
gets energy from burning gasoline are you going to complain that I 
haven't said what my primitive notion is?








They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are many 
levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings.

But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
things existing primitively.


Maybe.  You believe numbers exist primitively.  So what?  It hasn't 
helped you explain quarks and electrons.




And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter or 
deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.

Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even say 
that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed brain. Not 
that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non material.




So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; but 
you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.

Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :

1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
matter and matter).


But it doesn't actually to that.  At best it makes primary matter 
otiose, and it does so at the cost of making many things exist for which 
there is no evidence.




2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, experimental 
evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for which there has 
never been any evidence at all).


There is a great deal of evidence for materialism.  It has succeeded as 
the basis for theories that not only explain but also predict almost 
everything that is explained at all.  In contrast Platonism has never 
successfully predicted anything.  As Sean Carroll put it, "All human 
progress has been made by studying the shadows on the wall."


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

Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >* The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be
> false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local
> extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can
> show old theories to be wrong. So [...]*



So? If reason doesn’t work how can you have a “so”, how can you use reason
to reach a conclusion about reason, or a conclusion about anything else?


* > when applying a theory, we need some faith.*


A tentative scientific hypothesis has as much to do with faith as an
amorphous grey vague blog has to do with God. You like the word “faith”
because you know your opponents don’t like it, and you like the sound of
the word “God” even though you don’t believe in the concept the word
symbolizes.  And none of the ignorant Greeks who have been dead for
thousands of years and would flunk a forth grade science test can change
that fact.


 John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> [Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming 
> unusable]
> 
> On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>> Hi Telmo,
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bruno,
>> 
>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will
>> influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second
>> God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches
>> which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being
>> burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological
>> secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>> 
>> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of
>> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of
>> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we
>> found the second lost part!).
>> 
>> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted,
>> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi
>> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived
>> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible
>> Enlightenment.
>> 
>> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to
>> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
>> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the
>> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method
>> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and
>> I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>> 
>> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created
>> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will
>> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid
>> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking
>> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of
>> research.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>> 
>> 
>> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of
>> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive
>> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that
>> class. No universal machine!
>> 
>> 
>> I agree, but it is sold as one.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my
>> country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is
>> weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who
>> just want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>> 
>> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the
>> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the
>> eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic
>> and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist
>> theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect
>> to burning at stake.
>> 
>> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent
>> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on.
>> 
>> 
>> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was
>> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole
>> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the
>> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of
>> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of
>> the notion of “Whole”.
>> 
>> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the
>> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus
>> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in
>> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong
>> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after
>> I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 00:39, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>  >> “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”
> 
> > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by reason,
> 
> 
> ​If the belief comes through reason then what does faith have to do with it?
> 


Cannot suppress that blanc. Sorry. 

The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. The 
belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local extrapolation. 
Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can show old theories 
to be wrong. So, when applying a theory, we need some faith. The high diploma 
of an engineers does not prevent a machine to crash.

Bruno

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of 
>> understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts).
> 
> That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in "Do you 
> believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can agree on facts.  
> The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to prove that the Earth is 
> round to the head of the Flat Earth Society is a cautionary tale about that.

Only when we bet that there is reality, which is science only when metaphysics 
is done with the scientific method, but the scientist will not start with “do 
you believe that 2+2=4”. He will give some axioms, like

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

And make reasoning from that, without addressing question of belief. For 
example, if someone say that he disagrees with the third axioms, the teacher, 
say, will say to wait when they will study an axiomatisation of all integers, 
but that today they axiomatise only the non negative integers.

Now, we can agree or disagree on the applicability of a theory, when used 
informally. But in “serious theology”, we use the axiomatic method, and there 
is no disagreement possible, as when you do theology scientifically, your own 
private opinion in the matter is kept silent.

The contemporary disagreement in theology just comes the fact that since 1500 
years, we are just not allowed to use reason and methodical verification in 
that field. We tolerate the argument of authority since long, or we have no 
choice, or become dissident, etc.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.
> 
> That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.

Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well understood) makes people 
recognising themselves into the other, cutting jealousy at the root, for 
example. But you are partially right, as this belong to G* minus G. 

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> That's confused.  Values are not objective facts and nobody (including 
>>> militant atheists) thinks they are.  Values, like loving your children, are 
>>> inherently subjective.
>> Subjective does not mean it has no intrinsic values, 
> 
> That's my point.  All values are subjective.  They are all relative to 
> someone holding them.

That is the case for all belief, be it on matter, mind, people, number, etc. So 
let us put them on a table, and call them hypothesis or theories, and let us 
doing the tests.



> 
>> like self-preservation and harmony with the neighbourhood. Everyone agrees 
>> on good and bad in most case. Everyone prefer to drink water to being boiled 
>> aliv
> 
> Actually that's probably not true.  We all know of people who have immolated 
> themselves.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/20/david-buckel-lgbt-lawyer-self-immolation-new-york
>  
> 

Yes, and there is country where hundreds of woman have immolated themselves, 
and those who survived and confirmed a speculation I did from mechanism: it 
feels not bad, when they burned, only when they re-try to survive at the 
hospital did the burns skin becomes extremely painful. But that hardly change 
the point.



> 
> So whether some one prefers drinking water to being boiled alive probably 
> depends on the consequences of the alternatives.
> 
> But I agree there is no sharp division between subjective and objective.  
> Even in physics 'facts' tend to boil down to what all informed persons agree 
> on.

OK. With mechanism, we need not toagree more than what we get in primary school 
in math, then we can explain how the physical reality is a subjective plural 
number’s mind construction, in a verifiable way, and up to now it fits. 
This annoyed only the people dogmatic on (primitive) matter, which is weird 
given that I show that the (primitive) matter hypothesis to be testable (and 
well not favoured by the early testing (quantum mechanics).

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
>> forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take 
>> a religion for granted without knowing.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical opponents.  
> Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil Seth think 
> material processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean they think matter 
> is primary, or even have the concept of primary matter. 

What would be their alternate primitive notions? 




> They are generally referring to matter like brains and computers which are 
> many levels of composition above quarks, electrons, or strings. 

But they believe that those electron exist primitively, or are composed of 
things existing primitively. 


> And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of worshiping matter or 
> deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.  

Yes. But we discuss in the metaphysical or theological science. Denote even say 
that physics has no conceptual problem, and his own theory assumed brain. Not 
that brain could be a number illusion or comes from anything non material. 



> So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of fundamentalism; but 
> you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.

Not at all. I do not even claim that mechanism is true. Only :

1) that mechanism entails Theology of Plato and refute the theology of 
Aristotle (the belief in primary matter, or the confusion between primary 
matter and matter).

2) as mechanism entails a quantum many-histories type of reality, experimental 
evidences favours mechanism (immaterialism) on materialism (for which there has 
never been any evidence at all).

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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Which is the opposite of economy. And it destroys us. Th fault is neither in 
>> money, nor in democracies, and the only thing we need to do is to re-intsall 
>> the free market.
> 
> A common piece of conservative religious dogma in the U.S.

Then those conservatives if they exist, would never allowed prohibition, which 
is the technic to bypass the monopoly rules and to make the free market 
disappearing.

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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 22:55, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Mono-theism is monism: the idea that the reality is ONE, and thus points 
>> toward universality. It is a good thing as long as dogma are not imposed.
> 
> monotheism n. The doctrine that there is exactly on personal God and that he 
> ought to be worshiped.
> 
> monoism n. in general any doctrine affirming the unity or the uniqueness of 
> its subject matter, in contrast to dualism and pluralism.
> 
> The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Thomas Mautner, 2000



OK, but that distinction is only a reflect of having separated religion from 
science. As no one, except Samya, defend the the idea of worshipping anything, 
and certainly not the One, nicknamed “God”, as Truth is not definable, like 
Consciousness (provably so with computationalism, and usually accepted by most 
theologians).

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 17:59, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you 
>>> understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion.
> 
> A sufficiently persistent and shared illusion is about as good a reality as 
> you can ask for.

To do physics, or just to live, that is enough of course. Being a 
phenomenological reality does not make it unreal, or the dentist would not use 
anaesthetics, and the computationalist would not send mails, nor even leave his 
bed.

But in (serious) metaphysics we want explain the phenomenologies from the 
assumed ontology.

In greek theology, god exists by definition, and the questions are: is god a 
material reality or is it something else. Should we try to explain Mind from 
Matter? From Matter alone? from matter + something else? or should we tray to 
explain Matter appearance from a theory of Mind? From mathematics?

What I did was to provide a test for this, and the result obtained is twofold:

1) if Indexical Mechanism is correct then the theory of both mind and matter is 
very elementary arithmetic, or anything Turing-equivalent to very elementary 
arithmetic. Physics has to be reduced to number psychology/theology.

2) The logic of the observable extracted from very elementary arithmetic in the 
way prescribed by “1)” is a quantum logic (actually more than one), and no 
empirical discrepancies have been found yet. 

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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

[Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming unusable]

On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> Hi Telmo,
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>
>
> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will
> influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second
> God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches
> which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being
> burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological
> secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>
> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of
> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of
> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we
> found the second lost part!).
>
> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted,
> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi
> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived
> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible
> Enlightenment.
>
> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to
> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the
> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method
> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and
> I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>
> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created
> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will
> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid
> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking
> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of
> research.
>
>
>
>
> I believe the christian
> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
>
> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of
> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive
> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that
> class. No universal machine!
>
>
> I agree, but it is sold as one.
>
>
>
> Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my
> country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is
> weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who
> just want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium.
>
>
>
>
> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>
> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the
> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the
> eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic
> and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist
> theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect
> to burning at stake.
>
> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent
> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>
>
>
>
> Max Weber made a
> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
> and so on.
>
>
> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was
> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole
> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the
> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of
> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of
> the notion of “Whole”.
>
> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the
> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus
> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in
> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong
> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after
> I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed
> by Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative
> hypothesis” from the Parmenides.
>
>
> Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those
> cannot be seen in the light of the culture 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 21 April 2018 at 22:38, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
>>> "theos"=god.
>>> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the
>>> gods.
>>> From
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on
>>> god"
>>> in
>>> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
>>> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike
>>> and
>>> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics,
>>> which,
>>> for
>>> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
>>
>> "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>
>
> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e.
> theology.

 Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
 cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
 tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
 through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
 a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
>>> religions are developed as instruments of social control.
>>
>> You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
>> great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
>> example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
>> Science can help
>> relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
>> angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
>> meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
>> these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
>> not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
>> distilled wisdom of our ancestors.
>>
>>> Originally they
>>> were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents
>>> of
>>> social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
>>> Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the
>>> gods
>>> and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek
>>> religion,
>>> derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
>>> agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
>>> conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
>>> mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
>>> war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all
>>> the
>>> way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".
>>
>>
>> The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
>> the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
>> proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
>> believes that people should be geographically organized according to
>> the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
>> that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
>> social construct.
>
>
> And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free press.
> So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is just to
> choose sides?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. My point is that science is
not enough to build a culture and a civilization, and that when one
tries to reduce everything to science, myth still shows up and
contaminates science itself. Both sides of the above equation are
crazy and destructive.

>>
 Max Weber made a
 better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
 interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
 characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
 and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
 were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica
>>> of
>>> Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".
>>
>> You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
>> that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
>> in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.
>
>
> A religious myth is only 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 >> *“Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”*
>
>
> > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by reason,



​If the belief comes through reason then what does faith have to do with 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding 
or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts).


That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in 
"Do you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is only possible because people can 
agree on facts.  The account of how Alfred Russell Wallace tried to 
prove that the Earth is round to the head of the Flat Earth Society is a 
cautionary tale about that.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans.


That's all the true Scotsman fallacy.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

That's confused.  Values are not objective facts and nobody (including militant 
atheists) thinks they are.  Values, like loving your children, are inherently 
subjective.

Subjective does not mean it has no intrinsic values,


That's my point.  All values are subjective.  They are all relative to 
someone holding them.



like self-preservation and harmony with the neighbourhood. Everyone agrees on 
good and bad in most case. Everyone prefer to drink water to being boiled aliv


Actually that's probably not true.  We all know of people who have 
immolated themselves.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/20/david-buckel-lgbt-lawyer-self-immolation-new-york

So whether some one prefers drinking water to being boiled alive 
probably depends on the consequences of the alternatives.


But I agree there is no sharp division between subjective and 
objective.  Even in physics 'facts' tend to boil down to what all 
informed persons agree on.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a 
religion for granted without knowing.


You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your philosophical 
opponents.  Just because Patricia Churchland or Daniel Dennett and Anil 
Seth think material processes can explain consciousness doesn't mean 
they think matter is primary, or even have the concept of primary 
matter.  They are generally referring to matter like brains and 
computers which are many levels of composition above quarks, electrons, 
or strings.  And every one of them would instantly reject the idea of 
worshiping matter or deriving moral precepts from the Standard Model.  
So "the problem" is in your imagination.  You complain of 
fundamentalism; but you adopt a fundamentalism of computation.


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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Which is the opposite of economy. And it destroys us. Th fault is 
neither in money, nor in democracies, and the only thing we need to do 
is to re-intsall the free market.


A common piece of conservative religious dogma in the U.S.

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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/22/2018 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Mono-theism is monism: the idea that the reality is ONE, and thus 
points toward universality. It is a good thing as long as dogma are 
not imposed.


monotheism n. The doctrine that there is exactly on personal God and 
that he ought to be worshiped.


monoism n. in general any doctrine affirming the unity or the uniqueness 
of its subject matter, in contrast to dualism and pluralism.


The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Thomas Mautner, 2000

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 22:38, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
>>> "theos"=god.
>>> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
>>> From
>>> Wikipedia:
>>> 
>>> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
>>> in
>>> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
>>> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
>>> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
>>> for
>>> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
>> "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
> 
> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
 Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
 cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
 tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
 through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
 a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
>>> religions are developed as instruments of social control.
>> You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
>> great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
>> example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
>> Science can help
>> relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
>> angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
>> meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
>> these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
>> not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
>> distilled wisdom of our ancestors.
>> 
>>> Originally they
>>> were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
>>> social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
>>> Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
>>> and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
>>> derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
>>> agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
>>> conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
>>> mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
>>> war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
>>> way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".
>> 
>> The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
>> the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
>> proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
>> believes that people should be geographically organized according to
>> the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
>> that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
>> social construct.
> 
> And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free press.  
> So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is just to choose 
> sides?

Only bad faith fears reason and free press. 

The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to 
forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a 
religion for granted without knowing.

Platonism was the beginning of the scientific doubt, including in metaphysics. 
Aristotelianism has been the beginning or the coming back top our animal 
intuition: real = visible. For a platonism the visible is what is put in doubt. 
Mathematics is born from this.




> 
>> 
 Max Weber made a
 better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
 interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
 characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
 and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
 were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>>> 
>>> Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica of
>>> Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".
>> You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
>> that says what you just said: that can only 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> 
> > Religions play a multitude of roles. For example to relieve suffering
> With the exception of death itself religion has caused more misery in the 
> world than anything in human history.
> 
> 

Only the institiuonalization of religion. Ad to be sure, that is not clear, as 
science has still progressed by reaction to this, so I doubt we can really be 
sure.




> >  and provide meaning.
> Religion tells us that the meaning of our existence is to flatter God, it 
> does not say what the meaning of God's existence is.
> 
Flattering god was a mean for humans to forces the flattering on themselves. 
Jews and many other religion or spiritual quest warns against that type of 
“blasphemy”, and indeed we see what happens when that is done. But that is no 
more religion than the prohibition of medication is health. Bad people with 
special interest exists, and they use watahever they can like “science” (cg 
genetics in USSR, or the whole science before Renaissance.





>  
> 
> > Science can help relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve 
> > existential angst
> Sure it can, you just need the right chemicals.  
> 
> 

Few chemicals could do that, except salvia perhaps, but that is not clear. 
Magic shrooms helps, but don’t give communicable answers. You continue to talk 
like Aristotelians.




> > I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you 
> > understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. quots
> I don’t know if you said that or Bruno or somebody else, the endless sea of 
> quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes seen on this list has stumped me, but 
> only somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but not the English word 
> “God” would like that definition. I like Mark Twain’s definition of faith:
> 
> 

Counter-example: you. You have attack me as much during the period I call it 
“the One”, or “Tao” than God. God is better because it is substantive, and it 
is used as a nickname for the “one which has no name”, and which is not so far 
away to Plotinus “the Number of the numbers”, or Cantor “collection of all sets 
(which cannot be a set). 

God cannot be studied through a name or a description, but many concept get 
close, like “infinity”. Cantor set theory has been criticised by many 
mathematicians as being “theology”, but Cantor took that as a compliment and a 
deep truth.



> “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”
> 
> 


That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by reason, as we (the 
universal numbers) can understand that there must be some reality transcending 
us.


Bruno




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

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Telmo,


> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bruno,
> 
>>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>>> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>> 
>> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will 
>> influence a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second 
>> God" (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches 
>> which kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being 
>> burned alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological 
>> secret (a theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>> 
>> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of 
>> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of 
>> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we 
>> found the second lost part!).
>> 
>> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, 
>> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi 
>> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived 
>> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible 
>> Enlightenment.
>> 
>> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to 
>> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
>> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the 
>> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method 
>> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and 
>> I would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>> 
>> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created 
>> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will 
>> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid 
>> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking 
>> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of research.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I believe the christian
>>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>> 
>> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of 
>> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive 
>> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that 
>> class. No universal machine!
> 
> I agree, but it is sold as one.


Yes. Indeed. That is why we should just consider them as con man. In my 
country, christians, espcailhy the spiritual one, are aware of this. It is 
weird that the atheists keep defending them all the time against those who just 
want to do science, like it was done, for a millenium.



> 
>> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>> 
>> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the 
>> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the 
>> eyes on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic 
>> and muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist 
>> theology, and often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect 
>> to burning at stake.
>> 
>> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent 
>> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Max Weber made a
>>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>>> and so on.
>> 
>> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was 
>> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole 
>> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the 
>> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of 
>> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of 
>> the notion of “Whole”.
>> 
>> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the 
>> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus 
>> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in 
>> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong 
>> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after 
>> I see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed 
>> by Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative 
>> hypothesis” from the Parmenides.
> 
> Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those
> cannot be seen in the light of the culture created by the 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:



theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,


No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
"theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
From
Wikipedia:

Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...


Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.

Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control.


Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
religions are developed as instruments of social control.

You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
example to relieve suffering and provide meaning.
Science can help
relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
distilled wisdom of our ancestors.


Originally they
were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".


The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
believes that people should be geographically organized according to
the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
social construct.


And both those sides reject empiricism and the importance of a free 
press.  So should we just say they're all equivalent and our choice is 
just to choose sides?





Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.


Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica of
Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".

You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.


A religious myth is only useful in providing comfort, meaning, and order 
if most people subscribe to it.





As Seneca the
younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
  by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."


A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...


Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a sin
worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.

Yes.


But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.

He is pretty upfront about that.


No he's not.  He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's original
"true" meaning.

Yes, he states that the 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> *> Religions play a multitude of roles. For example to relieve suffering*

With the exception of death itself religion has caused more misery in the
world than anything in human history.

> *>  and provide meaning.*

Religion tells us that the meaning of our existence is to flatter God, it
does not say what the meaning of God's existence is.

> *> Science can help relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve
> existential angst*

Sure it can, you just need the right chemicals.

> *> I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you
> understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. quots*

I don’t know if you said that or Bruno or somebody else, the endless sea of
quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes seen on this list has stumped me, but
only somebody who has abandoned the idea of God but not the English word
“God” would like that definition. I like Mark Twain’s definition of faith:

“*Faith is believing what you know ain't so.*”

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you 
understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion.


A sufficiently persistent and shared illusion is about as good a reality 
as you can ask for.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>
>
> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from
> "theos"=god.
> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
> From
> Wikipedia:
>
> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
> in
> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
> for
> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

 "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>>>
>>>
>>> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
>>
>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
>
> Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized
> religions are developed as instruments of social control.

You could say the same about ideologies, but in both cases it is too
great of a simplification. Religions play a multitude of roles. For
example to relieve suffering and provide meaning. Science can help
relieve many types of suffering, but it cannot relieve existential
angst, nor the pain of losing someone you love, nor can it provide
meaning. Of course I am not saying that the correct way to address
these things is to believe in fairy tales, but myth can be helpful if
not taken literally, because myth is also a representation of the
distilled wisdom of our ancestors.

> Originally they
> were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the agents of
> social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations like the
> Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf of the gods
> and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like Greek religion,
> derived from the older animist religions that had different supernatural
> agents acting in different capacities in the world.  The Romans, in their
> conquests, just let local religions keep their gods.  But Judaism had a
> mythology of putting their god above all others...typical of a god of
> war...and later being the only god. Christianity couldn't quite go all the
> way to one god though and invented "The Trinity".


The weaponisation of belief never stops. It's a human tendency. Notice
the cultural wars of the Trump era. Extremism on both sides led to
proto-religions. One side worships a frog and "meme magic" and
believes that people should be geographically organized according to
the color of their skin, the other believes that all men are evil,
that free speech is a trick of the patriarchy and that gender is a
social construct.

>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
>> were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>
>
> Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica of
> Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".

You misunderstand me. What I mean by modern person is exactly someone
that says what you just said: that can only conceive of religious myth
in the context of groups such as the Baptists and ISIS.

> As Seneca the
> younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
>  by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
>
>> A
>> good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
>> that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
>> the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
>> people like John Clark seem to believe...
>
>
> Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a sin
> worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.

Yes.

>>
>>> But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.
>>
>> He is pretty upfront about that.
>
>
> No he's not.  He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's original
> "true" meaning.

Yes, he states that the original meaning is the correct one. I don't
see how you say that 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Bruno,

>> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
>> cultural constructs than the christian god.
>
> Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will influence 
> a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second God" 
> (Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches which 
> kept the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being burned 
> alive, how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological secret (a 
> theorem from G* minus G) I guess!.
>
> The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of 
> 1) theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of 
> Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we 
> found the second lost part!).
>
> Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, 
> like the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi 
> in the Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived 
> n the Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible Enlightenment.
>
> The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to 
> steal the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
> That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the 
> most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method 
> (modesty and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and I 
> would say, especially, in the fundamental questioning).
>
> So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created 
> the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will 
> steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid 
> “blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking 
> Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of research.
>
>
>
>
>> I believe the christian
>> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
>> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
>> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.
>
> That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of 
> total computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive 
> functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that class. 
> No universal machine!

I agree, but it is sold as one.

> It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.
>
> It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the 
> “Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the eyes 
> on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic and 
> muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist theology, and 
> often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect to burning at 
> stake.
>
> It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent 
> event, and we can only hope coming back to reason.
>
>
>
>
>> Max Weber made a
>> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
>> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
>> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
>> and so on.
>
> That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was 
> already monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole 
> (which was very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the 
> one) with the “usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of 
> naming the unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of 
> the notion of “Whole”.
>
> Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the 
> researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus 
> de Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in 
> Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put the two last hypostases in the wrong 
> “chapter”. I like Porphyry but that was wrong!). I got the point only after I 
> see an mention of the five hypostases asserted by Simplicius as proposed by 
> Moderatus of Gades. Moderatus extracted them from the five “affirmative 
> hypothesis” from the Parmenides.

Yes, I am aware. My point with the pagan gods is that even those
cannot be seen in the light of the culture created by the monotheistic
religions.

>> Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
>> were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.
>
> I know that you don’t confuse the popular myth and the theories discussed in 
> Plato Academy, but careful as many do this confusion. To be a theologian at 
> that time, you need a diploma in Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, 
> Arithmetic, Music. Hypatia was both mathematician and theologian, and that 
> was common. She was a great 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:


On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:



theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,


No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
From
Wikipedia:

Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...


Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.

Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control.


Yes, I agree.  Although it wasn't just Christianity.  All organized 
religions are developed as instruments of social control. Originally 
they were at the tribal level and ancestors and tribal totems were the 
agents of social oversight.  When city-states and regional civilizations 
like the Egyptians and Mesopotamians developed the ruler acted on behalf 
of the gods and even became a god on his death.  The polytheisms, like 
Greek religion, derived from the older animist religions that had 
different supernatural agents acting in different capacities in the 
world.  The Romans, in their conquests, just let local religions keep 
their gods.  But Judaism had a mythology of putting their god above all 
others...typical of a god of war...and later being the only god. 
Christianity couldn't quite go all the way to one god though and 
invented "The Trinity".



Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume.


Do you consider Baptists "modern persons"?  Have you visited the replica 
of Noah's Ark in Kentucky?  Is ISIS led by "modern persons".   As Seneca 
the younger observed, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,

 by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."


A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...


Chritianity's emphasis in faith as a cardinal virtue and disbelief as a 
sin worthy of eternal torture certainly had a chilling effect on inquiry.





But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.

He is pretty upfront about that.


No he's not.  He keeps insisting that he's just going back to it's 
original "true" meaning.





If he's
just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics.  But he likes to take
subtle pokes at atheists.

We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly
stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern
atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have
no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue.


"Modern atheism" adds that it's wrong and dangerous to believe silly 
stories, however comforting they may seem.  That belief should always be 
provisional and proportioned to the evidence.





Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism,
but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even
though it entials and infinity of beliefs.

I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, and I
agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter.

More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say,


I agree, and I've learned some modal logic from Bruno.  But I wonder why 
his ideas don't get wider discussion.  I think he should apply for a 
Templeton grant (they'd love him) and speak at the conferences they 
sponsor as well as some of the AI conferences.


Brent


unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other
people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think
you are one of the bullies.

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 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Apr 2018, at 08:50, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
 
 
 
 theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
 
 
 No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
 Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
 From
 Wikipedia:
 
 Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
 in
 the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
 Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
 theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
 for
 Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
>>> 
>>> "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>> 
>> 
>> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.
> 
> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
> cultural constructs than the christian god.

Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will influence a 
lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second God" 
(Aristotle Matter), and the three religions will keep some branches which kept 
the Platonist insight, although often secretly (to avoid being burned alive, 
how to avoid (implicitly) telling a machine’s theological secret (a theorem 
from G* minus G) I guess!.
The jewish and islamic “light” led to the translation of the greeks, both of 1) 
theologian (“The Arabic text “Theology of Aristotle” was a translation of 
Plotinus!) and 2) of the the mathematician, like Diophantus (and recently we 
found the second lost part!).

Those quasi-neoplantonis muslims still exist, but are usually persecuted, like 
the Bektashi Alevi or the Sufis. There are still 60.000 Bektashi Alevi in the 
Balkans. Ibn Arabi has still some influence. Neoplatonis has survived n the 
Middle-East up to the eleventh century, and made possible Enlightenment.

The very idea of separating theology from science is a political means to steal 
the right to ask fundamental questions and to replace it by dogma.
That can make sense during war, or hard period, but the sad fact is that the 
most fundamental science is not yet studied with the scientific method (modesty 
and doubt, nothing is taken as faith, but as hypothesis, even, and I would say, 
especially, in the fundamental questioning).

So it is better to use the term “theology” in the sense of those who created 
the science, and made the reasoning, before being banished by those who will 
steal theology to use it as authoritative argument (and doing an invalid 
“blasphemy” which is invoke the most supreme authority. It is like invoking 
Truth, and the Platonist use “God” as a nickname for the subject of research. 




> I believe the christian
> tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
> through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
> a cultural operating system for large-scale control.

That is not a theory of everything. That is, logically, defining a set of total 
computable functions, like for example the set of primitive recursive 
functions, and declaring heretic anyone building a machine out of that class. 
No universal machine!

It is imposing (fake) security and destroying liberty.

It is “fake” religion, except that like in the Soviet Union, many in the 
“Party” are not dumb, and among the artists and scientists keep open the eyes 
on liberty of thought. So, even today, some theologian among catholic and 
muslims remains very good, and know well the greek neoplatonist theology, and 
often still excommunicated, which is a progress with respect to burning at 
stake. 

It is a will of control, indeed, but that is only an historic contingent event, 
and we can only hope coming back to reason.




> Max Weber made a
> better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
> interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
> characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
> and so on.

That was the popular old greek Gods. But except for the fun, Plato was already 
monist/monotheist, (in many texts) yet without a name for the whole (which was 
very wise), but with the neoplatonist the name comes again (the one) with the 
“usual” sort of comprehension axiom to avoid the paradox of naming the 
unconceivable unnameable. The typical “cantorian” difficulties of the notion of 
“Whole”.

Each time I talk about greek theology, it is about the dialog among the 
researcher on Plato, notably the Middle Platonism, first century: Moderatus de 
Gades, who saw the 5 hypostases (which are explained in the order also in 
Plotinus, but Porphyry cut it and put 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​Ad hominem my ass! Bruno
> 
> ​> ​Try to be polite please. 
> 
> Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more 
> important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that 
> convey a meaning.
>  
>  
> ​> ​You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest,
> 
> Well, I'm interested in not dying just like religious people are I'll give 
> you that, so that's why I signed up with Alcor. I already gave my reasons for 
> saying information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of 
> the soul and still remain within the scientific method and you have never 
> given me a reason to think otherwise.
>  
> ​> ​theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
> 
> TO HELL WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO THE IDIOT GREEKS! Nobody on this list is a 
> idiot Greek because the last one died over 2 thousand years ago, its time to 
> move o
> 
> 
> ​> ​I use “theology” to help people to see​ []
> 
> Bullshit, you don't use that word to help people see anything, you use 
> "theology" as an insult because you know atheist don't like it, and  you use 
> new homemade acronyms and bizarre meanings for common words  and change those 
> meanings from post to post because the clear use of language in describing 
> your ideas would make it obvious to all that they make no sense.   
> 
>  
> ​> ​ Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist, but 
> I don’t know any logicians as such.
> 
> ​If you don't know any fellow logicians how do you know they have no problem 
> with your work?​ 
>  
> ​> ​Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology.
> 
> NO! Not a snowball's chance in hell! It's just bizarre, with beautiful new 
> discoveries being made in science nearly every day your advice to somebody 
> who wants to understand how the world works is to read some dusty old book on 
> pre-christian theology.
> 
> ​> ​Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to 
> Plotinus and Proclus.
> 
> ​I don't give a tinkers dam about ​Plotinus and Proclus​, and with all the 
> fascinating things beings discovered right now why are you wasting your 
> valuable brain cells on relics of a far more ignorant age?  ​
>  
> ​> ​Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism.
> 
> ​Why? So I can count the number of times the Neoplatonists ​​made fools of 
> themselves?​
>  
> ​>> ​In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all,
> 
> ​> ​I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all 
> terms, in any long papers.
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT! I've subscribed to scientific journals for decades and I've never 
> once read an article that starts out by redefining a common word to mean 
> something entirely different from its well known meaning​,​ and the only 
> reason somebody would do such a thing would be as a smoke screen to cover up 
> fuzzy thinking. No respectable scientist would do such a thing and neither 
> would a logician who had intellectual integrity.   
> 
> ​>> ​So physics can do something that mathematics can’t.
> 
> ​> ​Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed 
> universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of 
> materialism.
> 
> I have no idea what your talking about, none at all.
>  
> ​> ​You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3
> 
> ​To hell with your idiotic childish amateurish step 3. I'm never going to 
> read another word of that damn thing until you fix the blunders in the parts 
> I have read.



I suppose there will be soon or later some opportunity that I explain “step 3” 
to Lawrence or Grayson. We will see if they will find your alleged “blunders”, 
and if not, if you can convince them about.

Bruno 





> 
> ​> ​See above.
> 
> ​NO!
> ​ 
> ​> ​Why should a textbook be able to compute?
> You tell me, every time I say calculating 2+2 would be impossible without 
> matter that obeys the laws of physics for some strange reason you start 
> talking about a textbook that tells a story written in the language of 
> mathematics. It would be as if I claimed brooms could fly and as proof I 
> showed you a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. Making up 
> something that can do incredible things is one thing but actually doing it in 
> the real physical world is far far harder because physics is more fundamental 
> than mathematics 
> 
> ​> ​But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can
> 
> ​That would be BIG news to everybody ​in​ Silicon Valley so I just have one 
> question, why aren't you the richest man in the world?  
>  
> ​> ​in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has 
> been used to design physical computers.
> 
> ​I agree, they made the first and best description 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
>>> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.
>>> From
>>> Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god"
>>> in
>>> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
>>> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
>>> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which,
>>> for
>>> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine
>>
>> "with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...
>
>
> Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. theology.

Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different
cultural constructs than the christian god. I believe the christian
tradition is much more interested in creating a "theory of everything"
through religion than the pagans were. Christianism was fashioned into
a cultural operating system for large-scale control. Max Weber made a
better job of describing this than I ever could, for those who are
interested. I think pagan gods were much more akin to cartoon
characters, signifying norms, traditions, ideas, political factions
and so on. Sure, they had their creation myths, but I am not sure they
were taken seriously in the way that a modern person would assume. A
good indication of this is the decrease in intellectual sophistication
that came with the spread of christianity between the roman empire and
the renaissance. Progress is neither monotonic nor linear, unlike what
people like John Clark seem to believe...

> But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 2500yrs.

He is pretty upfront about that.

> If he's
> just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics.  But he likes to take
> subtle pokes at atheists.

We are all atheists here in the sense of "not believing in silly
stories", but it is disingenuous to pretend that this is all modern
atheism is. I hesitate to debate this further, because frankly I have
no patience for all the canned answers that are certain to ensue.

> Notice how he criticizes "faith" in materialism,
> but belief that every integer has a successor is just common sense...even
> though it entials and infinity of beliefs.

I agree with you that Bruno puts too much faith in numbers, and I
agree with Bruno that atheists put too much faith in matter.

More importantly, Bruno has interesting and original things to say,
unlike his bullies here, who are only capable of parroting what other
people with original things to say said. To be clear, I do not think
you are one of the bullies.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:



theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,


No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.  From
Wikipedia:

Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god" in
the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which, for
Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...


Right.  For Aristotle metaphysics was all about the gods, i.e. 
theology.   But Bruno wants it to mean something it hasn't meant in 
2500yrs.  If he's just doing metaphysics he should call it metaphysics.  
But he likes to take subtle pokes at atheists.  Notice how he criticizes 
"faith" in materialism, but belief that every integer has a successor is 
just common sense...even though it entials and infinity of beliefs.


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Telmo Menezes]

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
>
>>
> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>
>
> No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.
> Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.  From
> Wikipedia:
>
> Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on god" in
> the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 18.[14]
> Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, physike and
> theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics, which, for
> Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of the divine

"with the last corresponding roughly to metaphysics"...

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

​> ​
theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,


No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from 
"theos"=god.  Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse 
concerning the gods.  From Wikipedia:

/
//Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning "discourse on 
god" in the fourth century BC by Plato in The Republic, Book ii, Ch. 
18.[14] Aristotle divided theoretical philosophy into mathematike, 
physike and theologike, with the last corresponding roughly to 
metaphysics, which, for Aristotle, included discourse on the nature of 
the divine/


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno
>
>
> ​> ​
> Try to be polite please.
>

Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more
important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that
convey a meaning.



> ​> ​
> You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest,
>

Well, I'm interested in not dying just like religious people are I'll give
you that, so that's why I signed up with Alcor. I already gave my reasons
for saying information is as close as you can get to the traditional
concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method and you
have never given me a reason to think otherwise.


> ​> ​
> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>

TO HELL WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO THE IDIOT GREEKS! Nobody on this list is a
idiot Greek because the last one died over 2 thousand years ago, its time
to move o

​> ​
> I use “theology” to help people to see
> ​ []
>

Bullshit, you don't use that word to help people see anything, you use
"theology" as an insult because you know atheist don't like it, and  you
use new homemade acronyms and bizarre meanings for common words  and change
those meanings from post to post because the clear use of language in
describing your ideas would make it obvious to all that they make no sense.



> ​> ​
>  *Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist,
> but I don’t know any logicians as such.*
>

​If you don't know any fellow logicians how do you know they have no
problem with your work?​



> ​> ​
> Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology.
>

NO! Not a snowball's chance in hell! It's just bizarre, with beautiful new
discoveries being made in science nearly every day your advice to somebody
who wants to understand how the world works is to read some dusty old book
on pre-christian theology.

​> *​*
> *Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to
> Plotinus and Proclus.*
>

​I don't give a tinkers dam about ​
Plotinus and Proclus
​, and with all the fascinating things beings discovered right now why are
you wasting your valuable brain cells on relics of a far more ignorant age?
 ​


> ​> ​
> *Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism.*
>

​Why? So I can count the number of times the Neoplatonists ​
​made fools of themselves?​


> ​>> ​
>> In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all,
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all
> terms, in any long papers.*
>


BULLSHIT! I've subscribed to scientific journals for decades and I've never
once read an article that starts out by redefining a common word to mean
something entirely different from its well known meaning
​,​
 and the only reason somebody would do such a thing would be as a smoke
screen to cover up fuzzy thinking. No respectable scientist would do such a
thing and neither would a logician who had intellectual integrity.

​>> ​
>> So physics can do something that mathematics can’t.
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed
> universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of
> materialism.*
>

I have no idea what your talking about, none at all.


> ​>* ​*
> *You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3*
>

​
To hell with your idiotic childish amateurish step 3. I'm never going to
read another word of that damn thing until you fix the blunders in the
parts I have read.

​> ​
> *See above.*
>

​NO!
​


> ​>* ​*
> *Why should a textbook be able to compute?*
>
You tell me, every time I say calculating 2+2 would be impossible without
matter that obeys the laws of physics for some strange reason you start
talking about a textbook that tells a story written in the language of
mathematics. It would be as if I claimed brooms could fly and as proof I
showed you a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. Making
up something that can do incredible things is one thing but actually doing
it in the real physical world is far far harder because physics is more
fundamental than mathematics

> ​> *​*
> *But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can*
>

​
That would be *BIG* news to everybody
​in​
 Silicon Valley so I just have one question, why aren't you the richest man
in the world?


> ​> ​
> in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has
> been used to design physical computers.
>

​
I agree, they made the first and best description of how to organize matter
that obeys the laws of physics in a way that turns it into a universal
computer, and they made their description in the language best suited for
doing so, mathematics.

​>* ​*
> *I could also reverse the charge: if you believe in primary matter, give
> me just one evidence.*
>

OK, my computer doing mathematics. Now its your turn, show me mathematics
doing my computer. If that's too 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno
>
>
> ​> ​
> Try to be polite please.
>

Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more
important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that
convey a meaning.



> ​> ​
> You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest,
>

Well, I'm interested in not dying just like religious people are I'll give
you that, so that's why I signed up with Alcor. I already gave my reasons
for saying information is as close as you can get to the traditional
concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method and you
have never given me a reason to think otherwise.


> ​> ​
> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks,
>

TO HELL WITH WHAT IT MEANS TO THE IDIOT GREEKS! Nobody on this list is a
idiot Greek because the last one died over 2 thousand years ago, its time
to move o

​> ​
> I use “theology” to help people to see
> ​ []
>

Bullshit, you don't use that word to help people see anything, you use
"theology" as an insult because you know atheist don't like it, and  you
use new homemade acronyms and bizarre meanings for common words  and change
those meanings from post to post because the clear use of language in
describing your ideas would make it obvious to all that they make no sense.



> ​> ​
>  *Logicians have no problems with my work at all. Only biggot atheist,
> but I don’t know any logicians as such.*
>

​If you don't know any fellow logicians how do you know they have no
problem with your work?​



> ​> ​
> Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology.
>

NO! Not a snowball's chance in hell! It's just bizarre, with beautiful new
discoveries being made in science nearly every day your advice to somebody
who wants to understand how the world works is to read some dusty old book
on pre-christian theology.

​> *​*
> *Some christians and some atheists have written excellent introduction to
> Plotinus and Proclus.*
>

​I don't give a tinkers dam about ​
Plotinus and Proclus
​, and with all the fascinating things beings discovered right now why are
you wasting your valuable brain cells on relics of a far more ignorant age?
 ​


> ​> ​
> *Read Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism.*
>

​Why? So I can count the number of times the Neoplatonists ​
​made fools of themselves?​


> ​>> ​
>> In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all,
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all
> terms, in any long papers.*
>


BULLSHIT! I've subscribed to scientific journals for decades and I've never
once read an article that starts out by redefining a common word to mean
something entirely different from its well known meaning
​,​
and the only reason somebody would do such a thing would be as a smoke
screen to cover up fuzzy thinking. No respectable scientist would do such a
thing and neither would a logician who had intellectual integrity.

​>> ​
>> So physics can do something that mathematics can’t.
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed
> universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of
> materialism.*
>

I have no idea what your talking about, none at all.


> ​>* ​*
> *You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3*
>

​
To hell with your idiotic childish amateurish step 3. I'm never going to
read another word of that damn thing until you fix the blunders in the
parts I have read.

​> ​
> *See above.*
>

​NO!
​


> ​>* ​*
> *Why should a textbook be able to compute?*
>
You tell me, every time I say calculating 2+2 would be impossible without
matter that obeys the laws of physics for some strange reason you start
talking about a textbook that tells a story written in the language of
mathematics. It would be as if I claimed brooms could fly and as proof I
showed you a Harry Potter story written in the language of English. Making
up something that can do incredible things is one thing but actually doing
it in the real physical world is far far harder because physics is more
fundamental than mathematics

> ​> *​*
> *But a number or a digital machine (an immaterial notion) can*
>

​
That would be *BIG* news to everybody
​in​
 Silicon Valley so I just have one question, why aren't you the richest man
in the world?


> ​> ​
> in the sense of Church-Turing. Indeed, that is a basic truth which has
> been used to design physical computers.
>

​
I agree, they made the first and best description of how to organize matter
that obeys the laws of physics in a way that turns it into a universal
computer, and they made their description in the language best suited for
doing so, mathematics.

​>* ​*
> *I could also reverse the charge: if you believe in primary matter, give
> me just one evidence.*
>

OK, my computer doing mathematics. Now its your turn, show me mathematics
doing my computer. If that's too hard 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Apr 2018, at 18:36, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but 
> you has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have 
> decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both christian and atheist 
> scholars are involved in the study of theology and you tell me that Bob is 
> studying theology then you have told me absolutely precisely NOTHING new 
> about Bob. And Bruno, as a logician you should be ashamed of yourself.  
> 
> ​>​Ad hominem
>  
> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno,

Try to be polite please. 



> you just redefined a common word that everybody already knows so that is 
> means exactly precisely NOTHING,

You participate, with the many pseudo-religious interest,  to the amnesia of a 
millenium of (serious) theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the 
greeks, with an understanding that we don’t know if the ultimate reality is 
mathematical, physical, or something else.

I use “theology” to help people to see the striking similarity between Proclus 
theology and the theology of the universal machine that I am describing.

It is useful also to get the point that mechanism is a belief in a form of 
reincarnation / re-implementation, and that it asks for an act of faith.

The theology of the universal (Löbian) machine is the mathematical theory G*, 
or G* \ G. Basically computer science minus computer’s computer science. Or 
Tarski's truth minus Gödel’s provability.





> and then you try to use that very same word as a key element in an argument 
> that you claim is logical. And if that is not enough to make a professional 
> logician blush in embarrassment what is? 

In science no one brought vocabulary discussion. All terms are redefined, and 
what counts are only the verification criterion. Logicians have no problems 
with my work at all. Only biggot atheist, but I don’t know any logicians as 
such.



>  
> 
> ​> ​+ boring vocabulary issues.
> 
> ​You may think assigning a meaning to a word is dull but I think sucking 
> ​every​ last bit of meaning out of a word is even more boring. Do you also 
> think learning the meanings of mathematical symbols is boring?  

Please, take some time to study pre-christian theology. Some christians and 
some atheists have written excellent introduction to Plotinus and Proclus. Read 
Wallis’ book on Neoplatonism. An remember that mathematicians homogenise all 
concepts (so that even 0 is a number, despite number meant numerous at the 
start). 



>  
> ​> ​In science we just redefine the terms at the beginning of all papers
> 
> In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all,

I am talking about mathematics and computer science. They do redefine all 
terms, in any long papers.




> there is no need to because they are already well known . It is very very 
> rare that a scientific paper redefines a common term at the very start, and 
> it NEVER happens that a term is redefined so that it means *nothing* in a a 
> scientific paper, at least not one published in a respectable journal because 
> they are not in the habit of printing gibberish.

The truth about a machine is not nothing. 




>  
> 
> ​>> ​In other words you admit mathematics alone is not enough, it can't do 
> everything, you've got to stick physical reality into the mix because physics 
> can do some things mathematics can’t. 
> 
> ​> ​You misread what I said. Yes, we need brain and physical machine to get 
> the human consciousness
> 
> So physics can do something that mathematics can’t.

Like a program computing taxes can do immediately what no unprogrammed 
universal machine could do. So, yes, but not as an argument in favour of 
materialism.



> There are an astronomical number of examples of physics doing mathematics, 
> I'm looking at one right now as I'm writing this on my computer, but there is 
> not one example of mathematics doing physics.

You need to study the proof, here it your blindness in step 3 which makes you 
not understanding the point.




> Mathematics is the best language for describing physics but mathematics is 
> not physics any more than the word "dog" is a 4 legged mammal that says 
> wo​o​f.


See above.


> 
>  
> ​> ​You talk like a creationist 
>  
> I guess you can't think of a new putdown so its time to get out my old trusty 
> rubber stamp that I've used dozens of times before and will continue to use 
> every time you drag out that ​tired​ old insult:
> 
> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that 
> one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. ​ 
> 
>  
> ​> ​You invoke Matter using it in a theological or metaphysical invalid way.
> 
> I said i​t​ before I'll say it again, as a logician you should be ashamed of 
> yourself for sucking all the meaning out of the word 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but
>> you has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have
>> decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both christian and
>> atheist scholars are involved in the study of theology and you tell me that
>> Bob is studying theology then you have told me absolutely precisely
>> *NOTHING* new about Bob. And Bruno, as a logician you should be ashamed
>> of yourself.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *Ad hominem*
>

Ad hominem my ass! Bruno, you just redefined a common word that everybody
already knows so that is means exactly precisely NOTHING, and then you try
to use that very same word as a key element in an argument that you claim
is logical. And if that is not enough to make a professional logician blush
in embarrassment what is?

​> ​
> *+ boring vocabulary issues.*
>

​
You may think assigning a meaning to a word is dull but I think sucking
​every​
 last bit of meaning out of a word is even more boring. Do you also think
learning the meanings of mathematical symbols is boring?


> ​> *​*
> *In science we just redefine the terms at the beginning of all papers*
>

In most scientific papers terms are not defined at all, there is no need to
because they are already well known . It is very very rare that a
scientific paper redefines a common term at the very start, and it NEVER
happens that a term is redefined so that it means *nothing* in a a
scientific paper, at least not one published in a respectable journal
because they are not in the habit of printing gibberish.


​>> ​
>> In other words you admit mathematics alone is not enough, it can't do
>> everything, you've got to stick physical reality into the mix because
>> physics can do some things mathematics can’t.
>
>
> ​> ​
> *You misread what I said. Yes, we need brain and physical machine to get
> the human consciousness*
>

So physics can do something that mathematics can't. There are an
astronomical number of examples of physics doing mathematics, I'm looking
at one right now as I'm writing this on my computer, but there is not one
example of mathematics doing physics. Mathematics is the best language for
describing physics but mathematics is not physics any more than the word
"dog" is a 4 legged mammal that says wo
​o​
f.



> ​>* ​*
> *You talk like a creationist *
>

I guess you can't think of a new putdown so its time to get out my old
trusty rubber stamp that I've used dozens of times before and will continue
to use every time you drag out that
​tired​
 old insult:


*Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. ​ *



> ​> *​*
> *You invoke Matter using it in a theological or metaphysical invalid way.*
>

I said i
​t​
before I'll say it again, as a logician you should be ashamed of yourself
for sucking all the meaning out of the word "theological".

​>> ​
>> Yes I am able to doubt it, just show me something that can calculate 2+2
>> without matter that obeys the known laws of physics and I would doubt it
>> very much. But I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *Read any textbook,*
>

​Show me a textbook that can calculate 2+2, but if that's too hard at least
show me a textbook that is not made of matter that obeys the laws of
physics.​



> ​> ​
> * If you agree that all odd squares are either the sum of 1 and 8
> triangular numbers, or not, INDEPENDENTLY of any physical laws*
>

My agreement or disagreement is certainly not independent of physical laws.
And triangular numbers
​ ​
is a story written in the language of mathematics, in what sense is that
story more real than the story of Harry Potter written in the language of
English? Actually I happen to think the triangular number story is more
real than the Harry Potter story because it is more closely related to
matter that obeys the laws of physics. But why do you think so?
​

 John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 21:22, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/15/2018 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  You 
> start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate 
> consciousness.
 You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes 
 mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain 
 prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the 
 brain). This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc.
 
 But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”,
>>> But the very assumption that there is "thought experience" in arithmetic is 
>>> added "magic" to the computation of arithmetic.
>> That is not magic. That follows from Mechanism. If you believe that the 
>> universal machine emulated by the arithmetical reality are not conscious, 
>> you get inconsistent with the assumption that we can survive with an an 
>> artificial digital brain,
> 
> No. You are just adding the magic the mathematics to the computation alone 
> instead of adding it to the physical realization of the computation.

Then explain me how a Turing machine (or a combinator, …) can feel the 
difference.



> 
>> and also, you get something weird in arithmetic itself, like zombies having 
>> this very conversation. This is not obvious, that is why I give the detailed 
>> proof in the thesis and paper. You are the one invoking a primary matter
> 
> No, I'm invoking matter (not primary) as something to realize the computation.

OK, and that makes sense for the computation bringing human consciousness, not 
about the computations in general, which already exist in arithmetic. Here, 
your remark is no more a critics that with computationalism such non primary 
matter emerges from (very) elementary arithmetic seen in the observable (like 
[]p & <>p with p sigma_1) modes.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> than nobody can even define, and use it to criticise a theory which just do 
>> not make that assumption. Your critics is equivalent as criticising Darwin 
>> evolution theory because it does not explains the content of the bible.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
 which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions 
 (the sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced 
 by incompleteness.
 
 Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, 
 known, undoubtable, yet non definable, and  non provable, then those 
 nuances shows that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining 
 on itself obeying that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a 
 notion of matter, which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on 
 them. (Assuming here both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal 
 malevolent simulation, to be exact).
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 16:11, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​​>>​why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After *YOU* have 
> been duplicated in a *YOU* duplicating machine what one and only one thing 
> will *YOU* see?”
> 
> ​> ​I asked something more precise, after explain the difference between the 
> 1p-you and the 3p-you. 
> 
> And the “explanation” Bruno Marchal gave was that in a world that contains 
> 1p-you duplicating machines 1p-you means the one and only 1p-you that is you.

No, it means the individual answer given by the two duplicated person. 



> And what does "you" mean? The 1p-you of course.

Yes, in the question asked. And as others said, it is obvious that both 
duplicated person see only one city among the two. Making both confirming the 
exclusive disjunction “W & M” validated, and invalidating all the others.




> Bruno, in everyday life that doesn't have Drexler style matter duplicating 
> machines none of this is important, but when you stretch things to the very 
> limit of what is physically possible as we tend to do on this list it becomes 
> very important indeed.  

By the computationalist assumption, such duplication are in principle possible, 
and indeed actualised in arithmetic, and that is all what is relevant in the 
steps which follows.




> 
>  ​> ​​>>​You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that 
> today, in theology (atheists or christian) [...]
>> ​>> ​STOP RIGHT THERE! If atheist and Christian scholars both study theology 
>> then theology is the study of things that are God and also the study of 
>> things t As I said before, for Bruno words mean whatever Bruno wants them to 
>> mean and in this case he has decreed that the word “theology" has no meaning 
>> at all.
> 
> ​> ​I use the word in the original sense.
> 
> I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but you 
> has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have 
> decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both christian and atheist 
> scholars are involved in the study of theology and you tell me that Bob is 
> studying theology then you have told me absolutely precisely NOTHING new 
> about Bob. And Bruno, as a logician you should be ashamed of yourself.  

Ad hominem + boring vocabulary issues. In science we just redefine the terms at 
the beginning of all papers, or we refer to key papers which have the 
definition when they are very well known.




> 
> ​​>> ​If matter is not needed to make a calculation how did the founders of 
> Intel get rich wasting their time making microchips when all they needed was 
> a textbook on Robinson arithmetic?
> 
> ​> ​To implement computations relatively to their local physical reality.
> 
> In other words you admit mathematics alone is not enough, it can't do 
> everything, you've got to stick physical reality into the mix because physics 
> can do some things mathematics can’t. 

You misread what I said. Yes, we need brain and physical machine to get the 
human consciousness, but that does not imply that brain and physical matter 
comes from the arithmetical reality "seen from inside” (in the Gödel’s sense).




>  Without matter that obeys the known laws of physics (which nobody has 
> derived from pure mathematics nor even come close to doing so) it would be 
> impossible to calculate 2+2. 

That does not follow. You talk like a creationist who says that without God 
there would not have been evolution. You invoke Matter using it in a 
theological or metaphysical invalid way.




> 
> ​> ​Are you able to doubt the assumption of physicalism?
> Yes I am able to doubt it, just show me something that can calculate 2+2 
> without matter that obeys the known laws of physics and I would doubt it very 
> much. But I'm not holding my breath.  
> 
> 

Read any textbook, or Smullyan’s to mock a mocking bird, and you will 
understand that infinitely many combinators do that. If you agree that all odd 
squares are either the sum of 1 and 8 triangular numbers, or not, INDEPENDENTLY 
of any physical laws, or humans verifying this fact, then arithmetic emulates 
all computations independently of any physical existence.

I consider 2+2 is even more sure than any extrapolation from a finite set of 
observation, and doubly so if the extrapolation brings an ontological 
commitment.




> ​> ​Apparently not, from what you say above. This means you are religious
> In Bruno-world words mean whatever Bruno wants them to mean, so of course I'm 
> religious,
> 
You forget to quote the word “in the pejorative sense”. Here I meant that you 
defend a dogma. Usually I use the more correct “pseudo-religious” terming. 

Bruno



> you could also make me a teapot or a choo choo train or whatever you want.  
> But logician Lewis Carroll made fun of people who do that in Alice Through 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/15/2018 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  You start 
by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.

You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes 
mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain 
prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the brain). 
This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc.

But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”,

But the very assumption that there is "thought experience" in arithmetic is added 
"magic" to the computation of arithmetic.

That is not magic. That follows from Mechanism. If you believe that the 
universal machine emulated by the arithmetical reality are not conscious, you 
get inconsistent with the assumption that we can survive with an an artificial 
digital brain,


No. You are just adding the magic the mathematics to the computation 
alone instead of adding it to the physical realization of the computation.



and also, you get something weird in arithmetic itself, like zombies having 
this very conversation. This is not obvious, that is why I give the detailed 
proof in the thesis and paper. You are the one invoking a primary matter


No, I'm invoking matter (not primary) as something to realize the 
computation.


Brent


than nobody can even define, and use it to criticise a theory which just do not 
make that assumption. Your critics is equivalent as criticising Darwin 
evolution theory because it does not explains the content of the bible.

Bruno





Brent


which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions (the 
sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced by 
incompleteness.

Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, known, 
undoubtable, yet non definable, and  non provable, then those nuances shows 
that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining on itself obeying 
that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a notion of matter, 
which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on them. (Assuming here 
both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal malevolent simulation, to 
be exact).

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


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​
>> ​>>​
>> why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After **YOU** have
>> been duplicated in a **YOU** duplicating machine what one and only one
>> thing will **YOU** see?”
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *I asked something more precise, after explain the difference between the
> 1p-you and the 3p-you. *
>

And the “explanation” Bruno Marchal gave was that in a world that contains
1p-you duplicating machines 1p-you means the one and only 1p-you that is
you. And what does "you" mean? The 1p-you of course. Bruno, in everyday
life that doesn't have Drexler style matter duplicating machines none of
this is important, but when you stretch things to the very limit of what is
physically possible as we tend to do on this list it becomes very important
indeed.

 ​> ​
>>> ​>>​
>>> *You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that
>>> today, in theology (atheists or christian)* [...]
>>
>> ​>> ​
>> STOP RIGHT THERE! If atheist and Christian scholars both study theology
>> then theology is the study of things that are God and also the study of
>> things t As I said before, for Bruno words mean whatever Bruno wants them
>> to mean and in this case he has decreed that the word “theology" has no
>> meaning at all.
>
> ​> *​*
> *I use the word in the original sense.*
>

I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but you
has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have
decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both christian and
atheist scholars are involved in the study of theology and you tell me that
Bob is studying theology then you have told me absolutely precisely
*NOTHING* new about Bob. And Bruno, as a logician you should be ashamed of
yourself.

​
>> ​>> ​
>> If matter is not needed to make a calculation how did the founders of
>> Intel get rich wasting their time making microchips when all they needed
>> was a textbook on Robinson arithmetic?
>
>
> ​> ​
> *To implement computations relatively to their local physical reality.*
>

In other words you admit mathematics alone is not enough, it can't do
everything, you've got to stick physical reality into the mix because
physics can do some things mathematics can’t.  Without matter that obeys
the known laws of physics (which nobody has derived from pure mathematics
nor even come close to doing so) it would be impossible to calculate 2+2.

​> *​*
> *Are you able to doubt the assumption of physicalism?*
>
Yes I am able to doubt it, just show me something that can calculate 2+2
without matter that obeys the known laws of physics and I would doubt it
very much. But I'm not holding my breath.

> ​> ​
> *Apparently not, from what you say above. This means you are religious*
>
In Bruno-world words mean whatever Bruno wants them to mean, so of course
I'm religious, you could also make me a teapot or a choo choo train or
whatever you want.  But logician Lewis Carroll made fun of people who do
that in Alice Through the Looking-Glass:

*" When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” .  “The
question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many
different things.”*

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  You 
>>> start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.
>> 
>> You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes 
>> mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain 
>> prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the 
>> brain). This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc.
>> 
>> But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”,
> 
> But the very assumption that there is "thought experience" in arithmetic is 
> added "magic" to the computation of arithmetic.

That is not magic. That follows from Mechanism. If you believe that the 
universal machine emulated by the arithmetical reality are not conscious, you 
get inconsistent with the assumption that we can survive with an an artificial 
digital brain, and also, you get something weird in arithmetic itself, like 
zombies having this very conversation. This is not obvious, that is why I give 
the detailed proof in the thesis and paper. You are the one invoking a primary 
matter than nobody can even define, and use it to criticise a theory which just 
do not make that assumption. Your critics is equivalent as criticising Darwin 
evolution theory because it does not explains the content of the bible.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions (the 
>> sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced by 
>> incompleteness.
>> 
>> Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, 
>> known, undoubtable, yet non definable, and  non provable, then those nuances 
>> shows that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining on itself 
>> obeying that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a notion of 
>> matter, which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on them. 
>> (Assuming here both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal 
>> malevolent simulation, to be exact).
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 19:14, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​> ​You are confusing​ [...]​
> 
> ​Horseshit ​ ​fron bullshit?  ​
> 
> ​> ​The follower of Aristotle thought ​[,,,]​
> 
> I don't give a damn what the followers of Aristotle The Ignorant thought.



That explains perhaps why you don’t seem to be aware that you defend all the 
time Aristotle’s metaphysics.



> 
> ​>  ​Plato was skeptical​ [...]​
> 
> ​It's really true, you just can't write a post without referring to 
> philosophers who would flunk a high school algebra test and a fourth grade 
> science test.  



You’d seems to be unaware that the ancient greek pagan and agnostic theology 
have been banned since 1500 years. Then, it happens that computer science 
provides arithmetical interpretation of some of those ancient theologian, 
showing at the least their consistency. Then assuming mechanism, we get the 
necessity too.




> 
> ​> ​and believes we can keep using them exactly as they always have been used 
> even after personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.
> 
> ​> ​On the contrary, the thought experience refutes exactly this,
> 
> ​Then why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After *YOU* have 
> been duplicated in a *YOU* duplicating machine what one and only one thing 
> will *YOU* see?”


I asked something more precise, after explain the difference between the 1p-you 
and the 3p-you. 





> 
> ​> ​You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that 
> today, in theology (atheists or christian) [...]
> STOP RIGHT THERE! If atheist and Christian scholars both study theology then 
> theology is the study of things that are God and also the study of things t 
> As I said before, for Bruno words mean whatever Bruno wants them to mean and 
> in this case he has decreed that the word “theology" has no meaning at all.
> 
> 

I use the word in the original sense. Not in the sense of those who have taken 
theology back from science and confuse it with politics and state.






> ​> ​They have become rich because they have already understood this.
> 
> ​If matter is not needed to make a calculation how did the founders of Intel 
> get rich wasting their time making microchips when all they needed was a 
> textbook on Robinson arithmetic?

To implement computations relatively to their local physical reality. But that 
events is explained in the indexical way in arithmetic.





> Actually they didn't even need the textbook, all they needed was for Robinson 
> arithmetic to exist.

Yes, and it exists as a consequence of elementary arithmetic, where Robison 
theory becomes a number involved in complex universal relation.



>  
> ​> ​The idea that observation ==> reality (contradicted by the existence of 
> dreams) IS Aristotle metaphysical axiom.
> And that is precisely the sort of fuzzy thinking that prevented your buddies 
> the Greeks from starting the scientific revolution in 400BC, we had to wait 
> another 2000 years for that to happen when some people started to realize the 
> Greeks were not nearly as smart as they thought they were. And now in 2018 
> you want to retreat back into ignorance 
> 
> ​> ​you assume Aristotle metaphysics
> 
> ​Oh for christ sake!​ 


Are you able to doubt the assumption of physicalism? Apparently not, from what 
you say above. This means you are religious in the pejorative science. You acts 
like if you knew the (metaphysical) truth. That does not help.

Bruno



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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  
You start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate 
consciousness.


You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) 
assumes mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a 
digital brain prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add 
magic in the brain). This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, 
computers, etc.


But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”,


But the very assumption that there is "thought experience" in arithmetic 
is added "magic" to the computation of arithmetic.


Brent

which means limiting the statements on the semi-computable 
propositions (the sigma_1 sentences) and looking at all the platonic 
nuances enforced by incompleteness.


Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, 
known, undoubtable, yet non definable, and  non provable, then those 
nuances shows that a machine which looks inward does met notion 
pertaining on itself obeying that semi-axiomatic definition, like the 
machine meets a notion of matter, which obeys quantum logic, and has 
to give a measure on them. (Assuming here both QM is correct, and that 
we are not in a normal malevolent simulation, to be exact).


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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> *You are confusing*
> *​* [...]​
>

​Horseshit ​

​fron bullshit?  ​

​> ​
> *The follower of Aristotle thought*
> ​[,,,]​
>

I don't give a damn what the followers of Aristotle The Ignorant thought.

​>  *​*
> *Plato was skeptical*
> ​ [...]​
>

​
It's really true, you just can't write a post without referring to
philosophers who would flunk a high school algebra test and a fourth grade
science test.

​> ​
>> and believes we can keep using them exactly as they always have been used
>> even after personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.
>
>
> ​> ​
> *On the contrary, the thought experience refutes exactly this,*
>

​Then why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After **YOU**
have been duplicated in a **YOU** duplicating machine what one and only one
thing will **YOU** see?"

​> ​
> *You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that
> today, in theology (atheists or christian)* [...]
>
STOP RIGHT THERE! If atheist and Christian scholars both study theology
then theology is the study of things that are God and also the study of
things t As I said before, for Bruno words mean whatever Bruno wants them
to mean and in this case he has decreed that the word “theology" has no
meaning at all.

> ​> ​
> They have become rich because they have already understood this.
>

​If matter is not needed to make a calculation how did the founders of
Intel get rich wasting their time making microchips when all they needed
was a textbook on Robinson arithmetic? Actually they didn't even need the
textbook, all they needed was for Robinson arithmetic to exist.


> ​> ​
> The idea that observation ==> reality (contradicted by the existence of
> dreams) IS Aristotle metaphysical axiom.
>
And that is precisely the sort of fuzzy thinking that prevented your
buddies the Greeks from starting the scientific revolution in 400BC, we had
to wait another 2000 years for that to happen when some people started to
realize the Greeks were not nearly as smart as they thought they were. And
now in 2018 you want to retreat back into ignorance

> ​> ​you assume Aristotle metaphysics


​Oh for christ sake!​


  ​John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:02, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/10/2018 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> ​>> ​ We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory 
>>> because it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is 
>>> 
>>> ​> ​ That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not.
>>> 
>>> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe 
>>> works then it can't be fundamental.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply 
>> incomplete, not advance enough, etc.
>> 
>> When a theory systematically misses some important fact, like physics miss 
>> consciousness (without adding more magic), we can suspect it to be not 
>> fundamental, but that still does not prove it is not.
> 
> Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  You start 
> by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.

You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes 
mechanism, which is the statement that we can survive with a digital brain 
prosthesis, which is believed by anyone who does not add magic in the brain). 
This assume consciousness, brains, doctors, computers, etc.

But the UDA motivates to “redo” the thought experience “in arithmetic”, which 
means limiting the statements on the semi-computable propositions (the sigma_1 
sentences) and looking at all the platonic nuances enforced by incompleteness.

Then if you are OK with the idea that consciousness is something true, known, 
undoubtable, yet non definable, and  non provable, then those nuances shows 
that a machine which looks inward does met notion pertaining on itself obeying 
that semi-axiomatic definition, like the machine meets a notion of matter, 
which obeys quantum logic, and has to give a measure on them. (Assuming here 
both QM is correct, and that we are not in a normal malevolent simulation, to 
be exact).

Bruno



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

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 18:30, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe 
> >> works then it can't be fundamental.
>  
> > ?I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply 
> > incomplete, not advance enough
> If its not advanced enough then it can't be fundamental. It could be that 
> nothing is fundamental, nobody knows.
> 
> 


You are confusing (sorry!) what is a fundamental theory in some domain, and the 
notion of complete theory (which cannot exist for any Turing-complete). Any 
theory which can prove all true sigma_1 sentence, like already Robinson 
Arithmetic, is not just incomplete, but incompleteable. It does not admit any 
Recursively enumerable complete extensions.

Interestingly enough, RA is the smallest, finitely axiomatisable, Turing 
complete theory of arithmetic. If you subtract any axioms of classical 
predicate logic +

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x


You get an incomplete theory, non Turing-complete, which can be completed on 
some domain. The proof is in the Dover book by Tarsi, Mostowski, Robinson.
Yet there are weaker theories than this, but they need a scheme of axioms 
(infinitely many axioms).


But “fundamental” means that it assumes the less to explain the more, and 
perhaps everything (matter, consciousness, gods, etc.).

The follower of Aristotle thought that physics is the fundamental theory: that 
the unknown laws of physics could explain matter, and the conscious appearance.

Plato was skeptical, and open to the idea that the fundamental theory might 
bear on something else, like Pythagorus’s number, mathematics, or music, etc.



> > when you will understand the famous step 3, it can be shown that [...] 
> With famous step 3 it can be shown that Bruno Marchal hasn't spent 2 seconds 
> thinking about what personal pronouns mean
> 

In the original thesis, the Universal Dovetailer Argument was presented as a 
paradox, and it was used only to motivate the platonic epistemological nuances 
between many first person and third person pronouns. You can skip the whole 
argument/paradox, and study only the mathematical theory, extracted from what 
any universal machine discover when looking inward (in the Gödel sense). The 
3p-self ([]p) general definition problem is entirely solved by Kleene second 
recursion theorem. The 1p-self is entirely solves, thanks to incompleteness by 
the Theaetetus definition ([]p & p). Incompleteness  identifies 8 “pronouns”, 
with transparent arithmetical definitions (but the one with “& p” have no first 
order arithmetical definition, but they have clear second-order logical, or 
analytical one.






> and believes we can keep using them exactly as they always have been used 
> even after personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.
> 
> 

On the contrary, the thought experience refutes exactly this, and explains how 
to use them, but without necessitating the math, and you are the only one 
having a problem with this. Even my opponents got the points, as they have said 
also behind my back in private.



> > Plato is skeptical of observation.
> And that is why Plato made so many stupid conclusions and that is the only 
> reason the scientific revolution started around 1600AD and not around 400BC.
> 
> > assuming Aristotle’s metaphysical axiom.
> And Aristotle was also a fool. Bruno, just once write a post without 
> mentioning one of those know-nothing jackasses.
> 
> 

We cannot change of paradigm if we don’t understand the origin of our paradigm. 
You keep criticising Aristotle and Plato without understanding that today, in 
theology (atheists or christian) still use Aristotle theology. All your 
“refutation” that consciousness appears in arithmetic were based on the use of 
Aristotle ideas.




> >> nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter.  
> 
> > False.
> Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  Or better yet show somebody in Silicon 
> Valley and become the richest man who ever lived. 
> 
> 

They have become rich because they have already understood this. We would never 
have had the idea of implementing,ng a universal machine with the physical laws 
if Turing and Church did not discovered the notion in mathematics before. 
(Leaving Babbage serendipitous discovery of it one century before).



> > you are ok with the fact that (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is true or false
> I am OK with that because I made the calculation and I made it with my 
> physical brain that is made of physical atoms that obey the laws of physics. 
> 
> > independently of you verifying this or not, then all computations are 
> > executed in arithmetic independently of you
> What computation? 2+2=4 is either true or it is not but that is not a 
> 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Brent Meeker]

On 4/10/2018 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark > wrote:


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote:


​>> ​
We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental
theory because it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark
Matter is 



​> ​
/That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory
or not./


If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the 
universe works then it can't be fundamental.


?

I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply 
incomplete, not advance enough, etc.


When a theory systematically misses some important fact, like physics 
miss consciousness (without adding more magic), we can suspect it to 
be not fundamental, but that still does not prove it is not.


Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either. You 
start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness.


Brebt

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the
> universe works then it can't be fundamental.



> *?I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply
> incomplete, not advance enough*

If its not advanced enough then it can't be fundamental. It could be that
nothing is fundamental, nobody knows.

> *> when you will understand the famous step 3, it can be shown that [...] *

With famous step 3 it can be shown that Bruno Marchal hasn't spent 2
seconds thinking about what personal pronouns mean and believes we can keep
using them exactly as they always have been used even after personal
pronoun duplicating machines have been invented.

> *> Plato is skeptical of observation.*

And that is why Plato made so many stupid conclusions and that is the only
reason the scientific revolution started around 1600AD and not around 400BC.

> *> assuming Aristotle’s metaphysical axiom.*

And Aristotle was also a fool. Bruno, just once write a post without
mentioning one of those know-nothing jackasses.

> >> nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter.
>
>
> >* False.*

Stop telling me that and *SHOW ME*!  Or better yet show somebody in Silicon
Valley and become the richest man who ever lived.

> *> you are ok with the fact that (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is true or
> false*

I am OK with that because I made the calculation and I made it with my
physical brain that is made of physical atoms that obey the laws of
physics.

> *> independently of you verifying this or not, then all computations are
> executed in arithmetic independently of you*

What computation? 2+2=4 is either true or it is not but that is not a
computation, a computation is a way to examine a statement more closely and
enables you to figure out if the statement should be put in the true or
false category.  We're talking about figuring out stuff not in
the intrinsic correctness or incorrectness of something, and nobody,
absolutely nobody, has ever seen anything figure out anything without
matter that obeys the laws of physics. And that is not a assumption,
metaphysical or otherwise, that is an observation. Yes I know your buddies
the ancient Greeks didn't like observation but that is why they were such
fools and that is why science remained stagnate for 2,000 years.

> *> It has been useful for the progress of physics, but it has put the
> mind-body problem under the rug for long.*

Then lets get it from under the rug. Mind is what a particular part of the
body, the brain, does.

> *> There would be no computer if the mathematician (Turing) did not
> discovered them in mathematics,*

And there would be no Turing the mathematician without matter that obeys
the laws of physics.

> >> I still don’t know what what “indexical computationalism” is
>
>

*> You still don’t know?*

Nope I still don't know, and I'm not the only one, the only thing Google
knows about it are from posts from you to this very list made in the last
month or so. It’s more of your silly homemade baby-talk used to cover up
fuzzy thinking.

> *> That is explained in many posts,*

And I refuse to study your posts just so I can learn your own personal
slang words! Crackpots always make up lots and lots of new words and
phrases because if they stated them using standard scientific language the
fuzzy nature of the logic behind them would become all too apparent.

> *> Indexical mechanism is the theological assumption that we can remain
> alive and conscious when getting a digital brain digital transplant.*

Theological? How can you get from the existence of matter to the existence
of an omnipotent omniscient conscious being? Since I believe in the
existence of matter and you don't I guess that means you're a atheist but I
am not. I guess that also means words mean whatever Bruno Marchal wants
them to mean.

> >>  I don't understand how anybody with half a brain could think
>> saying "THE first person" would uniquely specify one and only one thing if
>> "THE first person" duplicating machines are available.
>
>
>
> > *But we have explain you why this is not what the duplicated people can
> feel, unless you add some telepathic connection between the duplicated
> people,*

You have never explained anything of the sort unless its in that wonderful
post that you’ve been talking about for years that nobody can find. And
a telepathic connection has as much to do with all this as the existence
of matter has to do with a omnipotent omniscient conscious being . Exactly
precisely nothing.

> *> Plato and Aristotle provided the two basic different way to conceive
> Reality*

And both of their views were WRONG and both of them rejected the way to
correct errors, observation and experiment. Unfortunately many like you
took their advise and as a result we got 2,000 years of intellectual
stagnation. These people quite literally didn't know where the sun went at
night 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because 
> it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is 
> 
> ​> ​That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not.
> 
> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe 
> works then it can't be fundamental.

?

I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply 
incomplete, not advance enough, etc.

When a theory systematically misses some important fact, like physics miss 
consciousness (without adding more magic), we can suspect it to be not 
fundamental, but that still does not prove it is not.

With mechanism, when you will understand the famous step 3, it can be shown 
that a theory (physics) cannot be fundamental for logic reason, in the cadre of 
some metaphysical hypothesis.




>  
> ​> ​The metaphysical/theological question is the question of reductibility of 
> physics to another science.
> 
> Metaphysics is not a science, and theology is crap.
>   
> ​>It seems that you assume Aristotle’s metaphysics​ ​[ blah blah blah]
> 
> To hell with the damn idiot ancient Greeks!!
>  
> ​> ​Like Aristotle, you confuse​ [blah blah blah]​
> 
> Aristotle like all the ancient Greeks was confused about a great many things, 
> like where the sun went at night, and yet bizarrely you believe they can give 
> us insight into solving modern problems in science. It's utterly ridiculous!
> 
> ​> ​All what I see, when I observe physicians and their discourses are people 
> inferring from a finite number of personal but sharable experiences 
> 
> And you wouldn't be observing anything without something physical like light.
>  
> ​> ​But I see only the numbers
> 
> If you can see pure number show me one, I've always wanted to know where the 
> number eleven is located.

Between 10 and 12.




> 
> ​> ​Aristotle’s answer was​ [blah blah blah]
> 
>  I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT ARISTOTLE'S ANSWER WAS!!
> 
> ​> ​Plato, and the “mystics”, were those who were skeptical about​ [BLAH 
> BLAH]​
> 
>  ​I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT PLATO WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT!!
> 
> ​> ​It does not really matter if you use number, or Turing machine (finite 
> set of quadruplets), or lambda expressions. Anything that you can define 
> inductively with some laws making the system Turing universal will do.
> 
> If atoms that obey physical laws are organized in certain ways they are 
> Turing Complete and thus capable of calculating anything that can be 
> calculated, but you need something to organize and that's why atoms are 
> needed. And Bruno, that is not an assumption that is an observation,

Plato is skeptical of observation. Using observation as a reality criteria is 
equivalent with assuming Aristotle’s metaphysical axiom. Sorry, that is not my 
religion.



> nobody has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter.  


False. If you are ok with the fact that (3^3) + (4^3) + (5^3) = (6^3) is true 
or false independently of you verifying this or not, then all computations are 
executed in arithmetic independently of you verifying the fact or not, and then 
physics appears as arithmetic seen from some self-referential modes.


We don’t see primitive matter either. Its existence is a metaphysical 
assumption. It has been useful for the progress of physics, but it has put the 
mind-body problem under the rug for long. You need to take into account that, 
without magic, a universal number/machine is indeterminate on which 
computations supports them, and physics becomes a statistics on computations 
based on self-reference (well handled by Gödel diagonalisation technic).




> 
> ​> ​Now, Robinson Arithmetic can count, because​ [blah blah blah]
> 
> If you know how to get ​Robinson Arithmetic​ to count don't tell me about it, 
> tell a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and become richer than ​Mark 
> Zuckerberg.


He uses this implicitly. There would be no computer if the mathematician 
(Turing) did not discovered them in mathematics, and then in arithmetic. Then 
to use them relatively to you, you need to implement them relatively to you, 
but with mechanism, the couple made of you + the computer is distributed in 
infinitely many computations, and your seeing is an indexical view of 
arithmetic from inside arithmetic.

You tap like if you knew that there is a PRIMARY physical universe, but there 
are no evidence at all for that idea, and the known facts today put this in 
doubt. It certainly impossible once we assume digital indexical mechanism, 
which you will understand when you understand the step 3 of the UD “paradox”.



>  
> ​> ​You are even the only authentic practicer of indexical computationalism 
> in this list (that I know of). Perhaps Hal Finney?
> 
> I still don't know what "indexical computationalism" is 

Re: Mind Uploading

[John Clark]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because
>> it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is
>
>
> ​> ​
> *That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not.*
>

If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe
works then it can't be fundamental.


> ​> ​
> *The metaphysical/theological question is the question of reductibility of
> physics to another science.*
>

Metaphysics is not a science, and theology is crap.

>
> *​>It seems that you assume Aristotle’s metaphysics​ ​[ blah blah blah]*
>

To hell with the damn idiot ancient Greeks!!


> *​> ​Like Aristotle, you confuse​ [blah blah blah]​*
>

Aristotle like all the ancient Greeks was confused about a great many
things, like where the sun went at night, and yet bizarrely you believe
they can give us insight into solving modern problems in science. It's
utterly ridiculous!

​> *​*
> *All what I see, when I observe physicians and their discourses are people
> inferring from a finite number of personal but sharable experiences *
>

And you wouldn't be observing anything without something physical like
light.


> ​> ​
> But I see only the numbers
>

If you can see pure number show me one, I've always wanted to know where
the number eleven is located.

​>* ​*
> *Aristotle’s answer was​ [blah blah blah]*
>

 I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT ARISTOTLE'S ANSWER WAS!!

​> *​*
> *Plato, and the “mystics”, were those who were skeptical about​ [BLAH
> BLAH]​*
>

 ​
I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT PLATO WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT!!

​> ​
> It does not really matter if you use number, or Turing machine (finite set
> of quadruplets), or lambda expressions. Anything that you can define
> inductively with some laws making the system Turing universal will do.
>

If atoms that obey physical laws are organized in certain ways they are
Turing Complete and thus capable of calculating anything that can be
calculated, but you need something to organize and that's why atoms are
needed. And Bruno, that is not an assumption that is an observation, nobody
has ever seed a calculation done by anything except by matter.

​> ​
> *Now, Robinson Arithmetic can count, because*
> *​ *[blah blah blah]
>

If you know how to get ​
Robinson Arithmetic
​ to count don't tell me about it, tell a venture capitalist in Silicon
Valley and become richer than ​Mark Zuckerberg.



> *​> ​You are even the only authentic practicer of indexical
> computationalism in this list (that I know of). Perhaps Hal Finney?*
>

I still don't know what "indexical computationalism" is except that its yet
another of your made up buzz words, when I Google it all I get is some of
your very recent posts to this very list; but I must say being compared to
Hal Finney I consider to be a very high complement.


> ​> ​
> I guess that what stuck you in the 3d step is only your big ego,
>

So you think the problem is my big ego, hmm, well there are 2 possibilities:

1) I know you made a enormous breakthrough but I refuse to publicly say so
because I don't want to admit
​anyone​
 is smarter than me.

​2) I don't understand how anybody with half a brain could think saying
 "THE first person" would uniquely specify one and only one thing if "THE
first person" duplicating machines are available.

I'll let others decide which of the two is true.. ​



> ​> ​
> you keep confusing physics and metaphysics, like Aristotle,
>


Aristotle didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and neither did
Plato. Why do you keep talking about these ignoramuses?!

John K Clark

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

Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 00:03, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that physics 
> > describe the fundamental theory. 
> 
> We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because it 
> can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is 


That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not. The 
metaphysical/theological question is the question of reductibility of physics 
to another science.

It seems that you assume Aristotle’s metaphysics, or that you take it for 
granted. It identifies the physical reality with the fundamental reality.
The antic dream argument already falsifies the necessity of this, in some sense 
(which can be made precise in such or such metaphysical theory).



> or why there is so much more matter than antimatter or tell us whats going on 
> at the singularity of a Black Hole. Our Physics is the most fundamental 
> theory we know of but we don’t know if THE Fundamental Theory even exists, it 
> might be like the layers of a onion or an infinite Matryoshka doll and then 
> will always be a more fundamental theory to find.  

It depends on the metaphysical/theological assumption.

Like Aristotle, you confuse physics and metaphysics. That explains probably why 
you confuse the notion of computation with the notion of physical computation. 
I guess you take the primary physical universe for granted. 





> 
> > That is just a metaphysical assumption which has been recently debunked. 
> 
> I'm tired of you saying that, stop tell me and show me!  But don’t show me a 
> textbook made of physical atoms and don’t send me a pulse of physical 
> electrons than my physical computer interprets as pixels on a physical 
> screen, show me a pure number and let me watch it while that pure number 
> performs a calculation, 2+2 would be good enough. Just do that and I will 
> concede the argument.
> 

All what I see, when I observe physicians and their discourses are people 
inferring from a finite number of personal but sharable experiences that there 
exists measurable numbers, and which then infer, still from finite number of 
experiences, that there are computable relations between those numbers, and 
that indeed they get better and better in that sport. But I see only the 
numbers, and usually they don’t even try to related them with the personal 
qualia. 

A (serious) metaphysician, or theologian, bet that, indeed, there is some 
Reality “out there”, but the question is what is it.

Aristotle’s answer was the rather intuitive answer: it is what we see, measure, 
observe …

Plato, and the “mystics”, were those who were skeptical about this, and 
believed in deeper (mathematical?) relations. They were searching for first 
principle.






> >>  In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable 
> >> functions are representable in Robinson Arithmetic
>  
>  ​> ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.
> So what, all computable functions are also representable on a blank sheet of 
> paper if a pencil is available. But paper can't count and Robinson Arithmetic 
> can’t count and a textbook on Robinson Arithmetic can count no better than a 
> rock can because the atoms in the textbook and the rock and the blank paper 
> are not arranged in a way that allows them to do so. However if the same 
> atoms that were in the Robinson textbook or the rock were arranged 
> differently, as for example in the form of a computer, then those same atoms 
> could count.
> 

Relatively to you, yes.



> Finding the proper way to arrange those atoms took thousands of years to 
> figure out (the ancient Greeks who you’re always babbling about were 
> completely clueless on how to do it) but we eventually got the hang of it.
> 
> 


But if the ways are digital, and if Church-thesis is correct, then those 
computations are all emulated by anything satisfying the axiom of very 
elementary arithmetic, and worst, when you will acknowledge that you did 
understand the third step of the Universal Dovetailer argument, you will 
understand that 


if we are no more than universal 
machine/number/lamnda-expressions,/combinators/Game-of-life 
patterns/Diophantine-polynomials system,



then we are distributed in a very complex way in the logical consequence of 
that very elementary arithmetic, and physics has to be retrieved by the logic 
of self-reference of the universal machine, even the Löbian one, that is those 
who believe in the usual elementary arithmetic, which includes the induction 
axioms. This makes the machine able to be aware (in precise technical sense) 
that they are universal, and the know all the shit which comes with: more 
exactly they get a measure on their abyssal ignorance of arithmetic.







> 
> >> they are not arranged that way in a 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Apr 2018, at 16:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, > wrote:
>> 
>> ​​>> ​And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't be isolated either, it would be 
>> connected to the internet and ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything 
>> else it wanted to be connected to. And the connections would be far more 
>> information intensive than the meager connections brains now have. 
>> 
>> 
>> ​> ​"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
>> 
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​ 
>> 
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>> 
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>> 
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
>> empirical evidence,
> 
> 
> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that physics 
> describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical assumption which 
> has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, unless you evacuate 
> consciousness and first person from the picture.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> You mean we don't have a Theory of Everything? Haven't you heard? Physics is 
> a work in progress. AG


You are just defending here the theology of Aristotle. i.e. the belief that 
there is a primitive fundamental reality, and that it is at the origin of 
everything.

Study my papers, and you will see that this idea is incompatible with 
Mechanismthe idea that the brain or body (in some more general sense than 
usual, it can included a part of the environment) is Turing emulable. The proof 
is constructive and provides the complete description of the appearance of the 
physical laws, so Mechanism is testable, and indeed we do recover (up to now) 
the core of quantum mechanics. 

Bruno




> 
> 
> 
>> fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it with; 
>> a theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? What would 
>> the founders of information theory think about your presumed proposal? AG
>> 
>>  ​
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that
> physics describe the fundamental theory. *


We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because it
can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or why there is so much
more matter than antimatter or tell us whats going on at the singularity of
a Black Hole. Our Physics is the most fundamental theory we know of but we
don’t know if *THE* Fundamental Theory even exists, it might be like the
layers of a onion or an infinite Matryoshka doll and then will always be a
more fundamental theory to find.

> That is just a metaphysical assumption which has been recently debunked.

I'm tired of you saying that, stop tell me and show me!  But don’t show me
a textbook made of physical atoms and don’t send me a pulse of physical
electrons than my physical computer interprets as pixels on a physical
screen, show me a pure number and let me watch it while that pure number
performs a calculation, 2+2 would be good enough. Just do that and I will
concede the argument.

> >>  In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable
>> functions are representable in Robinson Arithmetic
>
>

* ​> ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.*

So what, all computable functions are also representable on a blank sheet
of paper if a pencil is available. But paper can't count and Robinson
Arithmetic can’t count and a textbook on Robinson Arithmetic can count no
better than a rock can because the atoms in the textbook and the rock and
the blank paper are not arranged in a way that allows them to do so.
However if the same atoms that were in the Robinson textbook or the rock
were arranged differently, as for example in the form of a computer, then
those same atoms could count. Finding the proper way to arrange those atoms
took thousands of years to figure out (the ancient Greeks who you’re always
babbling about were completely clueless on how to do it) but we eventually
got the hang of it.

>> they are not arranged that way in a rock.
>
>

*> I agree with this. A rock cannot be said to think, because a rock does
> not implement a universal numbers.*


"Universal number” is yet another of your homemade slang terms. Perhaps
you’re saying the same thing I am just more opaquely, I say a rock or a
Robinson Arithmetic textbook cannot count or think because they don't
implement the atomic arrangement information that would allow them to do
so.

*> Or you mean that you have some magical soul which can count, *

I mean that generic atoms that obey the known laws of information can count
if they are arranged in the correct way, a way that can only be
characterized by information
​
*​> ​but then you are out of the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis. *

​That's OK, I never knew I was even in "
the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis
​".​

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​
 ​>> ​
 And a brain in a glass box​
  
 ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
 ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
 to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
 meager connections brains now have. 

>>>
>>>
>>> ​> *​*
>>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>>
>>
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​
>>  
>>
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>>
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>>
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence, *
>
>
>
> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that 
> physics describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical 
> assumption which has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, 
> unless you evacuate consciousness and first person from the picture.
>
> Bruno
>

*You mean we don't have a Theory of Everything? Haven't you heard? Physics 
is a work in progress. AG*

>
>
>
> *fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it 
> with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? 
> What would the founders of information theory think about your presumed 
> proposal? AG*
>
>>
>>  ​
>>
>>  
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 17:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>> Brent Meeker Wrote"
>>> 
>>> > It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and 
>>> > conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
>>> > corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot 
>>> > of my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt 
>>> > it's observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external 
>>> > level.
>> 
>>  The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about. 
>> A change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and a change 
>> in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind is what the 
>> brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon is conscious 
>> but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.
>> 
>> I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
>> consciousness. 
>> 
>> 
>> IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two 
>> Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different 
>> intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you 
>> ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding of 
>> what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception of 
>> sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might be 
>> programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of its 
>> body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a human 
>> response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking about? TIA, 
>> AG
>> 
>> You could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do calculus. 
>> So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you could 
>> program both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in IR. So 
>> you could say one has superior vision than the other. But what you can never 
>> do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, has self 
>> knowledge or self perception, or can experience rudimentary or complex 
>> sensations. So I don't think we're any closer to an explanation or 
>> understanding of consciousness than when we started, however long ago that 
>> was. AG
>> 
>> If we had a clue how self-reference could result from a neural network such 
>> as the human brain, we could, perhaps, duplicate it in a Rover or whatever, 
>> But I see no evidence that we have such an insight to do the modeling. 
>> CMIIAW. AG 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be proved that if the neuronal network is Turing complete (an that 
> happens quickly), it has the precise self-reference ability which gives him 
> the same theology (including physics) that the one of PA, ZF, or of any 
> machine believing in any arithmetical or combinatoric induction axioms. 
> 
> Self-reference is where computer science excels the most. It is indeed born 
> from a reflexion on paradoxes due to the self-reference ability of many 
> mathematical structures.
> 
> You added:
> 
> "And if we had such a clue, we could determine if carbon is necessary for 
> self-reference, or if silicon would do just fine. But I seriously doubt we 
> know enough now to make such a determination, or to even begin the analysis. 
> CMIIAW. AG “
> 
> 
> 
> We do have the clues, and we can answer that carbon, silicon cannot make any 
> difference, unless you disbelieve in Mechanism. It is up to you, to  suggest 
> what a continuous non mechanist matter could be, and how it links 
> consciousness (first person, knowledge) and the observation (something that 
> the materialist have failed to explain since about 1500 years). 
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> I cannot connect to anything you claim. AG 


Good. It is normal. It took me 35 years to get all this, and it is build on 
fundamental theorem in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. You 
might read the previous conversation on this list, or study my summary paper 
here:

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 



Other more recent papers which sum up this well, including the open problems,  
are

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Mar 2018, at 17:37, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​So mind is what the brain does.
>  
> ​> ​Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain is 
> among that.
> 
> ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.


In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable functions 
are representable in Robinson Arithmetic (which leads easily to that 
conclusion). Or you mean that you have some magical soul which can count, but 
then you are out of the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis.



> Rocks can't count but I can count rocks because the matter and energy in my 
> brain is arranged in such a way that it enables me to do so


It means the brain can emulate a Universal Number (by which I mean a number u 
such that u compute f_i(x) when given I and x.



> but they are not arranged that way in a rock.

I agree with this. A rock cannot be said to think, because a rock does not 
implement a universal numbers. Of course, there is quantum and 
digital-mechanist sense in which a rock, or even a vacuum can “think” as an 
emerging pattern of infinitely many computations, but that is not the usual 
meaning of computation.
Strictly speaking, a rock cannot think, because it is only an object of 
thinking emerging from all computations. In arithmetic or any chosen 
computational base. (Base in the sense of computer science, not in the sense of 
quantum physics, to be sure).



> The arrangement of matter and energy can be characterized as information and 
> that is why information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept 
> of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. 


Information, numbers, codes, combinators, finite expression, whatever the name 
is used, it makes sense only in some part of theoretical computer science. 

Bruno



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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
> 
> ​​>> ​And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't be isolated either, it would be 
> connected to the internet and ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything 
> else it wanted to be connected to. And the connections would be far more 
> information intensive than the meager connections brains now have. 
> 
> 
> ​> ​"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
> 
> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
> categories:​ 
> 
> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to engineer 
> now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
> 
> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
> Theory.
> 
> Your objection falls into the second category.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence,


There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that physics 
describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical assumption which 
has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, unless you evacuate 
consciousness and first person from the picture.

Bruno



> fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it with; a 
> theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? What would 
> the founders of information theory think about your presumed proposal? AG
> 
>  ​
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  
> wrote:
>
>  
>
>> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your 
>> presumed proposal? AG*
>
>
> ​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying 
> saucer ​
> men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't 
> keep their spaceship in the air.
>
> John K Clark
>

*I think the reason you go out of your way to denigrate my conclusion of ET 
visitations -- which is based on credible witness testimony, among other 
things -- is because, deep down, for whatever reasons, you're afraid I 
might be right. AG *

>  
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  
> wrote:
>
>  
>
>> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your 
>> presumed proposal? AG*
>
>
> ​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying 
> saucer ​
> men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't 
> keep their spaceship in the air.
>
> John K Clark
>
 

Best to be honest and answer my question. Can you do that without 
introducing an irrelevant topic to this discussion? Incidentally, they're 
not incompetent; just imperfect. AG 

>  
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
  

  
  


On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark
  wrote:


  
Brent Meeker Wrote"
  >
  It seems to me there's something fishy about making
  behavior and conscious thought functionally equivalent so
  neither can change without a corresponding change in the
  other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of my thinking
  that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt
  it's observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at
  the external level. The behavior of your
  neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about. A
  change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and a change in consciousness corresponds
  with a change in the brain. So mind is what the brain
  does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon
  is conscious but silicon is not a intelligent computer is
  also conscious.

I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent
consciousness. IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding of what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception of sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might be programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of its body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a human response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking about? TIA, AGYou could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do calculus. So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you could program both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in IR. So you could say one has superior vision than the other. But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience rudimentary or complex sensations. So I don't think we're any closer to an explanation or understanding of consciousness than when we started, however long ago that was. AGIf we had a clue how self-reference could result from a neural network such as the human brain, we could, perhaps, duplicate it in a Rover or whatever, But I see no evidence that we have such an insight to do the modeling. CMIIAW. AG It can be proved that if the neuronal network is Turing complete (an that happens quickly), it has the precise self-reference ability which gives him the same theology (including physics) that the one of PA, ZF, or of any machine believing in any arithmetical or combinatoric induction axioms. Self-reference is where computer science excels the most. It is indeed born from a reflexion on paradoxes due to the self-reference ability of many mathematical structures.You added:"And if we had such a clue, we could determine if carbon is necessary for self-reference, or if silicon would do just fine. But I seriously doubt we know enough now to make such a determination, or to even begin the analysis. CMIIAW. AG “We do have the clues, and we can answer that carbon, silicon cannot make any difference, unless you disbelieve in Mechanism. It is up to you, to  suggest what a continuous non mechanist matter could be, and how it links consciousness (first person, knowledge) and the observation (something that the materialist have failed to explain since about 1500 years). Bruno In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that
behaved very similarly (as similar as two different humans) and yet,
because of the way I implemented their memory or computers their
consciousness was very different?  Of course this is related to the
question of how do I know that other people have consciousness like
mine; except in that case one relies in part on knowing that other
people are constructed similarly.

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 https://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 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:05:45 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​
 ​>> ​
 And a brain in a glass box​
  
 ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
 ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
 to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
 meager connections brains now have. 

>>>
>>>
>>> ​> *​*
>>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>>
>>
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​
>>  
>>
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>>
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>>
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence, fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would 
> you replace it with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, 
> molecules, etc.? What would the founders of information theory think about 
> your presumed proposal? AG*
>

*Maybe you're fantasising a computer which stores information in the 
absence of micro circuits which store bits. Good luck with that. AG *

>
>>  ​
>>
>>  
>>
>>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  wrote:



> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your presumed
> proposal? AG*


​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying
saucer ​
men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't
keep their spaceship in the air.

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​
>>> ​>> ​
>>> And a brain in a glass box​
>>>  
>>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
>>> ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
>>> to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
>>> meager connections brains now have. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> ​> *​*
>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>
>
> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
> categories:​
>  
>
> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>
> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
> Theory.
>
> Your objection falls into the second category.
>
> John K Clark
>

*You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
empirical evidence, fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would 
you replace it with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, 
molecules, etc.? What would the founders of information theory think about 
your presumed proposal? AG*

>
>  ​
>
>  
>
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a 
>> human body.
>>
>
> ​Yes.
> ​
>  
>
>> ​> ​
>> Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such as the 
>> Internet, and everything is good to go? AG 
>>
>
> ​Yes.
>

*And you believe this, why? Reduces your cognitive dissonance? AG *

>
> John K Clark​
>  
>
>  
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> And a brain in a glass box​
>>
>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a
>> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to.
>> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager
>> connections brains now have.
>>
>
>
> ​> *​*
> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>

​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general
categories:​


​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to
engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.

2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms
Theory.

Your objection falls into the second category.

John K Clark

 ​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM,  wrote:

​> ​
> Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a
> human body.
>

​Yes.
​


> ​> ​
> Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such as the
> Internet, and everything is good to go? AG
>

​Yes.

John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:



 On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:

 Brent Meeker Wrote"

> *> It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and 
> conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
> corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot 
> of 
> my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's 
> observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.*

  The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking 
>>> about. A change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and 
>>> a change in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind 
>>> is what the brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon 
>>> is conscious but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.
>>>

 I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
 consciousness. 

>>>
>>>
>>> *IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have 
>>> two Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different 
>>> intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you 
>>> ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding 
>>> of what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception 
>>> of sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might 
>>> be programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of 
>>> its body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a 
>>> human response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking 
>>> about? TIA, AG*
>>>
>>
>> *You could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do 
>> calculus. So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you 
>> could program both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in 
>> IR. So you could say one has superior vision than the other. But what you 
>> can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, 
>> has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience rudimentary or 
>> complex sensations. So I don't think we're any closer to an explanation or 
>> understanding of consciousness than when we started, however long ago that 
>> was. AG*
>>
>
> *If we had a clue how self-reference could result from a neural network 
> such as the human brain, we could, perhaps, duplicate it in a Rover or 
> whatever, But I see no evidence that we have such an insight to do the 
> modeling. CMIIAW. AG *
>
>
>
>
> It can be proved that if the neuronal network is Turing complete (an that 
> happens quickly), it has the precise self-reference ability which gives him 
> the same theology (including physics) that the one of PA, ZF, or of any 
> machine believing in any arithmetical or combinatoric induction axioms. 
>
> Self-reference is where computer science excels the most. It is indeed 
> born from a reflexion on paradoxes due to the self-reference ability of 
> many mathematical structures.
>
> You added:
>
> *"And if we had such a clue, we could determine if carbon is necessary for 
> self-reference, or if silicon would do just fine. But I seriously doubt we 
> know enough now to make such a determination, or to even begin the 
> analysis. CMIIAW. AG “*
>
>
>
> We do have the clues, and we can answer that carbon, silicon cannot make 
> any difference, unless you disbelieve in Mechanism. It is up to you, to 
>  suggest what a continuous non mechanist matter could be, and how it links 
> consciousness (first person, knowledge) and the observation (something that 
> the materialist have failed to explain since about 1500 years). 
>
>
> Bruno
>

*I cannot connect to anything you claim. AG *

>
>
>
>>>
>>> In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that behaved very 
 similarly (as similar as two different humans) and yet, because of the way 
 I implemented their memory or computers their consciousness was very 
 different?  Of course this is related to the question of how do I know 
 that 
 other people have consciousness like mine; except in that case one relies 
 in part on knowing that other people are constructed similarly.

 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to 

Re: Mind Uploading

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>> Brent Meeker Wrote"
>> 
>> > It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and conscious 
>> > thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
>> > corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of 
>> > my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's 
>> > observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.
> 
>  The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about. A 
> change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and a change in 
> consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind is what the 
> brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon is conscious 
> but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.
> 
> I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
> consciousness. 
> 
> 
> IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two 
> Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different 
> intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you 
> ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding of 
> what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception of 
> sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might be 
> programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of its 
> body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a human 
> response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking about? TIA, 
> AG
> 
> You could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do calculus. 
> So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you could program 
> both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in IR. So you could 
> say one has superior vision than the other. But what you can never do IMO, is 
> determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, has self knowledge or 
> self perception, or can experience rudimentary or complex sensations. So I 
> don't think we're any closer to an explanation or understanding of 
> consciousness than when we started, however long ago that was. AG
> 
> If we had a clue how self-reference could result from a neural network such 
> as the human brain, we could, perhaps, duplicate it in a Rover or whatever, 
> But I see no evidence that we have such an insight to do the modeling. 
> CMIIAW. AG 



It can be proved that if the neuronal network is Turing complete (an that 
happens quickly), it has the precise self-reference ability which gives him the 
same theology (including physics) that the one of PA, ZF, or of any machine 
believing in any arithmetical or combinatoric induction axioms. 

Self-reference is where computer science excels the most. It is indeed born 
from a reflexion on paradoxes due to the self-reference ability of many 
mathematical structures.

You added:

"And if we had such a clue, we could determine if carbon is necessary for 
self-reference, or if silicon would do just fine. But I seriously doubt we know 
enough now to make such a determination, or to even begin the analysis. CMIIAW. 
AG “



We do have the clues, and we can answer that carbon, silicon cannot make any 
difference, unless you disbelieve in Mechanism. It is up to you, to  suggest 
what a continuous non mechanist matter could be, and how it links consciousness 
(first person, knowledge) and the observation (something that the materialist 
have failed to explain since about 1500 years). 


Bruno


> 
> 
> In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that behaved very similarly (as 
> similar as two different humans) and yet, because of the way I implemented 
> their memory or computers their consciousness was very different?  Of course 
> this is related to the question of how do I know that other people have 
> consciousness like mine; except in that case one relies in part on knowing 
> that other people are constructed similarly.
> 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:58:58 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​>> ​
 ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a 
 brain in a box made of glass?

>>>
>>> ​>* ​*
>>> *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.*
>>>
>>
>> ​And a brain in a glass box​
>>  
>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a 
>> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to. 
>> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager 
>> connections brains now have. 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> "It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
>

Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a 
human body. Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such 
as the Internet, and everything is good to go? AG 

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a 
>>> brain in a box made of glass?
>>>
>>
>> ​>* ​*
>> *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.*
>>
>
> ​And a brain in a glass box​
>  
> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a 
> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to. 
> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager 
> connections brains now have. 
>
> John K Clark
>

"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG

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