Re: Re: Re: American Intelligence
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 12:38 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue? http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. Thiscompares annual risk of dying http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. You could argue that this is because of the security apparatus that the US has created, but that just doesn't seem credible. The security apparatus only protects you against previous scenarios. Some idiot tried to get in a plane with explosive shoes, so now we have to take off our shoes to board a plane. Some tried a bottle, so now we have to throw away liquids. It's what Bruce Schneier refers to as movie-plot threats: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/seventh_movie-p.html In reality, a terrorist who is willing to die for their cause has billions of options available. It is essentially impossible to protect yourself against someone who is willing to die to harm you. Even more so if the you is fluid: any american civilian will do. The fact that so few people die each year on terrorist attacks strikes me as strong evidence that there is no credible threat. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Re: Re: American Intelligence
Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue? My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: RE: Re: American Intelligence
Chris, nobody in power shares my love for global war, as you put it, but I am very logical in noting the decline of American effectiveness, and prowess. The world is soon becoming, a No Country for Old Men sort of place, thats less free and more dangerous. A weakend US now invites attack, but theres nothing to be done, as individuals but wait. Americans are used to stumbling along until something happens, and this is the period we're now in. Supporting the policies and attitude of an insousuant, presidency, is not the way to go now, but you've expressed otherwise. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:40 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence I am suspecting, based on intelligence made public,using the old Claude Shannon method based on what the faithful te each other,nin Arabic and Farsi, that they view the unraveling of the Bagdad,regime that Allah smiles upon their holy war. In their messages to each other they encourage one another to bring divine punishment upon the Americans. Can they seriously, do this? It may just be war talk, but their leader is experienced in such matters. If they possess active new toys that they can heap upon the enemies of Allah. I will say its a true threat, but how much lead time will they need to act, and upon which target is unknown. I wouldn't ignore this or be content by telling ourselves we are so big and bad, we can never be hurt. I love Amrerica, but I see us as a giant with a glass jaw. But, if anyone disagrees with your view of what a love of America entails, you begin claiming that they are America haters; that, quoting your colorful Trotskyite manner of speech fellow travelers of the Jihadists. E.g. in bed with America's enemies. You don't get to do this; and if you do, you shouldn't be all that surprised really, when someone calls you a fascist. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 04-Jul-2014 18:43:53 + Subject: RE: Re: Re: American Intelligence -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] Well, my question is, are you automatically, dismissing jihadi terrorism as a chimera, a false threat, a non-issue? My answer: you are automatically assuming that it is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence
Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence
Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: RE: RE: American Intelligence
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 5:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: American Intelligence Chris, so how will you be able to live with yourself, if, say, you cannot budge me from my horrible views? Secondly, you are not a US citizen, are you? How will you control America if you cannot even control, influence, or browbeat me? Just curious. Oh... no worries mate I will live just fine... don't over-estimate your own importance to me or anyone else... I am merely making the point that you are a war-mongering coward. I don't expect to change you. Who cares if I am a US citizen or not? If I was not a US citizen would I therefore not have the right -- for some strange reason -- to not be calling you a coward? I am however a US citizen, sorry buddy -- see you have to deal with me and millions of other US citizens who think people like you are off their rockers. You see things in the optic of control -- quite telling actually, illuminating in fact of your own psychology that you used that particular term... you see, not everyone sees things the way you see things. Not everyone seeks to control outcomes. I, usually like to work things out, except when dealing with intolerant individuals, such as say yourself spudboy. In such cases, since I know a-priori that there is no working things out I will be right there in your face and have no interest in even trying to work it out -- you don't operate on that wavelength spudboy -- you seek to impose your world view and wish to do so with violent means... you pine for total war A-hole, but are too much of a coward to go do the fighting yourself. No, there is no working anything out with individuals such as you, who portray anyone who does not share their desire for a global conflagration as being a traitor. Thus I do not even bother; why waste any energy. But I will make the point that you are a coward; and have some fun with it. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx]Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this
Hi Chaotic Inflation More liberal so-called science. These are the nut-jobs that gave us CO2 as the cause of global warming. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: Chaotic Inflation Receiver: theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com,4dwor...@yahoogroups.com,theoretical_physics_bo...@yahoogroups.com,theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com Time: 2013-08-05, 04:43:42 Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: [4DWorldx]Fw:Re:Re:[Theoretical_Physics_Board] OK, but think about this Really? Suicide[edit source | editbeta] See also: Let Them Eat Prozac The FDA requires all antidepressants to carry a black box warning stating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicide in people younger than 25. This warning is based on statistical analyses conducted by two independent groups of the FDA experts that found a 2-fold increase of the suicidal ideation and behavior in children and adolescents, and 1.5-fold increase of suicidality in the 18–24 age group. The suicidality was slightly decreased for those older than 24, and statistically significantly lower in the 65 and older group.[41][42][43] This analysis was criticized by Donald Klein, who noted that suicidality, that is suicidal ideation and behavior, is not necessarily a good surrogate marker for completed suicide, and it is still possible that antidepressants may prevent actual suicide while increasing suicidality.[44] There is less data on fluoxetine than on antidepressants as a whole. For the above analysis on the antidepressant level, the FDA had to combine the results of 295 trials of 11 antidepressants for psychiatric indications to obtain statistically significant results. Considered separately, fluoxetine use in children increased the odds of suicidality by 50%,[45] and in adults decreased the odds of suicidality by approximately 30%.[42][43] Similarly, the analysis conducted by the UK MHRA found a 50% increase of odds of suicide-related events, not reaching statistical significance, in the children and adolescents on fluoxetine as compared to the ones on placebo. According to the MHRA data, for adults fluoxetine did not change the rate of self-harm and statistically significantly decreased suicidal ideation by 50%.[46][47] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Them_Eat_Prozac David Healy is an Irish psychiatrist who is a professor in Psychological Medicine at Cardiff University School of Medicine, Wales. He is also the director of North Wales School of Psychological Medicine. He became the centre of controversy concerning the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medicine and academia. For most of his career Healy has held the view that Prozacand SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) can lead to suicide and has been critical of the amount of ghost writing in the current scientific literature. Healy's views led to what has been termed “The Toronto Affair” which was, at its core, a debate aboutacademic freedom. Contents [hide] * 1 Background and research * 2 SSRIs, suicide and Healy * 2.1 Does Prozac cause suicide? * 2.2 Lilly’s knowledge of Prozac and suicide * 2.3 Tobin vs. SmithKline * 3 Healy’s healthy volunteer study * 4 Toronto affair * 4.1 Lecture * 4.2 Aftermath * 5 Ghost writing * 6 Solutions * 7 Editorial board membership * 8 Books * 9 Resources * 10 See also * 11 References * 12 External links Background and research[edit source | editbeta] Healy was born in Raheny, Dublin. He completed an MD in neuroscience and studied psychiatry during a clinical research fellowship at Cambridge University Clinical School. In 1990, Healy became a Senior Lecturer in Psychological Medicine at North Wales. In 1996 he became a Reader in Psychological Medicine, then later became Professor. His current research interests at Cardiff University include: cognitive functioning in affective disorders and psychoses as well as circadian rhythms in affective disorders, recovery in psychoses and physical health of people with mental illness. He also heads the psychiatric inpatient unit at Bangor, North Wales, where treatments include electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and psychiatric medication.[1] Healy has authored a number of books and is an expert on the history and development ofpsychopharmacology. He co-authored a book, History of Convulsive Therapy with Edward Shorter. Healy’s work, particularly his histories of psychopharmacology, influenced Charles Barber's book Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation. SSRIs, suicide and Healy[edit source | editbeta] Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are used to treat major depression. At one time it was hypothesized that depression was due to low levels of serotonin in the brain and that antidepressants increased this level.[2] But this theory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Richard Ruquist We live in mjuch different worlds, so it's hard to discuss things with you. 1) Spacetime itself is not physical. 2) Spacetime is not a slice of quantum mind (whatever that is). etc. as I frequently but ineffectively try to correct. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-03, 09:37:42 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe Dear Roger, Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d universe are physical. The 4d-block mindspace (more accurate terminology) contains a reflection of 3d physical space as a slice of the 4d quantum mind. The 4th space dimension of the quantum mind is timelike in the sense that it contains the flux on which the arithmetic computations of all future possibilities are written, as well as which ones became physical. In MWI they all become physical- all possibilities become physical- which makes the 4d-block mindspace deterministic and thereby eliminates the need for time and consciousness. In comp, 1-p reintroduces time and consciousness. In string theory, time is a given physical dimension but otherwise rather mysterious. I suggest that whoever designed this mind/body duality put time in explicitly to allow for consciousness from the beginning rather than wait for it to evolve. You may call the designer, god. And I think it's a useful catchall word. But we should be careful not to do to theology what we do to global warming- that is to give it human characteristics. I come from the perspective of having practiced every major religion in the world. In fact I practice the major elements of all of them on a daily basis, what I call yanniruism. I started with protestant christianity, then catholic christianity, then years of atheism, then a decade of judaism, and finally atheistic buddhism, sufism and atheistic hinduism. BTW reform judaism turned out to be basically atheistic. Regarding who the designer is, the best answer I know of comes from sufism. Their ultimate god is known by a sound, hu, and the objective of all sufi practices seems to be to get to hear that sound. It is what the blood rushing thru your brain sounds like. In yanniruism, Hu is the platonic source of mathematics from which form derives. I think there is also a sound for the father god and the son god, respectively Ho and Ha. I get this from the Hindu mantra for the 3rd eye chakra, om na ma ye ho va, and from the hindu mantra for the heart chakra, om na ma ya weh ha. I associate the Ha god with the universe and the Ho god with the 4d block mindspace of the Metaverse. Please consider this paragraph as my bio. The Metaverse is perhaps an infinite 3D-space that includes the 3D-spaces of all existing universes. Each universe contains a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, a 3D-subspace that I consider to be the comp machine of the universe. It regulates all physical particle interactions based on inherent laws and constants and gives us a universal consciousness based on its incompleteness. But where do the laws and constants come from? A higher-order source of comp is required. Hence the function of the Metaverse. Here it is useful to introduce the total number of possible bits of information thought to be available in a holographic universe, 10^120, the so-called Lloyd limit. I accept Martin Rees suggestion that when a physical process requires more bits than this number, the process may become emergent, like consciousness is emergent due to incompleteness. Processes in the universe are I think incomplete because of the Lloyd limit of information. It's a function of the surface area of the universe. The 10^120 is based on the observable universe (radius 46 BLY) but the actual holographic universe could be much larger. Penrose suggests an upper limit of 10^122 bits. I suggest that this is not enough for comp to develop physical laws, constants and matter. For that I think we need the Metaverse which even if finite has a superabundance of bits for computation purposes. Therefore I conclude that the laws and constants of physics are comp derived in the Metaverse and written on the 4D-block mindspace of the Metaverse. Indeed for comp to control how each universe inflates by way of flux compactification, there must be a source of comp outside the universe. Using the old adage that what's up is down, but also from the viewpoint of Metaverse/universe compatibility, I conjecture that the Metaverse also contains a 4D-spacetime, separate from the universe, at least outside of the universe, plus a 3D-subspace containing most likely a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, the ultimate comp machine. However, because of the size and nearly infinite completeness of Meta-comp, there is some question if it could
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Yes. I am a scientist. You are an engineer. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist We live in mjuch different worlds, so it's hard to discuss things with you. 1) Spacetime itself is not physical. 2) Spacetime is not a slice of quantum mind (whatever that is). etc. as I frequently but ineffectively try to correct. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-03, 09:37:42 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe Dear Roger, Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d universe are physical. The 4d-block mindspace (more accurate terminology) contains a reflection of 3d physical space as a slice of the 4d quantum mind. The 4th space dimension of the quantum mind is timelike in the sense that it contains the flux on which the arithmetic computations of all future possibilities are written, as well as which ones became physical. In MWI they all become physical- all possibilities become physical- which makes the 4d-block mindspace deterministic and thereby eliminates the need for time and consciousness. In comp, 1-p reintroduces time and consciousness. In string theory, time is a given physical dimension but otherwise rather mysterious. I suggest that whoever designed this mind/body duality put time in explicitly to allow for consciousness from the beginning rather than wait for it to evolve. You may call the designer, god. And I think it's a useful catchall word. But we should be careful not to do to theology what we do to global warming- that is to give it human characteristics. I come from the perspective of having practiced every major religion in the world. In fact I practice the major elements of all of them on a daily basis, what I call yanniruism. I started with protestant christianity, then catholic christianity, then years of atheism, then a decade of judaism, and finally atheistic buddhism, sufism and atheistic hinduism. BTW reform judaism turned out to be basically atheistic. Regarding who the designer is, the best answer I know of comes from sufism. Their ultimate god is known by a sound, hu, and the objective of all sufi practices seems to be to get to hear that sound. It is what the blood rushing thru your brain sounds like. In yanniruism, Hu is the platonic source of mathematics from which form derives. I think there is also a sound for the father god and the son god, respectively Ho and Ha. I get this from the Hindu mantra for the 3rd eye chakra, om na ma ye ho va, and from the hindu mantra for the heart chakra, om na ma ya weh ha. I associate the Ha god with the universe and the Ho god with the 4d block mindspace of the Metaverse. Please consider this paragraph as my bio. The Metaverse is perhaps an infinite 3D-space that includes the 3D-spaces of all existing universes. Each universe contains a cubic lattice of Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particles, a 3D-subspace that I consider to be the comp machine of the universe. It regulates all physical particle interactions based on inherent laws and constants and gives us a universal consciousness based on its incompleteness. But where do the laws and constants come from? A higher-order source of comp is required. Hence the function of the Metaverse. Here it is useful to introduce the total number of possible bits of information thought to be available in a holographic universe, 10^120, the so-called Lloyd limit. I accept Martin Rees suggestion that when a physical process requires more bits than this number, the process may become emergent, like consciousness is emergent due to incompleteness. Processes in the universe are I think incomplete because of the Lloyd limit of information. It's a function of the surface area of the universe. The 10^120 is based on the observable universe (radius 46 BLY) but the actual holographic universe could be much larger. Penrose suggests an upper limit of 10^122 bits. I suggest that this is not enough for comp to develop physical laws, constants and matter. For that I think we need the Metaverse which even if finite has a superabundance of bits for computation purposes. Therefore I conclude that the laws and constants of physics are comp derived in the Metaverse and written on the 4D-block mindspace of the Metaverse. Indeed for comp to control how each universe inflates by way of flux compactification, there must be a source of comp outside the universe. Using the old adage that what's up is down, but also from the viewpoint of Metaverse/universe compatibility, I conjecture that the Metaverse also contains a 4D-spacetime, separate from the universe, at least outside of the universe, plus a 3D-subspace containing most likely
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Roger, I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology) is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past. Richard PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived from comp. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Richard Ruquist The 4 dimensional or even the 11 dimensional universe cannot contain mind, because mind is nonphysical and they are physical. So the block universe is a waste of time. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-03, 07:19:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe Roger, I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology) is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past. Richard PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived from comp. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don'nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
worlds. A fellow on the Mind/brain list has such a theory but without my metaphysical trimmings. I want to talk about the implication of a hologaphic universe on the speed of comp processing and in turn on quantum interpetations, but I think enough said for now. I wonder if any will even read this far. Thanks for the opportunity and stimulus to present this system analysis. I really appreciate being on this list. Richard On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist The 4 dimensional or even the 11 dimensional universe cannot contain mind, because mind is nonphysical and they are physical. So the block universe is a waste of time. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-03, 07:19:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe Roger, I think the block universe (not quite accurate terminology) is actually the 4-dimensional quantum mind and in it is written all possible futures and pasts based on comp and quantum mechanics as well as info on what became physical and is now in the past. Richard PS: Quantum mechanics, and I think string theory, is of course derived from comp. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Dear Roger, Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d universe are physical. Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert energy. If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each other, can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least private experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as non-physical doesn't leave any room for interaction. Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public physics. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Depend on what you mean by physical. For me , the block universes is a manifold, a pure mathematical structure which may not contain the minds but somehow contain their history and determine their lawful and communicable experiences. The physical world, what we see, with his causalities, his time, his 3d space, his macroscopical laws, is a product of the mind when he contemplate the mathematical structure from inside. 2013/2/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona My understanding is that the block universe is the physical universe, so it does not include the world of mind. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-02-02, 14:14:51 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don′nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 *Subject:* Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 *Subject:* Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Straw dog there is no mention of a separation On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 3, 2013 9:37:42 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: Dear Roger, Only 4d spacetime, matter and energy are physical. Everything else is non-physical and therefore part of the mind. This includes comp up thru quantum mechanics. Only 4 dimensions for example of the 11d universe are physical. Except that my non-physical intentions cause my physical matter to exert energy. If the non-physical and physical can directly influence each other, can the separation really be said to be complete? At the very least private experience should be trans-physical or tele-physical as non-physical doesn't leave any room for interaction. Of course, I see everything as physical, with time-based experience being private physics and the addition of space-based realism being public physics. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list
Hi Russell Standish Fine. - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-01, 16:54:48 Subject: Re: Re: [Metadiscussion] Off topic posting on the everything-list On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:30:39AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Nothing human is off-topic to me. Which suggests that materialism and brain science are off-topic. By contrast, discussion of materialism and neuroscience is definitely on-topic, and has often been discussed in this forum. One cannot avoid the elephant in the room that any TOE needs to address consciousness in some form or other. But it does not need to address social policy issues, fo example. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 Subject: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent Lessons from the Block Universe Ken Wharton Department of Physics and Astronomy San Jos State University http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wharton_Wharton_Essay.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 In Liouville mechanics, states of incomplete knowledge exhibit phenomena analogous to those exhibited by pure quantum states. Among these are the existence of a no-cloning theorem for such states [21, 23], the impossibility of discriminating such states with certainty [21, 24], the lack of exponential divergence of such states (in the space of epistemic states) under chaotic evolution [25], and, for correlated states, many of the features of entanglement [26]. On the other hand, states of complete knowledge do not exhibit these phenomena. This suggests that one would obtain a better analogy with quantum theory if states of complete knowledge were somehow impossible to achieve, that is, if somehow maximal knowledge was always incomplete knowledge [21, 22, 27]. This idea is borne out by the results of this paper. In fact, the toy theory suggests that the restriction on knowledge should take a particular form, namely, that one? knowledge be quantitatively equal to one? ignorance in a state of maximal knowledge. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot derive quantum theory from the toy theory, nor from any simple modification thereof. The problem is that the toy theory is a theory of incomplete knowledge about local and noncontextual hidden variables, and it is
Re: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
Hi Telmo Menezes By material I mean physical. Decartes similarly defines the physical as being extended in space. Mathematics is not extended in space, so is nonphysical. A Turing machine is conceived of as having a tape with holes in it, but it can be used mathematically without physically constructing it. An actual computer consists of hardware, which is physical, and software, which may be physical in terms of charges, but ultimately those charges represent binary nuymbers, and numbers are nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 08:59:44 Subject: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ? Hi Roger, On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Agreed, computers can be, or at least seem to be, intelligent, but they are slaves to mathematical codes, which are not material. A turing machine is not material, it is an idea. Ok but that depends on how you define material. Those mathematical codes are what I mean by material. F = mA is (an approximation) of part of what I mean by material. You can build and approximation of a turing machine (a finite one) with stuff you can touch and you can ever use it as a doorstop. - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-02-02, 06:05:53 Subject: Re: How can intelligence be physical ? Hi Roger, I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on. Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do, people say oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will never be able to do X. And then they do. And then people say the same thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special. WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all, How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ? How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ? How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ? IMHO You need to consider what is really going on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception. Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness. In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard: Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements. Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single
Re: Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:10:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes By material I mean physical. Decartes similarly defines the physical as being extended in space. Mathematics is not extended in space, so is nonphysical. A Turing machine is conceived of as having a tape with holes in it, but it can be used mathematically without physically constructing it. An actual computer consists of hardware, which is physical, and software, which may be physical in terms of charges, but ultimately those charges represent binary nuymbers, and numbers are nonphysical. I agree that mathematics is not extended in space, but rather, like all things not extended, is intended. Mathematics is an intention to reason quantitatively, and quantitative reasoning is an internalized model of spatially extended qualities: persistent, passive entities which can be grouped or divided: rigid bodies. Digits. So yes, numbers are not extended, but they are intended to represent what is extended. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-02-02, 08:59:44 *Subject:* Re: Re: How can intelligence be physical ? Hi Roger, On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Agreed, computers can be, or at least seem to be, intelligent, but they are slaves to mathematical codes, which are not material. A turing machine is not material, it is an idea. Ok but that depends on how you define material. Those mathematical codes are what I mean by material. F = mA is (an approximation) of part of what I mean by material. You can build and approximation of a turing machine (a finite one) with stuff you can touch and you can ever use it as a doorstop. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-02-02, 06:05:53 *Subject:* Re: How can intelligence be physical ? Hi Roger, I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on. Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do, people say oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will never be able to do X. And then they do. And then people say the same thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special. WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi socr...@bezeqint.net javascript: and Craig, and all, How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ? How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ? How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ? IMHO You need to consider what is really going on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ One is obliged to admit that *perception* and what depends upon it is *inexplicable on mechanical principles*, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception. Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness. In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the *New System of Nature* (1695), the second from the *Reply to Bayle* (1702), are revealing in this regard: Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the *I* in us; such a thing could not occur
Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
In the world of the mind, that is, in what we call reality, it causes everithing because causality is another phenomenon introduced by the mind (1p) In the timeless view, there is no causality buy casualty Viewed from above in a broad perspective, then to cause something is to select it, so there is a identity between the anthropic principle at large, natural selection and voluntary conscious selection by a mind. all three can be seen as causations when we examine them from a 1p perspective, in a timeful fashion. But viewing the block universe from above, simply they are correlations. There is no causality but local phenomenons. I have to mention that a view from above would need a mind with space-time qualia and probably a meta-time that we can only imagine. for this mind, creation of the universes adquire another very different meaning, since he would look at the complete figure of the universe, the beginning and at the end of it simultaneously. he would see what exist for us (the phenomena that we have selected by the fact that we live in them) and what does not exist (because we don´nt observe it, and maybe we can not even imagine it). 2013/2/2 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Does your version of mind actually do anything ? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-02-02, 04:43:54 *Subject:* Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe I do think that a block universe can contain minds in a certain way. The objections against that are based in the absence of time, but space(3D geometry) and time can and should be a product of the machinery of the mind, in the kantian sense. But while in Kant things in themselves are unreachable, in the block universe the thing in themselves are pure mathematics. so there are infinite minds at different moments that produce psychological phenomenons in coherence with the infinite sucession of brains along their lines of life, that are perceived psychologicaly as time. these brains and living beings, are localy perceived as products of natural selection, but seen from above, their lines of life are just trajectories where, by fortunate collisions of particles, chemical and electrical signals, the entropy is exceptionally maintained constant (until the end of the line of life) But the minds are somehow in another world, the world of the mind, which includes not only our thoughs but everithing we see around us, because everithing the mind see is produced by the machinery of the brain. Then the block universe of mathematics brings only the coherent substrate where the world of the mind can appear by evolution. Because it is a world with laws and rules, given by the mathematical nature behind, it is not a collection of boltzmann brains, or, if it is, they are a extraordinary persistent and coherent form of it so that it appear to contain laws of nature and shared experiences, because we can ask ourselves and communicate and agree, on these laws and these experiences. 2013/1/31 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal The block universe is the physical universe. So we are not part of it, for it does not allow subjectivity, which is nonphysical. Or mathematics or comp, which are also nonphysical. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 12:45:53 *Subject:* Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On 29 Jan 2013, at 15:04, Richard Ruquist wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. With comp consciousness does not allow any (aristotelian) universes. There is comp block mindscape, and the universe(s) = the border of the mindscape as seen from inside. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, From inside. although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. The comp mind-body problems can be restated by the fact that with comp, there is an infinity of omega points, and the physics of here and now should be retrieved from some sum or integral on all omega points. By using the self-reference logics we got all the nuances we need (3p, 1p, 1p-plural, communicable, sharable, observable, etc.). Bruno Richard. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net+meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Here's an essay that is suggestive of Bruno's distinction between what is provable and what is true (knowable) but unprovable. Maybe this is a place where COMP could contribute to the understanding of QM. Brent Lessons from the Block Universe Ken Wharton Department of Physics and Astronomy San Jos State University
Re: Re: Re: Hateful
Hi Terren Suydam Faith is a gift we are unworthy of. - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 14:21:17 Subject: Re: Re: Hateful Hi Roger, What else is it? If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in terms of group persistence. If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has never seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize one's spirituality. Terren On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Terren Suydam Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true, but that's not all it is. - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 10:22:37 Subject: Re: Hateful Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's?achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.? also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea. Terren On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org %--DreamMail_AD_END-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
Hi John Mikes It didn't feel good. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 17:45:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 years of active life on 3 continents. Please try to understand what you read. John Mikes On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 Subject: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 Subject: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The unfairness argument?or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org %--DreamMail_AD_END-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list
Re: Re: Re: Hateful
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Terren Suydam Faith is a gift we are unworthy of. Whatever floats your boat. Terren - Receiving the following content - *From:* Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 14:21:17 *Subject:* Re: Re: Hateful Hi Roger, What else is it? If you say it is the arbiter of morality, then that too can be framed in terms of group persistence. If you're talking about spirituality, whatever one means by that, it has never seemed the case to me that religion is *required* for one to realize one's spirituality. Terren On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Terren Suydam Considering religion as a stabilizing social phenomenon is true, but that's not all it is. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-30, 10:22:37 *Subject:* Re: Hateful Personally, my take on religion is that it has been an extraordinarily successful means of organizing groups. I don't religion has ever been any one person's燤achiavellian scheme, rather I think religion (and other cultural institutions) have been selected for in the evolution of culture.營 also tend to see collectives of humans as organisms-in-themselves, in roughly the same way that a hive of bees can be seen as an organism in itself; and that human genetics has co-evolved with the cultural memetics. As such, I tend to run religious dogma through this filter: does it promote values in individuals, that, taken collectively, make the collective more likely to persist. When I run the above prayer through that filter I find that it is a pretty good fit for that idea. Terren On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.auwrote: This is a pretty well-worn, oft-used, school prayer. Given it is recited or sung by the entire student body and staff at a good many schools and other institutions you would have to assume that it's all fundamentally good stuff. Teach us, good Lord, to serve thee as thou deserves; to give and not to count the cost; to fight and not to heed the wounds; to till, and not to seek for rest; to labour, and not to ask for any reward, save that of knowing we do thy will. Amen. But it's all incredibly bad advice, really - don't you think? Why do people assume God wants Earthlings to be such a bunch of try-hards? I hate this prayer. It advertises values that no one can live up to and no one need live up to. Surely we can invent a better, less servile, less obsequious, less cringing, less Gollum-like take on what we think God wants for us. All this servility, this grovelling at the feet of somebody. Is God really into all that? I don't believe it. Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org %--DreamMail_AD_END-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 Subject: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 Subject: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The unfairness argument?or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus?ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. ?he argument is that?ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. DreamMail - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org %--DreamMail_AD_END-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Re: Re: Facts vs values
Hi Alberto G. Corona Not to worry. Since, along with Leibniz (see his Theodicy) I believe that everything is caused (sometimes unpreferably) by God, then faith is a gift, and, contrary to Billy Graham, cannot be invoked by man. You cannot decide to choose for Christ. You can however turn it down. To say it briefly, I believe that religion is not about man, it's about God. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-30, 06:23:15 Subject: Re: Re: Facts vs values 2013/1/30 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Bruno Marchal, ? When I read the Bible, it is a subjective act, but not my own subjective act alonw, it is contained in the subjectivity of the Holy Spirit. ? I? afraid that when the bible and the Holy Spirit is put away by more radical movements of a tradition of protest, then there remains only subjectivity, that is slave of the passions, as Luther said. Then we see as good what experientially it has been known that is bad during?housand?ears of history. If one add that the only remaining access to the experience of other human beings: History, literature, philosophy and all other humanities are being eradicacated from the school curricula, then we have completed the path to perfect self-branded subjectivism, for the glory and power of a nanny state ruled by passion satisfaction demagogy that manage at will its herd of free idiots. ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-27, 06:36:10 Subject: Re: Facts vs values On 25 Jan 2013, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote: ? I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being ??a Christian when I deal with the Bible. Of course we differ on this. For me science does not exist, only scientific attitude. And I consider that the scientific attitude is even more important with respect to faith than to observation, but this of course has been jeopardize when we have been imposed the argument per authority in the spiritual field, and I think this explain intolerance, religion wars, and a lot of unecessary suffering. ? Or with science when I deal with science and with aesthetics when ??I visit an art museam. Or go to a concert. ? Or with being a scientist when I deal?ith the Big Bang ??and being a Christian when I read Genesis. Two different ??accounts, from two different realms,?f the same event. ? Science has its own realm of validity in the realm of facts, ??but has no place -not even a foothold-- in the world of values. I agree with this, but values can add to science, not contradict it, or it leads to bad faith and authorianism. same for art: it extends science but does not oppose to it.? ? The difference between a fool and a wise man is in knowing the difference. I am not sure. If you separate science from religion, you attract the superstition and the wishful thinking. It might have a role, but that can be explained. And then, for many that difference will make science into a pseudo-religion. Ideal science is just ideal honesty/modesty. Bruno ? - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ? ? http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ? ? -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe
Hi Richard Ruquist Consciousness is not a force that might do things. It is what allows us to perceive and know things. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-29, 20:39:40 Subject: Re: Re: Lessons from the Block Universe On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: A block universe does not allow for consciousness. The fact the we all possess consciousness, so we think, means that our universe is not completely blocked, although the deviations from block may be minor and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point. Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious. It is to me. I think it is very unlikely that the motions and evolutions of star and galaxies and in my model even universes could be strongly affected by biological consciousness -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 6:26:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Maybe our enemies want to just attack us enough for us to keep pouring more money into the military, thereby diverting the entire budget away from services and institutions which hold the society together, and dumping it into a bottomless toilet of corrupt defense contractors and debt service. It's a funny thing: When there's peace and prosperity - A good time to increase the military for a strong defense. When there's war and financial trouble - A good time to increase the military because we can't afford not to. Since our military is larger than the next 12 or 13 countries combined (nearly all of whom are allies) - the question is, will there ever be a time when expanding the military should not be a top priority for the US? Craig Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: The unfairness argument�or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus�ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. �he argument is that�ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 years of active life on 3 continents. Please try to understand what you read. John Mikes On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes jami...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: The unfairness argument爁or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your leaving off. use again www.dreammail.org %--DreamMail_AD_END-- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:45:12 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: Roger: it is obvious that you have not understand a word of my post. Did it feel good to mention it as far left? My experience is balanced, I was a victim of right and left (and also of the so called middle) in my latest 75 years of active life on 3 continents. Please try to understand what you read. John Mikes Far Left = Hitler, Robert Redford, libraries, Pol Pot, people who eat vegetables, Barack Obama, the Bubonic Plague, things that aren't good, dark things, women. Left = Far Left Progressive = Far Left Moderate = Far Left Far Right = Does not exist Conservative = Heroes, hard workers, patriots, businessmen, wealthy old people, anti-communists, God, Jesus. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes That's the argument of the Far Left, that miltary strength induces our enemies to attack us, so we should cut back on defense spending. And any defensive actions we have made in the past only count against us. Since we are dealing with fanatics. you could be right, but my personal opinion is that they hate us anyway, so cutting back will not improve things, and is less likely to deter them. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-28, 15:04:01 *Subject:* Re: Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Not with (money/power hungry) politicians we have nowadays. That, maybe a Superior firepower brings up competition and - maybe - crimes like the 9-11-2001 especially if some religious self-sacrifice can be included. Imperialism has its new formats, e.g. to rule over natural resources (raw materials) and labor-power abroad. Such was the Taliban negotiation in 2001 with the Cheney-group(?), allegedly leading to a required standstill in FBI etc. surveillance - when preparations for the attacks were already on their way, as the Washington visiting Israeli PM allegedly hinted on his visit at that time. And do not tell me that exercising the superior firepower 6000+ miles away on the far side of the Globe is to protect the US-soil. One more thing: fire-power includes also the bombing prowess of a semi-civilian(?) militant group, as we witness in Iraq - Afghanistan. Nobody can 'occupy' (pacify) a country with planes, drones or Navy ONLY with infantry on the ground. And THAT would include women. IMO political diplomacy should make FRIENDS, not victims. JM On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi John Mikes You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression. I believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36 *Subject:* Re: The fairness argument and women in the infantry Roger - thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful. John Mikes On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: The unfairness argument爁or allowing women into the infantry is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the infantry is unfair to women because they are just as good as men at fighting, and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their advancement. This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn after 18 months because it didn't work. The function of the military is to insure our national security, not to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead, will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of the military ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
Hi John Clark No, I let science be science and religion be religion. Different languages, different meanings. You're confusing the two. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-25, 11:29:01 Subject: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality On Fri, Jan 25, 2013? Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy, ? How about Luther's views on geology? How about his view that the Earth was less than six thousand years old, do you agree with that? ? as a modern Lutheran Which apparently is nearly identical to a medieval Lutheran. I agree with everything Luther said I do too, Luther gave a good explanation of why it is that if you want to be a good Christian you've got to be stupid. ? Faith opens the inner eye, which science wants to blind. And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. So it is said that with faith, you have everything, without faith you have nothing. And you know this because that's what mommy and daddy told you. true stupidity is to rely only on reason. I rest my case. ? John K Clark ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On Friday, January 25, 2013 1:59:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark That's all made-up stuff put on the web by people such as you. Not by the worldwide liberal conspiracy? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: the ancient jews in the BC era knew nothing Not far from the truth. of the ancient myths, If they knew anything at all it was useless crap like that. “There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, But Mithra was certainly known in the non-Roman world long before then and the Jews weren't conquered by Rome until 63 BC. but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. And the oldest written gospels come from the fourth century. Osiris was born of the Egyptian sky-goddess Nut-Meri and the god Seb (Geb). Nut-Meri was not a virgin Who cares, I was talking about the God Horus not His dad; the God Osiris was the father of the God Horus. His birth was attended by three wise men. I did not write that! John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Craig Weinberg Period, meaning that's it. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of course... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
Hi Craig Weinberg An article in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.[10] According to William Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations.[11] Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.[12] Some studies state that in developed countries, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.[13][14] Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies. [15] - wikipedia - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 Subject: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 ? 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ?isorders? and was judged to be ?isturbed but sane? by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of
Re: Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:32:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg OK, you can see that in two current junk science cults: (a) materialism (b) climate change What I can see is that your responses seem to be generated by this logic tree: Do I Understand It? Yes = Leibniz No = God Do I Like It? Yes = Rational No = Blame Liberals (aka Nazi-Communist Jews who advocate a Welfare-Police state) Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 09:15:40 *Subject:* Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/btCFEZ0P0pMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:46:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Period, meaning that's it. I know what you meant by period. If you noticed, I attached a list of serial killers who followed what they understood to be the voice of God. The implication is that if you disable your own critical thinking and open your will to whatever claims to be God in your psyche, then don't be surprised if you end up murdering and eating people, as so many have found out and continue to find out. Ah, but they're probably Liberals, eh? The Godless Nazi-Hippies that do whatever God says. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of course... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg An article in the American Journal of Psychiatryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Psychiatryin 2004 suggested that atheists might have a higher suicide rate than theists.[10]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-10According to William Bainbridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sims_Bainbridge, atheism is common among people whose social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in some industrial nations.[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-11Extended length of sobriety in alcohol recovery is related positively to higher levels of theistic belief, active community helping, and self-transcendence.[12]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-12Some studies state that in developed countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country, health, life expectancy, and other correlates of wealth, tend to be statistical predictors of a greater percentage of atheists, compared to countries with higher proportions of believers.[13]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-13 [14]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-mmartin-14Multiple methodological problems have been identified with cross-national assessments of religiosity, secularity, and social health which undermine conclusive statements on religiosity and secularity in developed democracies. [15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#cite_note-15 - wikipedia Maybe it's because atheists have higher intelligence on average, and higher intelligence is associated with higher suicide rates in some studies. It's not that hard to see why. If you are smart enough to see through religion, you are smart enough to see through the spectacle that passes for life on this planet. Without the fear of burning in hell forever, a lot of people would probably be more likely to end their lives. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-23, 12:48:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of �isorders� and was judged to be �isturbed but sane� by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 � 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the world just as we do. wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? No, there would be exactly what there is. If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon *human*consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies
Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OmwLFfn7ecsJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs effect. Particles can emerge anywhere and as needed, e.g., particle pair creation, but from where, and what do they feed from, creation ex nihilo? That seems like a physical impossibility. Anyway, why would we have wave-particle complementarity if it were not because matter depends on the substrate? Isn't this the reason why we need a Higgs mechanism? Wave-particle complementarity applies to massless particles too; Einstein got the Nobel prize for explaining the photo-electric effect. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit
Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity itself from an even more objective perspective. In that sense I am not trying to make a theory which is consistent with any particular school of expectation, only to observe and catalog the phenomenon itself. Craig We have to go back to the beginning. What are we using to measure particles? What are we assuming about energy? Craig On Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/19/2013 8:48 AM, Laurent R Duchesne wrote: Empty Space is not Empty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=y4D6qY2c0Z8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 The so-called Higgs field is just another name for Einstein's gravitational aether. No. There's no gravitational aether. Einstein never suggested such. And gravity doesn't depend on the Higgs field. Mass is the result of matter's field interactions within itself and the space in which it sits, hence, the Higgs mechanism. You need to remember that it's mass-energy. Photons gravitate even though they don't have rest mass. Most of the mass of nucleons comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks bound by gluons, not the Higgs
Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gdJXht6KYKUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/sTqccu4P5KoJ. To post to this group, send
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
Hi Craig Weinberg They don't make sense to you but they do make make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low information, low understanding person ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:00:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2oOpYw773iUJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy
On Sunday, January 20, 2013 3:06:07 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg They don't make sense to you but they do make make sense to me. Could it be that you are a low information, low understanding person ? You can say that it makes sense to you, but I think that you just want it to make sense. I don't know that it makes you any kind of person or not, but I try not to draw conclusions about people based on the collection of ideas which they happen to have inherited. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:00:34 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:43:42 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So you belong to the liberal thought police then. Haha of course. How could it be possible for anyone to see the contradiction of the concept of God without 'belonging to the liberal thought police'? Not only can one not have freedom of speech, one cannot have freedom of beliefs. Liberalism is fascism, it seems. You are welcome to your beliefs, I am just explaining to you why they don't seem to make sense. I could decide that you just belong to the conservative apologists for irrationality but I don't see how that adds to my case. Conservatism may well be fascism, but I don't see what that could possibly have to do one way or the other with the logical inconsistency of a God who is functionally indistinguishable from Satan or randomness. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 14:18:16 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Then you believe that God exists. That's a good start. Can't I point out the absurdity of a belief without being accused of having it? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-19, 09:55:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:22:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Many are called, but few are chosen. You mean many are called in error by an omnipotent-yet-incompetent God, or that they are intentionally called and abandoned by a all-loving-yet-consistently-cruel-and-indifferent God? [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/19/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-18, 17:31:03 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy The reasoning we can use to justify God's ways to man are identical to those we could use to justify the idea that Satan is actually the creator of the universe, and just uses the fiction of God to further torment and tyrannize man. If I were the Devil, I would dictate the bible exactly as it is, full of contradiction and irrelevant genealogy, sprinkled some profound wisdom and lurid violence. But alas, the Bible is just a book pieced together from scraps and re-written over centuries. Shakespeare was a better writer. Billions of people will live their whole lives without ever reading it, and their lives will be no worse for the loss. The bible is creepy if you ask me. It is no blessing. Craig On Friday, January 18, 2013 4:19:47 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: A God-limited God - My Theodicy A theodicy is a justification of God's ways to man. This is my theodicy, based on the Bible and reason. Comments appreciated. Most of the so-called contradictions in the Bible, such as a loving God lashing out at sinners, practically committing genocide, or a loving God allowing tsunamis to happen, or a loving God allowing evil and suffering in this world, can be attributed to a misunderstanding of God's true nature. For reason, as well as the Bible, indicate that God has willingly limited his possible actions in this world to accord with his own pre-existing righteousness as well as the pre-existing truths of necessary reason. Thus that Christ had to die on the cross, instead of having the sins of mankind simply forgiven by God, can be justified by God's righteousness. That is, even God must obey his own justice. Similarly, God must obey the physics of his creation. Physical disasters happen. God can't make 2+2 =5. God lets the rain fall on the just as well as the unjust. And God has given man free will, so that men can do evil as well as good. Although God has unlimited power in the kingdom of Heaven, in this imperfect, contingent world he has had to limit his powers of action. - Roger
Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
Re: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
I First person singular We First person plural You Second person singular / second person plural He Third person masculine singular She Third person feminine singular It Third person neutral singular They Third person plural / third person gender-neutral singular On Friday, January 18, 2013 7:29:43 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) All of these are 1p. To get to 3p you would have to talk about things like the volume or composition of the cat's body. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? You said Potential energy is more than conceptual, so I am explaining why I disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of what could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people could do. Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers and metal bars. Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg OK, I was just thinking in my old engineering frame of mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 11:59:05 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should beTwoAspects Theory On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:54:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, I'm missing your point. What is it ? You said Potential energy is more than conceptual, so I am explaining why I disagree. Potential energy is entirely conceptual, just like any other potential, virtual, or symbolic value. Energy is a way of keeping track of what could happen, just as money is a way of keeping track of what people could do. Without people, we can see that money is just paper and numbers and metal bars. Without matter, energy is similarly nothing at all. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/17/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 10:59:12 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error,it should be TwoAspects Theory On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. It's still conceptual. You could point to someone who has a bad temper and demonstrate that they warp the social environment around them. It could be said figuratively that they 'have a lot of anger stored up in them' or that they are 'potentially violent', but that doesn't mean that there is literally a quantity of potential violence that exists in their tissues or their aura or something. There is nothing stored in a compressed or extended spring, rather there is exactly what it looks like - a motive to restore an inertial equilibrium through motion. Its important to be able to pretend that energy is like a real commodity in order to calculate and engineer matter, but in the absence of matter, there can be no energy at all. Energy is a sensory-motive capacity, not a substance of any kind. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. Seismometers are made of matter, are they not? They measure only the changing positions of matter, nothing else. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, of course. The monads are mental representations of physical bodies in the world. You will presumably have for your physical object some container in L He with a BEC at the bottom. Physical objects such as rocks produce bare naked monads. Is that what you want ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively outside spacetime. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. It is not even a brain in a vat. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. Something you have been preaching for some time. With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. Instant action derives directly from your claim that the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields are out side of spacetime. I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime because the quantum mind is a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet act as though they were out of spacetime. Richard -- Forwarded message -- From: Roger Clough Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM Subject: the curse of materialism To: everything-list Hi socra...@bezeqint.net You want to know why nobody understands QM ? Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. This might be called the curse of materialism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Physics and Metaphysics. John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne === . John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? Why? Because, he wrote: ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. We shall see in what follows that important interpretative issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. / preface/ ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, and these are the subject of continuing dispute? / page 40/ ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, it is that the world is full of surprises? / page 87 / ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory include: . . . .? / page 88 / ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? / page92 / ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and instructive phenomenon, . .? / page 92 / ==. In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. / preface / And, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Roger, Your presumptions are incorrect. Also your monad definition. I am too old for bare naked. Stop being silly. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, of course. The monads are mental representations of physical bodies in the world. You will presumably have for your physical object some container in L He with a BEC at the bottom. Physical objects such as rocks produce bare naked monads. Is that what you want ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively outside spacetime. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. It is not even a brain in a vat. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. Something you have been preaching for some time. With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. Instant action derives directly from your claim that the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields are out side of spacetime. I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime because the quantum mind is a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet act as though they were out of spacetime. Richard -- Forwarded message -- From: Roger Clough Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM Subject: the curse of materialism To: everything-list Hi socra...@bezeqint.net You want to know why nobody understands QM ? Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. This might be called the curse of materialism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Physics and Metaphysics. John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne === . John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? Why? Because, he wrote: ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. We shall see in what follows that important interpretative issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. / preface/ ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, and these are the subject of continuing dispute? / page 40/ ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, it is that the world is full of surprises? / page 87 / ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory include: . . . .? / page 88 / ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? / page92 / ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and instructive phenomenon, . .? / page 92 / ==. In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Hi Richard Ruquist OK I'm fired. I leave the issue to you. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 09:43:48 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, Your presumptions are incorrect. Also your monad definition. I am too old for bare naked. Stop being silly. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, of course. The monads are mental representations of physical bodies in the world. You will presumably have for your physical object some container in L He with a BEC at the bottom. Physical objects such as rocks produce bare naked monads. Is that what you want ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 09:21:38 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism I think its more like applying BEC to Leibniz's monads On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively outside spacetime. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. It is not even a brain in a vat. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. Something you have been preaching for some time. With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. Instant action derives directly from your claim that the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields are out side of spacetime. I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime because the quantum mind is a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet act as though they were out of spacetime. Richard -- Forwarded message -- From: Roger Clough Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM Subject: the curse of materialism To: everything-list Hi socra...@bezeqint.net You want to know why nobody understands QM ? Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. This might be called the curse of materialism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Physics and Metaphysics. John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne === . John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? Why? Because, he wrote: ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. We shall see in what follows that important interpretative issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. / preface/ ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, and these are the subject of continuing dispute? / page 40/ ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, it is that the world is full of surprises? / page 87 / ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory include: . . . .? / page 88 / ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising
Re: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism
Hi Craig Weinberg I agree with you. I have no idea what Richard has in mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 09:16:17 Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism I don't really see much of a difference whether we talk about BECs, strings, charged geometries, vacuum flux, aether, numbers, or any other spatially structured medium. Who cares? The question is how does that begin to know about something and to care about it? On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:08:35 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist OK, I was thinking about appying Leibniz to it. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 08:59:49 Subject: Re: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, Any kind of particle from photons and light up to molecules can form a BEC. BEC is a mathematical object and not confined to any one substance. Even physical BECs have properties that are effectively outside spacetime. Richard On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist That sounds fine, except the BEC is not something specific, it is not a mind or brain, it is matter. I imagine that it condenses in some container held near 0oC. That condensate could be considered to be a monad or substance. And it could of course be conscious in some way, but it has nothing to do with being human. It is not even a brain in a vat. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-16, 07:47:52 Subject: Fwd: the curse of materialism Roger, I liked your 1p think therefore 1p am But your statement below, although correct , is much too vague. Quantum mechanics is not understood because it is not complete. Feynman came close to completing it but still missed an essential property. That property is that the quantum mind has instant action. Something you have been preaching for some time. With instant action, the quantum mind can be understood. Instant action derives directly from your claim that the quantum mind from monads to quantum fields are out side of spacetime. I just add that it is effectively out of spacetime because the quantum mind is a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC. which allows the monads to be distributed thru-out the universe yet act as though they were out of spacetime. Richard -- Forwarded message -- From: Roger Clough Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:01 AM Subject: the curse of materialism To: everything-list Hi socr...@bezeqint.net You want to know why nobody understands QM ? Because QM is nonphysical, but is treated as being physical. This might be called the curse of materialism. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/16/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socr...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-15, 11:20:20 Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself. Physics and Metaphysics. John Polkinghorne and his book ? Quantum theory?. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne === . John Polkinghorne took epigraph for his book ? Quantum theory? the Feynman? thought : ? I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ? Why? Because, he wrote: ? ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should. We shall see in what follows that important interpretative issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision ?. / preface/ ? Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved, and these are the subject of continuing dispute? / page 40/ ? If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything, it is that the world is full of surprises? / page 87 / ? Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory include: . . . .? / page 88 / ?uantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .? / page92 / ? Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and instructive phenomenon, . .? / page 92 / ==. In my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing what to understand and to solve the problems of the Universe: ? They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical
Re: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg 1) Good point. So far, there is only indirect evidence of gravity waves. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15438 2) Potential energy is more than conceptual, it is the elastic energy stored in rocks etc. by misfit, by irregular flow of the surrounding material. Like the energy stored in a compressed or extended spring. 3) Your description of energy release is the only fancy here. Seismometers record the wave motion of earthquakes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/15/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 11:51:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness observed in the two-slit experiment. Seemingly if both the wave and the photon are physical, there should be nothing weird happening. My own view is that the weirdness arises because the waves and the photons are residents of two completely different but interpenetrating worlds, where: 1) the photon is a resident of the physical world, where by physical I mean (along with Descartes) extended in space, 2) the quantum wave in nonphysical, being a resident of the nonphysical world (the world of mind), which has no extension in space. Under these conditions, there is no need to create an additional physical world, since each can exist as aspects of the the same world, one moving in spactime and being
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit in long term. But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling as dramatically as they have. ? You can't go wrong that way. I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now, concerning energy. Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the long run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who are making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing energy themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense from any economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility derived from market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider dealing the most harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime: the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and God talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal theology seems pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing. PGC -- ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger, On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote: The unpredictability of solar energy ? I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the internet. (For a comparison see solar variations on http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html?) ? The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at night. ? The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This is probably due to variable cloud cover, not auto exhaust emissions. ? I'll stay with conventional electric power, thank you very much. ? ? ? ? Ly. Langley, a measurement of solar energy. One langley is equal to one gram-calorie per square centimeter. A gram-calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius. ? ? Good for you but perhaps bad for your wallet in long term. In Germany, many are starting to see that independence from fossil fuel monopolies is not just ideological... it turns citizens into energy traders instead of big oil slaves. See: In Germany, where sensible federal rules have fast-tracked and streamlined the permit process, the costs are considerably lower. It can take as little as eight days to license and install a solar system on a house in Germany. In the United States, depending on your state, the average ranges from 120 to 180 days. More than one million Germans have installed solar panels on their roofs. Australia also has a streamlined permitting process and has solar panels on 10 percent of its homes. Solar photovoltaic power would give America the potential to challenge the utility monopolies, democratize energy generation and transform millions of homes and small businesses into energy generators. Rational, market-based rules could turn every American into an energy entrepreneur. That transition to renewable power could create millions of domestic jobs and power in this country with American resourcefulness, initiative and entrepreneurial energy while taking a substantial bite out of the nation? emissions of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/opinion/solar-panels-for-every-home.html?_r=0 It's really not an ideological green vs. conservative matter. People just don't like being stolen from. The energy monopolies thank YOUR wallet very much, as for solar panel users, we don't care if people have ideological axes to grind for which they want to pay,
Re: Re: Re: cognitive therapy
Hi Telmo Menezes Same here. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-14, 07:42:02 Subject: Re: Re: cognitive therapy Hi Roger, Me too - well maybe not as often as I should. I hope it's helping you! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Burns' therapy is called cognitive therapy. ? use it all of the time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 12:59:38 Subject: Re: cognitive therapy The attachments of the original message is as following: ? (1). CBT-distortions.pdf On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Bruno Marchal ?rote: On 12 Jan 2013, at 13:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Personally I have found that reading the Bible a little and knowing some scripture verse, helps. Why not? But Chuang-tseu, Lie-tseu, Lao-Tseu, Alan Watts, and even the Baghavad Gita (a rather crazy text from the conventional spiritual pov), and many texts can help. I have a friend who keeps recommending the Bhagavad Gita. Alan Watts is great, always makes me feel better. An interesting book written by a cognitive therapist is Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy by David D. Burns, M.D. There is one study where reading this book had the same effectiveness as conventional anti-depressants (both above placebo). I'm attaching a pdf based on this work that I refer to from time to time. ? But such text should never been taken literally. Only for inspiration. Unless they contain reasoning, like in the question to king Milinda (one of my favorite spiritual text). I believe (as did Luther) that the actual words are semi-physical and paste themselves in our memories or subconsciousness and work on us like cognitive therapy: Hebrews 4:12 12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Luther suffered from time with depression, and found words and cognitive therapy very helpful. It can be. A lot of plants can help too. Yup :) ? Unfortunately, by tolerating prohibition, we assist to an unfair competition between nature and artifice, and we have made the state into a drug dealer. In the human science we are below being nowhere. We do money from diseases, crisis, catastrophes. There is something wrong, and I think it has been facilitated by a tradition of artificial lack of rigor in the human sciences Why do you think that the lack of rigor in human sciences is artificial? ? , and in the fundamental sciences. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 07:05:18 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 12 Jan 2013, at 11:56, Roger Clough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Yes. That is even why we should never try to convince some others about God. We can only trust that God will do that, at the best moment. We can teach by example, but not with words, still less with normative moral, I think. Hell is really paved with good intentions. God might be the good, but the Devil is the good. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 15:47:58 Subject: Re: Sensing the presence of God On 1/11/2013 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What are its tenets that you believe on faith? That there is something different from me. But you have evidence for that - if you can figure out what is meant by me. I think you need faith to make data into evidence. That would vitiate the concept of evidence. I'd say you only need a theory to make data into evidence which can count for or against the theory. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
Hi Richard Ruquist OK--- in the mind. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:45:18 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light Agreed Roger,But IMO em waves and quantum waves, like thoughts in the quantum mind, can collapse instantly to make particles, IMO this is necessary for all interpretations of quantum mechanics including MWI and Feynman renormalization. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized. Instead of you being stolen by monopolistic energy companies, you can steal the taxpayer thank to state planning. Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As a logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed schema, that don´t take into account the production. That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences: That rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically advanced panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped and engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production now, most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug them to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of production at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive the solar subsidies. According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble, countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years. The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only the worst had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with the government and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment. Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity forever, but suck money from the taxpayers as long as the subsidy plans were active, won. And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment 2013/1/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit in long term. But sure, go ahead, think that gas and utilities prices will keep falling as dramatically as they have. ? You can't go wrong that way. I doubt Leibniz would agree. Harnessing energy all around us instead of burning, drilling etc. is the least materialistic prospect for now, concerning energy. Additionally, both Jesus and numbers of straight market economics over the long run, and if you're smart even in short to mid term (I know people who are making profit TODAY by mixing their energy needs with contributing energy themselves; the moment you can afford to do this, it makes sense from any economic point of view), do not cohere with your infallibility derived from market + short-term perspective. Also, you could consider dealing the most harmful, addictive drugs and/or get into organized crime: the market has decided these to be very lucrative. But drop the Jesus and God talk for now on, because your usage and relationship to personal theology seems pretty clear now. Thanks for sharing. PGC -- ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 11:06:43 Subject: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger, On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Roger Clough ?rote: The unpredictability of solar energy ? I've lost the page ref for the graph below, but it's typical of numerous other graphs of the daily variation in solar energy on the internet. (For a comparison see solar variations on http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2010/01/yearly-water-temps-precip-and-solar-energy.html ?) ? The hourly variation would be much worse, since the sun does not shine at night. ? The variation from day to day is unpredicatable and enormous, going from?ear 0 Ly to almost 100 Ly. This
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
Hi Richard Ruquist God is not righteous by what standards ? Yours? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51 Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
Hi Roger Clough, God is everything, including this list. Richard David, complex variables and quantum theory go together On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist God is not righteous by what standards ? Yours? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 08:52:51 Subject: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Romans 3:10 As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. This statement could be broadened to include god and therefore account for misery in this world. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory
On Monday, January 14, 2013 7:06:57 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Why not ? There are gravitational waves. How do you know there are gravitational waves? But earthquakes usually initiate waves by the sudden release of potential energy. Potential energy is conceptual. All that is happening is that there is a feeling of tension as different geological plates try to occupy the same position. Inertial bonds are broken in an orderly pattern, which we think of as wavelike because they remind us of other wavy motions. There is no wave. There is no energy. There is an acoustic-kinetic experience in the context of a tangible geological presence. Everything else is a posteriori analytical fiction. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:48:20 Subject: Re: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory On Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:56:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist EM waves are physical and exist in spacetime. You can capture them with an antenna, etc. Does an Earthquake capture a wave that is independent of the Earth? From my view, the EM waves *are* the waving of the antenna in response to the waving of a broadcasting antenna. Nothing more. There are no literal waves in empty space. Matter is sensitive because matter is what it looks like when one sensitivity interferes with another. To us, as embodied organisms, it looks like a tangible obstacle to our tactile, aural, and optical senses. I see nothing especially wrong with the rest of you comments, you seem to have some interesting ideas. Thoughts travel instantly, but EM waves are physical (electrons) and so must travel at the speed of light. Thoughts don't travel. They are always 'here'. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 1/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-12, 10:33:11 Subject: Re: MWI as an ontological error, it should be TwoAspects Theory EM waves and fields clearly exist in spacetime. Yet I would classify them along with quantum waves as part of the quantum mind and nonphysical. The photon particle and quantum particles appear to bridge the gap between the physical and the mind in a mind/body duality or as Roger puts it, a dual aspect theory. What I picture is that if everything happens instantly in the quantum mind, quantum and EM waves can collapse instantly into something the size of particles so that they may interact with other particles at the Planck scale. I think this is a necessary step, a collapse of waves to a particle size, even for MWI, in order to obtain multiple physical worlds. So it does not rule out MWI. But if waves can collapse instantly in the quantum mind, then the Feynman method of cancelling the infinities of Quantum Electrodynamics, equivalent to Cramer's Transactional Analysis, can be used to obtain a single world. The anti-particles that come back instantly from the future, so to speak, may cancel out all the extra worlds of MWI. Now it took some intelligence for Feynman to make his method work. So I imagine that the quantum mind must possess some form of consciousness and intelligence to choose which anti-particles are needed to cancel all the quantum states but one in any particle-particle interaction. I suspect that the quantum mind in each of us possesses similar consciousness. Moreover, I have come to accept the notion of a few consciousness investigators that consciousness is the energy of the quantum mind. I base my acceptance on how I focus my own consciousness to accomplish almost anything. It's like just putting out the energy of consciousness helps thoughts to emerge. Intelligence and free will may differ from consciousness but such intention can guide consciousness. Therefore intelligence and free will may have a deeper source. Richard On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, How can you have a wave without some notion of spatial/temporal dimensions? On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list, I don't believe that Descartes would accept the MWI. Here's why: I think that the ManyWorldsInterpretation of QM is incorrect, due to the mistaken notion (IMHO) that quantum waves are physical waves, so that everything is physical and materialistic. This seems to deny quantum weirdness
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece etc. Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks worrying. My home country is neighbouring Portugal, and we made a huge investment on renewable energy sources in the last decade - solar and wind. It was (and still is) highly subsidised by the state. I still have an appartement there and pay the monthly energy bill. I pay a similar amount to my friends and family who actually live there and use energy, because the energy bill is now about 75% taxes. I recently received an email warning me that I'll have to pay even more this year. Energy-dependent industry is collapsing all over the country because their business in no longer viable. One of the main industrial plants (metallurgic) near my home town closed its doors last year. This tax now extends to gas. Stealing gas from cars is now becoming a common crime (almost unheard of a couple years ago). Meanwhile Paris runs on nuclear energy. My energy bill here is about half of my Portuguese energy bill - the latter for zero kW. I spent Christmas night at my in-laws and they turned up the heating as a special treat. Keeping it on the entire month would cost them about 900 euros. This is the view from the ground. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy
You are californian its'nt? 2013/1/14 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.comwrote: THe problem with solar energy is that it is strongly subsidized. Yes, but this is lessening. Protectionism is crumbling. Instead of you being stolen by monopolistic energy companies, you can steal the taxpayer thank to state planning. I am the taxpayer and this is better than weapons business or paying for prohibition. Most solar panels are installed because they receive subsidies by KW. As a logical consequience a boost in production is expected. In fact they produced electricity even in the night at full level. ... With some help of pirate electrogenerators working with fossil fuels, hidden near then. Many governments, ruined by this authentic robbery or all these ecological friends of the planet, had to switch the schema of subsidies, to a fixed schema, that don´t take into account the production. You have to incentivize early adopters. When they are weaned off in a couple of years, more renewable energies and their mixes will have the same cost effectivity. That foreseeable bureaucratic move had the foreseeable consequences: That rendered the most productive and expensive and technologically advanced panels a ruinous investment. Technological development has stopped and engineers fired. Because the subsidies is independent of production now, most of them don care to maintain the panels. Most of them do not plug them to the transmission lines and generate the minimum required of production at sun ours with less fossil fuel generators while they receive the solar subsidies. For the first time last year; at certain times, up to half of Germany's electricity demand were covered by mix of renewable energy. According with the subsidies contracts, made at the peak of the bubble, countries like Spain and Germany have compromises of payment that they will not have enough money from taxpayers to pay now and in the coming years. The had to break contracts and reduce subsidies, damaging the credibility of the judicial system, many best producers lost their investments and only the worst had benefits. Most of them, big companies which had contact with the government and knew in advance the changes so they reacted accordingly to have the maximum cost-benefit with the less investment. Instead of complaining now or watching what the market does, by not really watching it á la Roger, better include the future when considering past and present: I bet that Spain, with its sunshine monopoly and mix of renewable energy and infrastructure investment of the last years, will be able to fend off worst effects of economic woes in Europe when compared to Greece etc. Spain will be better positioned in the next years even though it now looks worrying. Those that were conscious that what the panels produce is not electricity forever, but suck money from the taxpayers as long as the subsidy plans were active, won. Yeah, so traditional fossil fuels produce energy forever and don't cost taxpayer any money while minimizing harm for the environment and democratizing energy generation. And the prices keep falling. And this is the result of just another wonderful state planning experiment A state that makes no bets on sustainability, however misguided or corrupt they seem at the start (technology never appears in its most efficient guise at the beginning), is undermining its own role as infrastructure provider and governing body. Luckily more people are taking things into their own hands: local engineers are volunteering their free time to help render their communities and districts more sustainably through more intelligent and locally sourced energy mixes. Nobody is pounding on solar exclusively: straw man. Thus in a non-literal sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTErMW2jBJA PGC -- 2013/1/14 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy A more powwerful way to steal from the future is to continue govt spending as it is. But to get back to the issue, I'll let the market decide. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/14/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-13, 09:50:52 Subject: Re: Re: The unpredictability of solar energy Hi Roger On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I always let the market decide. Please. It's peoples' behavior that determines market. And it has decided: you can steal from the coming generations by allowing energy industry to continue stealing from you or you can work to lower long term costs for your friends and family, the people you live with, local interests and community, energy independence and profit
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: God is everything, including this list. Then God means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then the word Klogknee means nothing. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: God is everything, including this list. Then God means nothing because meaning needs contrast. If everything that exists and everything that doesn't exist and everything you can imagine and everything that you can't imagine has the property of being Klogknee then the word Klogknee means nothing. John K Clark The universe provides sufficient contrasting objects, some even consciousness. However, one may identify various aspects of god and thereby cover all the kinds of gods that people might want to have. At the top level we want the most comprehensive god possible. I say that omniscience is the most comprehensive aspect of a god. Such a comprehensive god is consistent with Indra's Net of Jewels, each reflecting the entire universe; and certainly consistent with the monads of liebniz, each having perception of the entire universe; And perhaps the universal cubic lattice of string theory Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold (CM) particles, each conjectured to map the entire universe is also a most comprehensive god.. In the next level down, omniscience is locally sacrificed for power, a quantum dynamic duality between power and omniscience, a kind of consciousness inverse uncertainty principle in the quantum mechanics of consciousness that even works on the human level.* *In order to focus consciousness on a project, you have to block out all other sources of information. Richard, complex variables go with quantum mechanics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism.
Hi Richard Ruquist OK, He would work. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 13:54:47 Subject: Re: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. Hi Rog, Crystals are not gases- req'd for Charles law to apply. Rich On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Physicists often do experiemnts on crystals at 0 oK or near there. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 12:22:44 Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word God invented atheism. wiki- Charles' law (also known as the law of volumes) is an experimental gas law which describes how gases tend to expand when heated. Richard- Thermodynamics of gases breaks down near absolute where most materials have already changed phase to liquid (usually BEC) or solid. Charles Law is inappropriate at or near absolute zero. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: On Jan 10, 12:12 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote: Particles in the vacuum ( T=0K ) have no volumes ( according to the laws of thermodynamics ) Wrong According to Charle? law and the consequence of the third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles approaches zero too. ===? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer
Hi Richard Ruquist I believe that quantum waves are nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/12/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 14:07:13 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer Right. Monads are below the quantum level and you have argued, correctly I think, that not even quantum waves are physical. However, monads may have a complex structure as you say below and string theory derives what that complex structure looks like including the super EM flux that may be what strings are made of. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of product of EM waves. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Yes, Roger. They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, there are 6^500 different types of monads. Richard On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The ability to know what's going on'. This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the ability and motives to act on them. Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or potential for that opportunity. The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Richard Ruquist For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of product of EM waves. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Yes, Roger. They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, there are 6^500 different types of monads. Richard On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The ability to know what's going on'. This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the ability and motives to act on them. Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or potential for that opportunity. The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to
Re: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
Hi Richard Ruquist The monads are not BEC's, because presumably BECs are physical. Monads aren't [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 11:47:26 Subject: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? Well Roger, Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to. Think of the number infinities in terms of a static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU. The number infinities exist in the monad relationships at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space. A. Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities, The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields are variations in the density of the infinities of the monad number relationships. B. Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space. The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital. Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow. Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow. resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls. The collapse problem is to get from A to B. A happens in the analog Mind space where the number infinities are continuous. Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction, we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly. But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities, except those at the point of interaction, to be normalized or cancelled. Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities. That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities to collapse to every possible quantum particle that could be created by the interaction. Apparently the Mind has the same ability. He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future. So only one particle becomes physical. (If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can) Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU, where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective. There is still no time or consciousness. Time is created when conscious free will choices force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS. The hard problem is knowing where conscious free will comes from. It could come from Godelian incompleteness or it could come from biological complexity exceeding the universal calculational capacity, But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled, So it is one or the other. yanniru On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that overboard? Richard points and lines word geometry? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ?
BEC condensates may contain any kind of particle, not just physicsl particles. However, we presume that the mathematics is more or less the same for all BECs and therefore we can come to understand BECs with physical experiments. Presumably monads are particles, seeing that they are discrete and separate. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist The monads are not BEC's, because presumably BECs are physical. Monads aren't [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-10, 11:47:26 Subject: Re: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? Well Roger, Think of the number infinities that Bruno is always referencing to. Think of the number infinities in terms of a static MWI deterministic Block Universe BU. The number infinities exist in the monad relationships at various levels and places in monad space, the Mind space of the BU One could speak of a static density of monad infinities in Mind space. A. Since it's mathematically true that matter evolves from these infinities, The conjecture is that analog quantum waves and fields are variations in the density of the infinities of the monad number relationships. B. Many strong infinities may occupy a very small region of Mind space. The conjecture is that they may become discrete particles including physical particles, ie., the Mind space is both analog and digital. Such strong infinities may also have the property of 1- dimensional flow. Then the points of strong infinity in Mind space may couple to the flow. resulting in a geometry suggestive of Indra's Net of Pearls. The collapse problem is to get from A to B. A happens in the analog Mind space where the number infinities are continuous. Since the monads in the Mind space are a BEC where thoughts happen instantly for lack of friction, we can imagine that the infinities could collapse instantly. But mathematically it is necessary for all relevant infinities, except those at the point of interaction, to be normalized or cancelled. Feynman metaphorically first quantized the monad number infinities. That is, he allowed all the monad wave function infinities to collapse to every possible quantum particle that could be created by the interaction. Apparently the Mind has the same ability. He then cancelled all of these collapsed quantum particles but one by allowing their anti-particles to come back from the future. So only one particle becomes physical. (If Feynman can renormalize QED, the Quantum Mind certainly can) Because in a Block Universe there is no future. There is no time or consciousness. nothing is happening. Or equivalently we can think of a Quasi-Block Universe QBU, where everything happens instantly in a 1p perspective. There is still no time or consciousness. Time is created when conscious free will choices force the BU to recalculate like your auto GPS. The hard problem is knowing where conscious free will comes from. It could come from Godelian incompleteness or it could come from biological complexity exceeding the universal calculational capacity, But in the end the magic of consciousness requires a 1p leap of faith. NB: if MWI is true all the cancelled quantum particles continue to create measure as if they were never cancelled, So it is one or the other. yanniru On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Sounds a little fantastic to me, but what do I know ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/10/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-09, 10:29:00 Subject: Re: Are EM waves and/or their fields physical ? On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Jan 2013, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote: Bruno, Another matter is that since the michaelson-morley experiment, space itself does not exist (is nonphysical). Space-time remains physical, here. There is no aether. Electromagnetic waves propagate through nothing at all, suggesting to me, at least, that they, and their fields, are nonphysical. Then all forces are non physical. But with comp nothing is physical in the sense I am guessing you are using. All *appearance* are, or should be explain, by (infinities of) discrete number relations. The physical does not disappear, as it reappears as stable and constant observation pattern valid for all sound universal numbers. Bruno Can we say that physical particles are often localised volumes that are full of infinities of discrete number relations and that a flux density of infinities can flow between them. Or is that
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Right. Monads are below the quantum level and you have argued, correctly I think, that not even quantum waves are physical. However, monads may have a complex structure as you say below snipped and string theory derives what that complex structure looks like including the super EM flux that may be what strings are made of. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of product of EM waves. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Yes, Roger. They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, there are 6^500 different types of monads. Richard On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of intelligent and complex you want). A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my definition. But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? Brent I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The ability to know what's going on'. This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the ability and motives to act on them. Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or potential for that opportunity. The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Tentative meaning would be more suitable than the word opinion. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/9/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 11:07:17 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy ? Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. ? How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs? If you have, please share and if not:? this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole. I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become distasteful in your words. Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that distasteful drug advocate seriously? PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. But the redisplay of the brain image requires a digital image signal. How can that happen ? If the recponstructed brain image has no sync signal, how couold it display in a digital device ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 17:34:21 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, Imagine a very simple brain that can recognise two things: a cat and a mouse. Furthermore, it can recognise if an object is still or in motion. So a possible perceptual state could be cat(still) + mouse(in motion). The visual cortex of this brain is complex enough to process the input of a normal human eye and convert it into these representations. It has a very simple memory that can store states and temporal precedence between states. For example: mouse(still) - cat(in motion) + mouse(still) - cat(still) + mouse(in motion) - cat(still) Through an MRI we read the activation level of neurons that somehow encode this sequence of states. An incredible amount of information is lost BUT it is possible to represent a visual scene that approximates the meanings of those states. In a regular VGA screen with a synch signal I show you an animation of a mouse standing still, a cat appearing and so on. Of course the cat may be quite different from what the brain actually perceived. But it is also recognised as a cat by the brain, it produces an equivalent state so it's good enough. Now imagine the brain can encode more properties about objects. Is is big or small? Furry? Dark or light? Now imagine the brain can encode more information about precedence. Was it a long time ago? Just now? Aeons ago? And so on and so on until you get to a point where the reconstructed video is almost like what the brain saw. No synch signal. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, so they must have. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes. I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes The electronics presumably requires a digital signal. But the brain presumably uses analog signals. And there is the raster line and sync signal problem. There is the digital pixel problem, which uses only 3 colors: blue,green,red. How can all of this work ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 19:24:24 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer Hi Craig, On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013 6:19:33 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The paper doesn't claim that images from the brain have been decoded, Yes it does, right in the abstract: To demonstrate the power of our approach, we also constructed a Bayesian decoder [8] by combining estimated encoding models with a sampled natural movie prior. The decoder provides remarkable reconstructions of the viewed movies. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900937-7 ? but the sensational headlines imply that is what they did. Starting with UC Berkeley itself: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ ? The video isn't supposed to be anything but fabricated. ALL videos are fabricated in that sense. ? It's a muddle of YouTube videos superimposed upon each other according to a Bayesian probability reduction. Yes, and the images you see on your computer screen are just a matrix of molecules artificially made to align in a certain way so that the light being emitted behind them arrives at your eyes in a way that resembles the light emitted by some real world scene that it is meant to be represented. ? Did you think that the video was coming from a brain feed like a TV broadcast? It is certainly not that at all. Nice straw man + ad hominem you did there! ? ? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. Where are the encoded images decoded into what we actually see? In the computer that runs the Bayesian algorithm. ? ? These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. That is the assumption, but it is not necessarily a good one. The problem is that information is only understandable in the context of some form of awareness - an experience of being informed. A machine with no user can only produce different kinds of noise as there is nothing ultimately to discern the difference between a signal and a non-signal. Sure. That's why the algorithm has to be trained with known videos. So it can learn which brain activity correlates with what 3p accessible images we can all agree upon. ? It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. Yet every newborn baby learns to do it all by themselves, without any sign of any decoding theater. Yes. The newborn baby comes with the genetic material that generates the optimal decoder. ? ? These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. You might get the same result out of precisely mapping the movements of the eyes instead. Maybe. That's not where they took the information from though. They took it from the visual cortex. ? What they did may have absolutely nothing to do with how the brain encodes or experiences images, no more than your Google history can approximate the shape of your face. Google history can only approximate the shape of my face if there is a correlation between the two. In which case my Google history is, in fact, also a description of the shape of my face. ? ? So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? What human beings see on TV simulates one optical environment with another optical environment. You need to be a human being
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted frombrainsviaacomputer
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:23:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. You are both missing the more important issue - signals cannot be decoded in the brain. It's tempting to think that is possible because we are living in a world of images on screens and in print, but these collections of pixels only cohere as images through our visual awareness, not through optical properties. Try thinking of any of the other senses instead - if instead of images, we want to peer into the decoding of digitized or analog signals associated with the smell of bacon cooking, would we set up a universal kitchen which would mix the aromatic compounds to match the tiny kitchen in the olfactory cortex? Can you not see that you still need a feeling, sensing person to smell the bacon or see the images? Otherwise there is no 'decoding'. The fundamental problem is *always* going to be the Explanatory Gap. When we talk about signals, we are already talking about awareness. The idea of a brain that can only recognize some small number of objects and tell if they are moving or not is the level of recognition which already exists on the level of an atom. T-cells recognize other cells and molecules. These kinds of sensitivities do not require a brain, they are everywhere, on every level. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qG1kmMDadnAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extractedfrombrainsviaacomputer
Hi Craig Weinberg Exactly. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/8/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-08, 09:23:56 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extractedfrombrainsviaacomputer On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:23:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Presumably the brain works with analog, not digital, signals. You are both missing the more important issue - signals cannot be decoded in the brain. It's tempting to think that is possible because we are living in a world of images on screens and in print, but these collections of pixels only cohere as images through our visual awareness, not through optical properties. Try thinking of any of the other senses instead - if instead of images, we want to peer into the decoding of digitized or analog signals associated with the smell of bacon cooking, would we set up a universal kitchen which would mix the aromatic compounds to match the tiny kitchen in the olfactory cortex? Can you not see that you still need a feeling, sensing person to smell the bacon or see the images? Otherwise there is no 'decoding'. The fundamental problem is *always* going to be the Explanatory Gap. When we talk about signals, we are already talking about awareness. The idea of a brain that can only recognize some small number of objects and tell if they are moving or not is the level of recognition which already exists on the level of an atom. T-cells recognize other cells and molecules. These kinds of sensitivities do not require a brain, they are everywhere, on every level. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qG1kmMDadnAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. How is opinion not connected to data? Have you found a way of neatly separating the information and data from opinion and beliefs? If you have, please share and if not: this is straw man, that can't even stand on its pole. I've spent days in Sheldrake land and Sheldrake has spent days in McKenna land; it seems to become more and more clear why you post 10 videos and can't complete watching 1 other video from the same Channel you posted, with McKenna that Sheldrake has produced numerous talks with, before things become distasteful in your words. Sheldrake had miserable taste then too, according to your reasoning... Why would you listen to some guy that takes that distasteful drug advocate seriously? PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Alberto G. Corona I have no problem with natural selection, it is a reasonable hypothesis. But natural selection implies some form of intelligence, which materialism cannot explain. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 07:05:29 Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. it is perfectly possible to accept natural selection with all the implication in genetics without being a materialist. The materialism is a superfluous ideological substrate. ?heldrake is right about this critic of materialism. I? not materialist, and I accept Natural selection. ?aterialism is the logical consequence of the distrust of the human intellect that was Nominalism. This distrust ?ondemned to?n-existence any inner knowledge and ?eified only what produced effect that other can observe in the short term (complex and long term effects were disqualified because they where not so easily observable). So material is anything experimental, that is anything that is enough simple and enough?mmediate?o be observable by many. This excludes long term, complex knowledge imprinted in the mind innately?r culturally by natural or social selection. Then the common sense, the human aspirations, motivations and beliefs, are condemned to subjectivity, and rejected as object of study, only as matter of belief for the believers or a matter of engineering for the nonbelievers. ?? not being materialist besides I accept natural Selection. NS is not an ?gent of causation on the deep. neither matter is. Matter is ??ubstrate. It is? the sensible part that we perceive. this perception is composed by the mind, from the input of the anthropically selected mathematical reality. Natural selection only happens ?or beings living in time like us. From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is no dynamic of selection. There are only existence and inexistence. there are good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are death paths. ?hese paths have precise physiological and social laws in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from ?he mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind.? It seems that the mind is computation, but the physical substrate, which is ultimately?athematical, only?eflect this computation as well as the mind, but matter, being a product of the mind, can?not ?e?the causation of the mind. As a product of the mind, ?atter is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected mathematical reality 2013/1/6 Platonist Guitar Cowboy On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy ? You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's lectures. Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice. ? All of his speculations are supported with empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website, others in his books and lectures. Aware of that. ? I?atched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below, It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data, so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up. ? May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case? ? So where's all of McKenna's data? He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: the object of this talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can put that behind you paraphrased from video. ? I think he died about a decade ago of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?). Begging. ? His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him. ? Same again, which seems to indicate you don't really care. Otherwise one google search and click would've wikied you this on a silver plate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_McKenna PGC [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Everythingsters, When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? ? ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. ? The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently ? http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific consciousness breakthrough. Look again at the image comparisons. There is nothing being reconstructed, there is only the visual noise of many superimposed shapes which least dis-resembles the test image. It's not even stage magic, it's just a search engine. ? There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain step by step: What they did was take lots of images and correlate patterns in the V1 region of the brain with those that corresponded V1 patterns in others who had viewed the known images. It's statistical guesswork and it is complete crap. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie Crick and Koch found in their 1995 study that The conscious visual representation is likely to be distributed over more than one area of the cerebral cortex and possibly over certain subcortical structures as well. We have argued (Crick and Koch, 1995a) that in primates, contrary to most received opinion, it is not located in cortical area V1 (also called the striate cortex or area 17). Some of the experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is outlined below. This is not to say that what goes on in V1 is not important, and indeed may be crucial, for most forms of vivid visual awareness. What we suggest is that the neural activity there is not directly correlated with what is seen. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html What was found in their study, through experiments which isolated the effects in the brain which are related to looking (i.e. directing your eyeballs to move around) from those related to seeing (the appearance of images, colors, etc) is that the activity in the V1 is exactly the same whether the person sees anything or not. What the visual reconstruction is based on is the activity in the occipitotemporal visual cortex. (downstream of V1 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305490196) Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding
Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion. We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and a pragmatist to boot. So to me, data trumnps everything. So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese if there's data to suppport that. Not to me, I'll give you that. Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was collected, as data is hardly separable from belief about data. And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an hour, well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above with McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will not be able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you chose, that somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This paints a picture, I do not have to elaborate. Drugs and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as the semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's talking about. Drugs in your usage do not exist, implying some definite ethical line between permissible and non-permissible pleasures, which is about as far removed from McKenna's speculations as you can get. It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post ten. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer
Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes. I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? ? ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. ? The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently ? http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific consciousness breakthrough. Look again at the image comparisons. There is nothing being reconstructed, there is only the visual noise of many superimposed shapes which least dis-resembles the test image. It's not even stage magic, it's just a search engine. ? There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain step by step: What they did was take lots of images and correlate patterns in the V1 region of the brain with those that corresponded V1 patterns in
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Better data connected to opinion than opinion alone. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 08:33:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy ? You're allowed to have that opinion, or any opinion. ? We're different. I am a retired laboratory scientist and a pragmatist to boot. ?o to me, data trumnps everything. So I will believe that the moon is made of green cheese if there's data to suppport that. ? ? Not to me, I'll give you that. Data is as important as who is delivering the data and how it was collected, as data is hardly separable from belief about data. And you wouldn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, because you'd probably not like the data's taste and stop reading/listening in under an hour, well before the conclusion of the talk or paper, as you show above with McKenna, when you throw out ten videos for everyone to see, but will not be able to finish just one, posted by the same youtube uploader you chose, that somebody in this thread puts up, clicking on your links. This paints a picture, I do not have to elaborate. Drugs and their promotion, entirely misses McKenna's narrative focus as the semantics with which you use the term, do not apply to what he's talking about. Drugs in your usage do not exist, implying some definite ethical line between permissible and non-permissible pleasures, which is about as far removed from McKenna's speculations as you can get. It's seems not surprising that you don't listen to a talk, when you post ten. PGC ? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, so they must have. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes.? ? I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough ?rote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? ? ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. ? The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently ? http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific consciousness
Re: Re: Re:
Hi Richard Ruquist Neither hard or soft solutions are valid since they fantasize a meterial connection between mind and brain. Which is absurd. Leibniz is the only one to have solved the problem successfully. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 09:39:36 Subject: Re: Re: Hi Roger Clough, The reason for this is that a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just fine, any at all, but the wrong easy problem theory will send a start-up company into bankruptcy. So the end result is that being a hard problem theorist is ridiculously easy but being a easy problem theorist is devilishly hard, and that's why armchair philosophers concentrate on the one and not the other. Author unknown On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Could be, but so far no success. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 07:51:49 Subject: Re: Hi Roger, Hi Telmo Menezes Thanks. But can such biomolecular structures develop into a living cell ? Current mainstream Biology believes that's the case. There isn't a complete model yet, but many pieces of the puzzle are already known. The current developmental theory is based on self-organisation processes. A cartoonish view of it would be that proteins are building blocks with highly specific affinities, so you can throw a bunch of them into the air and they will self-assembly into something more complex. This model is not just theoretical. Many cellular processes are known, and they all follow this principle. Effective drugs based on this model have been created. Modelling and entire cell has not been achieved yet, as far as I know. I know of people who are trying. The main problem seems to be that it's terribly complex. We seem to be getting closer as available computing power increases. Unlike generic artificial intelligence, where no amount of computing power can make up for the fact that we don't fully understand the first principles. If you don't mind a book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Order-Adaptation-Builds-Complexity/dp/0201442302/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8qid=1357476298sr=8-4keywords=hidden+order This is one of the books that changed the way I see the world. It's a bit dated but I love it. I think you might like it too, because it's essentially applied philosophy. Sheldrake's morphisms all pertain to living entities. I listed to a few of the videos and I can't help but like the guy. I just think that he's wrong in claiming that we cannot explain morphogenesis without his field. That doesn't mean that he hasn't come across phenomena that challenge our current understandings of reality. But we have to keep a cool mind. Monads do also, except that for Leibniz, the whole universe is alive. I have no problem with that idea. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 16:57:26 Subject: Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific macro-structures. Here's a simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330 There's a field of biology dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough ?rote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Roger, Imagine a very simple brain that can recognise two things: a cat and a mouse. Furthermore, it can recognise if an object is still or in motion. So a possible perceptual state could be cat(still) + mouse(in motion). The visual cortex of this brain is complex enough to process the input of a normal human eye and convert it into these representations. It has a very simple memory that can store states and temporal precedence between states. For example: mouse(still) - cat(in motion) + mouse(still) - cat(still) + mouse(in motion) - cat(still) Through an MRI we read the activation level of neurons that somehow encode this sequence of states. An incredible amount of information is lost BUT it is possible to represent a visual scene that approximates the meanings of those states. In a regular VGA screen with a synch signal I show you an animation of a mouse standing still, a cat appearing and so on. Of course the cat may be quite different from what the brain actually perceived. But it is also recognised as a cat by the brain, it produces an equivalent state so it's good enough. Now imagine the brain can encode more properties about objects. Is is big or small? Furry? Dark or light? Now imagine the brain can encode more information about precedence. Was it a long time ago? Just now? Aeons ago? And so on and so on until you get to a point where the reconstructed video is almost like what the brain saw. No synch signal. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, so they must have. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes.� � I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? � [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough 爓rote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so
