Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Pre-Scriptum (for John Mikes). John, I will answer your post in the following days. Thanks for your patience. On 07 Mar 2009, at 03:36, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 06/03/2009, at 11:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> - Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body >> problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness >> looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness >> (with a grin). >> >> Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell >> you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not >> even try. >> If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is >> beyond what you can imagine. >> > > > Bruno > > > last night I dreamt that my cat had divided itself into two cats. > Both cats were clones and happily running about and interacting. I > could see both and was discussing with some friends the puzzle of > why only some people, like me could see the constant clonage of > things living. During the dream I had the amazing perception that > this was happening to all living objects and it was as logical and > certain as anything perceived during the day with eyes wide open. Self-duplication, or its many tortuous delayed forms that nature seems to repeat all the time can give an intuition of all this. This is where the idea are germing. Good dreaming work ! > > Also amazing - the "belief" that this is happening to macro (living) > objects persisted in my brain for about a half an hour after I woke > up. Hmmm... I would complain on your coffee manufacturer :) Unless you enjoyed the feeling. > Clearly, translating into English your "amoebas" is having a > profound effect on my unconscious mind. > > This also highlights for me the mysterious nature of "belief". As > you mention, early on in the thesis, we can believe no matter what > falsity while we are asleep and dreaming. The occasional powerful > dream like this one that penetrates the awake conscious mind shakes > the very foundations of what we consider to be "reality". > > What then, is the value of paying attention to the dreaming mind in > this odyssey of "The Fabric of Consciousness" we are all hypnotized > by at this time? Dreaming, and reflexion on dreams, and dreamy reflexion on dreams are shortcut path in the metaphysical labyrinth, be it day dreaming, mother of mathematics, or night dreaming, mother of metaphysics. Observation is quite important too, for guessing better and better the most stable invariants. But assuming comp, dreams obeys laws, mathematical invariants. Physical realities are consensual realities among many dreaming observers. Physical realities being both deep on surface and linear at the bottom could explain why it looks so computational *around* us, when it is so not *computational* about us. Who dreams? Guess what: only you can decide, and it could be that such a decision will make you immortal here or immortal there. Dreaming or not dreaming, the best we can do is to try to be self- referentially correct with respect to the most probable histories. Look what happen when we aren't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIA&feature=channel_page > > PS - expect to post to this thread an instalment of the continuation > of the translation by tonight - am being extremely careful to get it > dead right to avoid any ambiguities. I appreciate your seriousness. Take it easy, though, and sleep well :) I will have to reread at ease in April, but it seems quite nice to me, of course at some level I can hardly judge. It is a bit confusing to read oneself, and, in a translation it can be even more weird. Bruno > > regards, > > Kim Jones > > > > People often confuse belief in a reality with belief in a > physical reality - Bruno Marchal > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > Email: > kmjco...@mac.com > kimjo...@ozemail.com.au > > Web: > http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music > > Phone: > (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 > > > > > > > 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 everything-l...@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: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
On 06/03/2009, at 11:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > - Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body > problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness > looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness > (with a grin). > > Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell > you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not > even try. > If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is > beyond what you can imagine. > Bruno last night I dreamt that my cat had divided itself into two cats. Both cats were clones and happily running about and interacting. I could see both and was discussing with some friends the puzzle of why only some people, like me could see the constant clonage of things living. During the dream I had the amazing perception that this was happening to all living objects and it was as logical and certain as anything perceived during the day with eyes wide open. Also amazing - the "belief" that this is happening to macro (living) objects persisted in my brain for about a half an hour after I woke up. Clearly, translating into English your "amoebas" is having a profound effect on my unconscious mind. This also highlights for me the mysterious nature of "belief". As you mention, early on in the thesis, we can believe no matter what falsity while we are asleep and dreaming. The occasional powerful dream like this one that penetrates the awake conscious mind shakes the very foundations of what we consider to be "reality". What then, is the value of paying attention to the dreaming mind in this odyssey of "The Fabric of Consciousness" we are all hypnotized by at this time? PS - expect to post to this thread an instalment of the continuation of the translation by tonight - am being extremely careful to get it dead right to avoid any ambiguities. regards, Kim Jones People often confuse belief in a reality with belief in a physical reality - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@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: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Hi Colin, the problem is that while the _ideal_ of science is rationality, it is not yet fully institutionalized (can it ever be?) and people still harbor a lot of irrationality personally (scientists often have the strangest beliefs outside their speciality (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/01/outside_the_lab.html)). That's why people like those at overcomingbias.com are important - I hope a lot will change in the coming years. See for instance this post: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/science-doesnt.html or this: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/when-science-ca.html QUOTE The drive of Science is to obtain a mountain of evidence so huge that not even fallible human scientists can misread it. But even that sometimes goes wrong, when people become confused about which theory predicts what, or bake extremely-hard-to-test components into an early version of their theory. And sometimes you just can't get clear experimental evidence at all. Either way, you have to try to do the thing that Science doesn't trust anyone to do - think rationally, and figure out the answer before you get clubbed over the head with it. END QUOTE Or this one: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/science-or-baye.html Never forget, it's only been a few thousand years since the stone age. Don't expect too much yet ;-) Cheers, Günther Colin Hales wrote: > The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf* > enjoy! > colin > > > Colin Hales wrote: >> Hi Bruno, >> I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, >> guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and >> co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called >> "rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I >> have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a >> god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress >> to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or >> knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those >> who frolic in ideas sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have >> made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than >> adequate - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny- >> and it doesn't feel good. >> >> see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist >> file store. >> >> So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-) >> >> cheers, >> Colin >> >> >> m.a. wrote: >>> * Bruno, * >>> *I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan >>> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly >>> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some >>> of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves >>> serious consideration. Best, * >>> >>> >>> *martin a.* >>> ** >>> ** >>> ** >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Bruno Marchal" < marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be> > >>> To: < everything-l...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com> > >>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM >>> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started >>> >>> >>> > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have >>> > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. >>> >>> >>> I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et >>> Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not >>> receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have >>> *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of >>> their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and >>> even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. >>> >>> I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far >>> beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if >>> only because that story is not finished. >>> My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It >>> took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. >>> >>> I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Hi m.a., hi Colin, On 06 Mar 2009, at 05:07, m.a. wrote: > Bruno, >I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan > Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly > would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some > of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves > serious consideration. Best, > > > martin > a. > > It is a delicate question. You could perhaps ask them. I can provide general clues. - Quantum mechanics is not known by logicians. So it is easy to make someone interested in modern physics looking crazy for a logician: just say ``look it seems the guy is open to the notion of parallel universe". - Gödel's theorem is not known by physicists. So it easy to make someone interested in self-reference looking crazy for a physicist: look even the big Penrose said craps on Gödel's theorem, no need to imagine what can say a total unknown and solitary researcher. - Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness (with a grin). Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not even try. If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is beyond what you can imagine. Let us just say, like Colin Hales says in his rejection_101 document that it is hard to do inter-disciplinary work in a world of extreme specialization. That's at least true for all of us. But I don't want you to give the impression that I feel being rejected. I am just ignored. And I have always been accepted by serious and humble scientists, but none listen to them, like if it existed Academy and Academy. And I have even been praised, more than often, but with no follow-up. Never. There are good but unspeakable local and less local reasons. Now, even when all scientists in a some field agree, plausible evidences take time to be accepted. Look at the health politics in most countries. It is not just total non sense, it is criminal and economical non sense. Yet nothing changes. I believe more in cold fusion than in the danger of cannabis or salvia divinorum, you know, or even tobacco, when used properly. At least cold fusion and water memory does not arm. But the overall resistance to harm reduction technics toward even just legal drugs can make you depressed and despaired about the willingness of human collectivity to be a bit more rational, and a bit more healthy. I do appreciate David Deutsch and Alan Forrester. And I would certainly be pleased to have their opinions. But new things take time, especially when circumstances don't help. Give them enough time. Bruno > > - Original Message - > From: "Bruno Marchal" > To: > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started > > > > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have > > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. > > > I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et > Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not > receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have > *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of > their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and > even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. > > I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far > beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if > only because that story is not finished. > My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It > took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. > > I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get > myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels > to Paris! > > It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, > that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels > that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, > not even getting out of Belgium. > In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much > simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some > place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, >
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf* enjoy! colin Colin Hales wrote: > Hi Bruno, > I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, > guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and > co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called > "rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I > have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a > god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress > to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or > knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those > who frolic in ideas sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have > made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than > adequate - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny- > and it doesn't feel good. > > see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist > file store. > > So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-) > > cheers, > Colin > > > m.a. wrote: >> *Bruno,* >> * I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan >> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly >> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some >> of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves >> serious consideration. Best,* >> >> >> *martin a.* >> ** >> ** >> ** >> - Original Message - >> From: "Bruno Marchal" mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> To: > <mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com>> >> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM >> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started >> >> >> > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have >> > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. >> >> >> I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et >> Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not >> receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have >> *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of >> their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and >> even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. >> >> I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far >> beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if >> only because that story is not finished. >> My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It >> took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. >> >> I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get >> myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels >> to Paris! >> >> It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, >> that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels >> that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, >> not even getting out of Belgium. >> In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much >> simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some >> place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, >> except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat >> you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few >> understand so it is easy to say "not serious"). >> >> The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It >> is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, >> from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is >> only one, very clever, but very bad, guy. >> Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on >> other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", >> as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures. >> >> I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can >> exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect >> their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I >> estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Hi Bruno, I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called "rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those who frolic in ideas sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than adequate - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny- and it doesn't feel good. see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist file store. So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-) cheers, Colin m.a. wrote: > *Bruno,* > * I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan > Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly > would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some of > the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves > serious consideration. Best,* > > > *martin a.* > ** > ** > ** > - Original Message - > From: "Bruno Marchal" mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > To: <mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com>> > Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started > > > > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have > > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. > > > I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et > Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not > receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have > *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of > their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and > even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. > > I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far > beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if > only because that story is not finished. > My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It > took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. > > I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get > myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels > to Paris! > > It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, > that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels > that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, > not even getting out of Belgium. > In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much > simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some > place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, > except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat > you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few > understand so it is easy to say "not serious"). > > The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It > is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, > from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is > only one, very clever, but very bad, guy. > Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on > other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", > as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures. > > I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can > exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect > their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I > estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize > what happened. > And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which > understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably > wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which > explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with > people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked > many questions, I answered the
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Bruno, I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves serious consideration. Best, martin a. - Original Message - From: "Bruno Marchal" To: Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if only because that story is not finished. My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels to Paris! It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, not even getting out of Belgium. In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few understand so it is easy to say "not serious"). The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is only one, very clever, but very bad, guy. Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures. I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize what happened. And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work. Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA. UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and between disciplines, rumors circulate more quickly than "scientific bridge", which often makes people feeling being aggressed on their territories. Even more so when the work approaches question traditionally qualified as "philosophical". My initial power comes from the fact that in 1977, I did abandoned, for bad reasons (but it will take many years to understand that), the idea of doing academic research, and so I did come back to the very fundamental questioning I have always been living. I didn't and don't complain (my weakness probably). And it is the Academy, 20 years later, which will push me back again, and again. I have never submitted publications by myself. All have been asked by people, having heard I said something new, sometimes insisting gently. Nowadays, since those events, even ordered paper (or jobs) get jeopardized quickly. Last year I was asked to write a paper for a book in homage to the late logician Jean Ladrière, (who offered
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
On 02 Mar 2009, at 02:21, russell standish wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:55:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Hi Kim, >> >> I didn't expect you to send the translation of the Amoeba's Secret >> (AS) on the list. But it is OK, and you did a rather very good job. >> >> For the other: "The Amoeba's Secret" is the book which has been >> ordered to me when I won the LE MONDE prize of the best thesis in >> 1998. For obscure reasons (which I don't want to talk about) it has >> not been published, it is the only prize LE MONDE which has not been >> published. > > Thanks for sharing these old wounds with us. FWIW, I have read so > far the > story up to the end of your undergrad days, and I think it is very > well written, and as I commented to Kim J - the chapter "Amoeba's > secret" would make an excellent basis for a short film. So far, Le > Monde's decision not to publish is completely inexplicable (I can > understand that the thesis itself being too technical might be a > reason for not publishing that). > > Was there any discussion of removing some of the personal elements > from the sorry affair that happened when your thesis was submitted to > ULB? I send the manuscript electronically after each chapter, and said it was very nice, up to the end. Until Grasset interrupts the contract with LE MONDE. I have been told the book, nor the thesis can enter in their collection. I did not get any explanation. I have been interviewed by journalists on my work, only the journalist of switzerland succeed in publishing his paper. > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and even more after the paradoxical price in Paris. I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if only because that story is not finished. My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then. I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then get myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels to Paris! It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, not even getting out of Belgium. In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much simple", and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few understand so it is easy to say "not serious"). The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is only one, very clever, but very bad, guy. Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures. I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize what happened. And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work. Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA. UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and between disciplines, rumors circulate more quickly than "scientific bridge", which often makes people feeling being aggressed on their territories. Even more so when the work approaches question traditionally qualified as "philosophical". My initial power comes from the
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:55:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Kim, > > I didn't expect you to send the translation of the Amoeba's Secret > (AS) on the list. But it is OK, and you did a rather very good job. > > For the other: "The Amoeba's Secret" is the book which has been > ordered to me when I won the LE MONDE prize of the best thesis in > 1998. For obscure reasons (which I don't want to talk about) it has > not been published, it is the only prize LE MONDE which has not been > published. Thanks for sharing these old wounds with us. FWIW, I have read so far the story up to the end of your undergrad days, and I think it is very well written, and as I commented to Kim J - the chapter "Amoeba's secret" would make an excellent basis for a short film. So far, Le Monde's decision not to publish is completely inexplicable (I can understand that the thesis itself being too technical might be a reason for not publishing that). Was there any discussion of removing some of the personal elements from the sorry affair that happened when your thesis was submitted to ULB? Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Australiahttp://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-l...@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: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Hi Kim, I didn't expect you to send the translation of the Amoeba's Secret (AS) on the list. But it is OK, and you did a rather very good job. For the other: "The Amoeba's Secret" is the book which has been ordered to me when I won the LE MONDE prize of the best thesis in 1998. For obscure reasons (which I don't want to talk about) it has not been published, it is the only prize LE MONDE which has not been published. They were supposed to publish the thesis, but judging it to technical they asked me to describe the story of the thesis, despite they new it is a bit sad. But it t contains a good explanation of both UDA and its arithmetical translation AUDA (the interviex of the introspective universal machine) and where those ideas come from. That could help if only because it is far shorter than "Conscience et Mécanisme". You can see it as an enlarged joining post. In that book I am using the term "psychology" of machine instead of "theology", which despite its connotation is far more well suited, especially concerning the secret feature of the "amoeba's" discourse, and which basically concerns the corona G* minus G of the discourse of the self- referentially correct machine. The machine is mute on that, or assert those proposition in an interrogative way. It is the magic of comp: it gives you a logic of what is "true" (ASSUMING comp) but unprovable (ASSUMING comp and some amount of self-consistency). Best, Bruno On 28 Feb 2009, at 13:27, Kim Jones wrote: > The Amoeba’s Secret > > > > by Bruno Marchal > > > > May 19 2000 > > > > English version by K. Jones > 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 everything-l...@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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
