Re: Re: Re: Re: The pro-life paradox
Hi Richard Ruquist That is specified in my Living Will [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 14:59:18 Subject: Re: Re: Re: The pro-life paradox Roger, Your pro-life stance includes the doctor keeping you alive at all costs whereas if you really believed in an afterlife, you are better off dead. Richard On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: -- 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.
Retransmit. How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?
Apparently this was not all transmitted previously . this is a retransmit for Telmo Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 09:45:37 Subject: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ? Hi Telmo, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1) FIRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. This is not a visual display, only a complex sensory signal. 2) SECONDNESS (the hippocampus ? the cerebellum? ). The next stage is intelligent processing of the optical signal and into a useable expreswion of the visual image. (From the monadology, we find that each monad (you or me) does not perceive the world directly, but is given such a perception by the supreme monad (the One, or God). This supreme monad contains the ability to intelligently construct the visual image from the optical nerve signal) 3) THIRDNESS (cerebrum ?) Knowing this visual expresson by the individual monad according to its individual perspective. This perspective is somehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right, etc.), but I question that this is an actual 2D or 3D display, such as in the videoclips. (The videoclips are another matter as they are artificialy constructed.) If there is an actual or simulated display then we are faced with Dennett's problem: the infinite regress of spectators, spectators of spectator, etc. But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self, and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism. The self is simply an expression of the brain. I do not at present know the answer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2012-12-19, 07:45:31 Subject: On those remarkable videoclips of visual perception Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, might have beer constructed simply by monitoring, just as one might from a video camera, the MRI signals in the optical nerve as a function of time, and displaying them as a raster pattern, which turns the time voltage signal artificially into a timespace signal. Obviously the brain achieves the same result, but I find it hard to believe that it convergts the time signal into a timespace signal using a raster pattern display. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 10:53:11 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Telmo Menezes Thank you so much ! What an achievement ! Hard to believe. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 03:34:31 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Roger, Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=nsjDnYxJ0bo On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes ? It would be good if they showed a video clip. ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:12:16 Subject: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi again Roger, It's a bit better than that. A machine learning algorithm is trained to decode neural activation signals. The training is performed by showing the subject known images, and letting the algorithm learn how their neural activity maps to these images. The real magic happens when you show them new stuff, that the algorithm wasn't trained for. To me, the most impressive stuff here is when it fails. If you pay attention to the videos, you will see the algorithm decoding different (but similar images) from what the one being shown to the subject. For example, when faces
Re: Retransmit. How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ?
Hi Telmo, My error. The method of displaying the optical signal as given below wouldn't work, because there'd be no sync signals on the optical signal to trigger the playback scan. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-21, 06:30:51 Subject: Retransmit. How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ? Apparently this was not all transmitted previously . this is a retransmit for Telmo Have received the following content - Sender: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 09:45:37 Subject: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett right after all ? Hi Telmo, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1) FIRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. This is not a visual display, only a complex sensory signal. 2) SECONDNESS (the hippocampus ? the cerebellum? ). The next stage is intelligent processing of the optical signal and into a useable expreswion of the visual image. (From the monadology, we find that each monad (you or me) does not perceive the world directly, but is given such a perception by the supreme monad (the One, or God). This supreme monad contains the ability to intelligently construct the visual image from the optical nerve signal) 3) THIRDNESS (cerebrum ?) Knowing this visual expresson by the individual monad according to its individual perspective. This perspective is somehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right, etc.), but I question that this is an actual 2D or 3D display, such as in the videoclips. (The videoclips are another matter as they are artificialy constructed.) If there is an actual or simulated display then we are faced with Dennett's problem: the infinite regress of spectators, spectators of spectator, etc. But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self, and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism. The self is simply an expression of the brain. I do not at present know the answer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2012-12-19, 07:45:31 Subject: On those remarkable videoclips of visual perception Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, might have beer constructed simply by monitoring, just as one might from a video camera, the MRI signals in the optical nerve as a function of time, and displaying them as a raster pattern, which turns the time voltage signal artificially into a timespace signal. Obviously the brain achieves the same result, but I find it hard to believe that it convergts the time signal into a timespace signal using a raster pattern display. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 10:53:11 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Telmo Menezes Thank you so much ! What an achievement ! Hard to believe. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 03:34:31 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi Roger, Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=nsjDnYxJ0bo On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes ? It would be good if they showed a video clip. ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:12:16 Subject: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi again Roger, It's a bit better than that. A machine learning algorithm is
More on reconstruction from brain activity
Hi Telmo Menezes You're right, I got the scanning part all wrong. You can find sites that may tell more by Googling on Reconstruction from brain activity Apparently they use complex brain modelling programs with complex AI to somehow get images. While they have had some (presumably limited) success on moving images, trying to do that with static images would be the first thing to try, but even that looks like voodoo to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification gives an overall treatment of reading thoughts. One of my lady friend's relatives is doing brain modelling at U MD in Baltimore, I suspect that he might be into such stuff. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 06:17:25 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett rightafter all ? Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject is seeing, but in a weird way. So we can speculate that we're watching, for example, a pattern matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing for me is when we see the anticipation of the ink blot explosion. That's something you wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a computer running a sophisticated AI). Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1) FIRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. In my opinion you are conflating intelligence and consciousness. I see two separate issues: 1) The human being as an agent senses things, assigns symbols to them, compares them with his memories and so on. The brain tries to anticipate all possible futures and then choses actions that are more likely to lead to a future state that it prefers. This preference can be ultimately reduced to pain avoidance / pleasure seeking. In my view, the fundamental pain and pleasure signals have to be encoded some how in our DNA, and were selected to optimise our chances of reproduction. All this is 3p and can be emulated by a digital computer. Some of it already is. 2) There is a me here observing the universe from my perspective. I am me and not you. There's a consciousness inside my body, attached to my mind (or is it my mind)? I suspect there's one inside other people too, but I cannot be sure. This is a 1p phenomena and outside the realm of science. It cannot be explained by MRI machines and clever algorithms - although many neuroscientists fail to realise it. This mystery is essentially what makes me an agnostic more than an atheist. If there is a god, I suspect he's me (and you). In a sense. You can have 1 without 2, the famous zombie. This is not a visual display, only a complex sensory signal. 2) SECONDNESS (the hippocampus ? the cerebellum? ). The next stage is intelligent processing of the optical signal and into a useable expreswion of the visual image. (From the monadology, we find that each monad (you or me) does not perceive the world directly, but is given such a perception by the supreme monad (the One, or God). This supreme monad contains the ability to intelligently construct the visual image from the optical nerve signal) 3) THIRDNESS (cerebrum ?) Knowing this visual expresson by the individual monad according to its individual perspective. This perspective is somehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right, etc.), but I question that this is an actual 2D or 3D display, such as in the videoclips. (The videoclips are another matter as they are artificialy constructed.) I agree with you, but maybe videoclips can still be created from there. If the neural network contains a piece of information A, and this information can be represented by image B, there has to be a function f: A - B. Of course finding this function (and/or computing it) might be incredibly hard. If there is an actual or simulated display then we are faced with Dennett's problem: the infinite regress of spectators, spectators of spectator, etc. Ok, but here we're back to 1p. But if
Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal This is just an intuition. IMHO conventional physics and math applies to this bifurcated world, where every action produces a reaction, the world is objective/subjective, magnetic monopoles are impossible, etc.,etc. I am not sure this explains anything. This also shows up in quantum physics, where a bit can be both 1 and 0 and the same time. But not in the same universe. Not in the same sheaf of computations (with comp). Here we obviously have the concidence of opposites, but since it is clearly mathematical/logical, perhaps there is some coincidence of opposites math or logic that can explain such weirdness. For a realist, and truth believer, weirdness is just a sign that we miss something, or that we are still not familiar with some new idea. With comp F=ma is far more weird than all QM weirdness, which are rather easy to explain, as we belong to infinities of overlapping and competing computations. Maybe it's just that double roots appear in many of the equations. But often if this happens, one root cannot exist in this world as we know it, so no dilemma. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 14:59:12 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 18 Dec 2012, at 15:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal It would be interesting to see which logical statements apply to the monadic=quantum domain, which is beyond space and time. Part of Quantum Information theory. It is intresting of course and QM is a jewel, but you have quick in making identfication. QM should be how the digital is seen by the digital entities, and must be derived and not assume if you want the correct quanta-qualia relation. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 10:14:38 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Pardon my ignorance, but what is Dt ? Consistency of 0 = 0, or simply self-consistency. It is the modal Diamond in the modal logic of provability). It is the same as ~Bf (not provable false). D is the same as ~B ~ (like it exists is the same as ~Forall ~) In most modal logic, we have the Aristotelian square, with B = necessary, and D= ~B~= possible. Bp ~Bp B~p ~B~p In the alethic (Leibnizian) mode: Bp = necessary p (true in all worlds), ~B~p = possible = true in at least one world (= not false in any world). In most classical modal logic systems, we have that: ~Bp = D~p ~Dp = B~p In particular ~Bf = D~f = Dt (t = 0=0, and t = ~(0=0), or simply they are the constant propositional truth and falsity). So the negation transforms B into D, and vice versa. You can test this on all intuitive modality Where B and D represents respectively: B = obligatory and D = permitted (deontic modal logic) B = everywhere and D = somewhere (space logic) B = all the time and D = sometime (logic of time) B = probability and D = consistency (logic of provability) B = necessary and D = possibly (Alethic logic) B = for all x, and D = it exists a x (quantifier) All such modalities will obeys different axioms, of course. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:47:59 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: p Bp Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical formula beweisbar of G鰁l 1931, p is an arbitrary Sigma_1 sentences. In fact it is 4 + 4*infinity, as you have also all B^n p + D^m t with n m. This gives a graded set of quantum logics. And they all have different color fro different machines, that is, the logic of those points of view are the same for all correct machines, but their explicit content can be completely different. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:53, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: People agree that 2+2=4 because it is a simple truth which follow from simple definition. But that makes it conditional on the definition (axioms). Trivially. Usually we prefer not see a definition as a condition, but logically you can do that. We prefer to say that 17 is prime, instead of if p-(q-p), if (p-(q- r))-(p-q) -(p-r)), if ..., and if s(x) is different from 0 for all x, and if x = y when s(x) = s(y), and if if x + 0 = x, and if x +s(y) = s(x+y), and if x * 0 = 0, and ..., and ... then 17 is prime. We assume we are OK on the prerequisite. And it is not such a simple truth. Two raindrops plus two raindrops makes one big raindrop. Raindrop and clouds are bad model for what we mean by natural numbers. Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. One bridge teams plus one bridge teams equals three bridge teams. The simplicity of the truth comes from abstracting away all the particulars of reality. So people are agreeing about words and definitions and meanings - but not about facts. That is why I am a theoretician. Notably. I say that if comp is true, then physics is given by this theory. Facts confirms, but I let to talented experimenters to decide or refute it in fine. Bruno 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-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: The pro-life paradox
On 20 Dec 2012, at 18:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There is a gray area called quality of life. OK. Nice. Should I take this as a statement that there are some cases where you would not oppose to euthanasia? Everything of value, all colors, are in that gray area, I think. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 05:12:10 Subject: Re: The pro-life paradox On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:01, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such, they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be contradictory. The question is: does an artificial, or even virtual body, enhance life or suppress life? Bruno That's tricky. The aristotelean pro-life doctor does not believe she/he is turning the dying patient into a machine. That Doctor thinks they are saving the universe from one of its fundamental properties: death, entropy. I don't know if most of them are naive believer in the sense that most doctors in this domain are well aware that it is a loosing battle, and I guess outing yourself as pro-euthanasia carries some heavy implications in your day to day practice, interaction, and judgement from peers, directors, and employers. I guess, most would be cooler with this if they could. So naive believer, yeah maybe some, but more I'd guess live in fear of getting their voice heard. To tackle the question straight-on: 1) depends on manufacturer, market, price and warranty conditions, and the local universe. You did remember to submit the appropriate forms before rental of Bruno, didn't you? I say this, because it seems like sometimes you forget with this kind of question :) I am not sure I get the point. Mine was only that the pro-life doctor will transform people into machine (as they do already somehow), and that can contradict the general anti-mechanist prejudice of many pro-life activists. 2) Heidegger was just joking. Nobody was thrown; he just got a bit of nausea after signing all the soul-body binding contracts and wants modification of warranty terms. I don't know whether his appeal was heard by the courts, any of you? Lol. But still don't see the point. keep in mind that logicians are simple mind :) 3) But after flying for platonic infinities through every possible universe as a disembodied soul eye with infinite memory at any speed you wished, you would go sign up for another round to be entangled with some strange universe physically again and push the format disk button once again and agree to all constraints, just for novelty's sake and say sh*t, it's boring here... but I am no chicken, I choose a local universe where aristoteleans are winning, just to make it more interesting, because the platonic localities are too much already like here...also, I'll choose one where matter is really convincing and makes us unable to define life properly, so that I can pose this question in a forum someday, and confuse the others a bit, hehe. OK. But for once, my question was terrestrial. Of course such question makes less global sense in Platonia, but can still make sense locally, even there. Bruno :) Cowboy -- 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 . 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-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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
Definition of a liberal
Hi Stephen P. King A liberal is a person who fears that somehow, somewhere, somebody has secretly figured out a way to do something on their own. A liberal is a person who believes that you need a blueprint to tie your shoes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 16:06:24 Subject: Re: Why economic inequality and environmental degradation are likelyto improve On 12/20/2012 7:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I just wonder what your gonna do when they are all gone... Live in peace? Grow food? That's the thing, we'll never know what we might actually want to do as long as we have a society telling us what we have to do. Maybe we should start by not electing people that make it their mission in life to do exactly that: tell us what we have to do. Why don't they mind their own freaking business and let me deal with mine. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
Hi Bruno Marchal I am suggestings that such quandries be resolved on multiple levels in the same universe, not multiple universes. Occam's Razor. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-21, 10:21:22 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 20 Dec 2012, at 17:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal This is just an intuition. IMHO conventional physics and math applies to this bifurcated world, where every action produces a reaction, the world is objective/subjective, magnetic monopoles are impossible, etc.,etc. I am not sure this explains anything. This also shows up in quantum physics, where a bit can be both 1 and 0 and the same time. But not in the same universe. Not in the same sheaf of computations (with comp). Here we obviously have the concidence of opposites, but since it is clearly mathematical/logical, perhaps there is some coincidence of opposites math or logic that can explain such weirdness. For a realist, and truth believer, weirdness is just a sign that we miss something, or that we are still not familiar with some new idea. With comp F=ma is far more weird than all QM weirdness, which are rather easy to explain, as we belong to infinities of overlapping and competing computations. Maybe it's just that double roots appear in many of the equations. But often if this happens, one root cannot exist in this world as we know it, so no dilemma. OK. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 14:59:12 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 18 Dec 2012, at 15:55, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal It would be interesting to see which logical statements apply to the monadic=quantum domain, which is beyond space and time. Part of Quantum Information theory. It is intresting of course and QM is a jewel, but you have quick in making identfication. QM should be how the digital is seen by the digital entities, and must be derived and not assume if you want the correct quanta-qualia relation. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 10:14:38 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Pardon my ignorance, but what is Dt ? Consistency of 0 = 0, or simply self-consistency. It is the modal Diamond in the modal logic of provability). It is the same as ~Bf (not provable false). D is the same as ~B ~ (like it exists is the same as ~Forall ~) In most modal logic, we have the Aristotelian square, with B = necessary, and D= ~B~= possible. Bp ~Bp B~p ~B~p In the alethic (Leibnizian) mode: Bp = necessary p (true in all worlds), ~B~p = possible = true in at least one world (= not false in any world). In most classical modal logic systems, we have that: ~Bp = D~p ~Dp = B~p In particular ~Bf = D~f = Dt (t = 0=0, and t = ~(0=0), or simply they are the constant propositional truth and falsity). So the negation transforms B into D, and vice versa. You can test this on all intuitive modality Where B and D represents respectively: B = obligatory and D = permitted (deontic modal logic) B = everywhere and D = somewhere (space logic) B = all the time and D = sometime (logic of time) B = probability and D = consistency (logic of provability) B = necessary and D = possibly (Alethic logic) B = for all x, and D = it exists a x (quantifier) All such modalities will obeys different axioms, of course. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:47:59 Subject: Re: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: p Bp Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical
Re: Re: The pro-life paradox
Hi Bruno Marchal Just as in jurisprudence, sometimes there are no easy answers. I am a Christian, and so oppose euthanasia as contrary to the Ten Commandments. But others presumably do not share that belief. And even I might break the commandment (to my peril) in exceptional cases. It is not for me to judge, it wouldn't matter anyway. That's up to God, IMHO. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-21, 10:44:44 Subject: Re: The pro-life paradox On 20 Dec 2012, at 18:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal There is a gray area called quality of life. OK. Nice. Should I take this as a statement that there are some cases where you would not oppose to euthanasia? Everything of value, all colors, are in that gray area, I think. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 05:12:10 Subject: Re: The pro-life paradox On 19 Dec 2012, at 17:01, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Dec 2012, at 17:49, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Is pro-life activism enhancing life or diminishing life? Some pro-life doctor are against euthanasia, even passive euthanasia, with the result that they transform dying patient into machines. But most of them are naive believer, and as such, they disbelieve comp, and so their pro-life activity begins to be contradictory. The question is: does an artificial, or even virtual body, enhance life or suppress life? Bruno That's tricky. The aristotelean pro-life doctor does not believe she/he is turning the dying patient into a machine. That Doctor thinks they are saving the universe from one of its fundamental properties: death, entropy. I don't know if most of them are naive believer in the sense that most doctors in this domain are well aware that it is a loosing battle, and I guess outing yourself as pro-euthanasia carries some heavy implications in your day to day practice, interaction, and judgement from peers, directors, and employers. I guess, most would be cooler with this if they could. So naive believer, yeah maybe some, but more I'd guess live in fear of getting their voice heard. To tackle the question straight-on: 1) depends on manufacturer, market, price and warranty conditions, and the local universe. You did remember to submit the appropriate forms before rental of Bruno, didn't you? I say this, because it seems like sometimes you forget with this kind of question :) I am not sure I get the point. Mine was only that the pro-life doctor will transform people into machine (as they do already somehow), and that can contradict the general anti-mechanist prejudice of many pro-life activists. 2) Heidegger was just joking. Nobody was thrown; he just got a bit of nausea after signing all the soul-body binding contracts and wants modification of warranty terms. I don't know whether his appeal was heard by the courts, any of you? Lol. But still don't see the point. keep in mind that logicians are simple mind :) 3) But after flying for platonic infinities through every possible universe as a disembodied soul eye with infinite memory at any speed you wished, you would go sign up for another round to be entangled with some strange universe physically again and push the format disk button once again and agree to all constraints, just for novelty's sake and say sh*t, it's boring here... but I am no chicken, I choose a local universe where aristoteleans are winning, just to make it more interesting, because the platonic localities are too much already like here...also, I'll choose one where matter is really convincing and makes us unable to define life properly, so that I can pose this question in a forum someday, and confuse the others a bit, hehe. OK. But for once, my question was terrestrial. Of course such question makes less global sense in Platonia, but can still make sense locally, even there. Bruno :) Cowboy -- 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
Definition of a liberal
Definition of a liberal A liberal is a person who fears that somehow, somewhere, somebody has secretly figured out a way to do something on their own. A liberal is a person who believes that you need a blueprint to tie your shoes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/21/2012 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 options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.
On 20 Dec 2012, at 19:01, Roger Clough wrote: Hi A simpler way to make my point is the axiom that no information can be stand alone, it must have context to give it meaning. The information needs a universal machine to interpret it. Universal machines needs also a universal machine to be themselves interpreted. That is why we have to assume at least one universal machine. Then if you accept Church thesis, it is a long, tedious, and not so easy task to prove that the elementary arithmetic taught in school is Turing universal, so we can start from this well know one. But that context can not be stored alone, it in turn must have context. And so forth. Thus one bit of information cannot simply be physically stored, it would extend to take up the entire physical universe. I don't follow you here. Your argument above only shows that we cannot store the one bit of information + some interpreter of that bit, + the universal environment supporting that bit, etc. But we don't need bits, we need only relative bits, and this store easily in any universal machine's memory. But our brains do apparently store enormous amounts of information. The above argument suggests that the bulk of this must be stored Platonically (mentally). OK. Because our states makes sense only relatively to many other states, and all that fit in arithmetic. BTW, I conjecture that this fits also on the border of the Mandelbrot set, making it a nice picture of a compact universal dovetailing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6uO7ZHtK8list=PL70D5F39E3EFE6136index=1 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-20, 12:40:21 Subject: Jason and the Dragon's Teeth Hi meekerdb How can you store info on a particle ? Let's make this as simple as possible and say that you decide to write some information on a piece of paper in the form of 1's and 0's. Is that really information ? No. Not unless you provide additional information such as a) a definition of what information is b) where the information is (address) c) could this just be junk ? d) how to read the 1's and 0's apart from the blank spaces e) what spurious info from the blank spaces means j) how to tell that spurious information from 1's and 0's. e) how to. For every step I add, hoping to clear up the issue once and for all, other problems come to life, as in the Greek myth of Jason and the Dragon's teeth: http://www.mythweb.com/heroes/jason/jason14.html The Dragon's Teeth Aeetes, it turns out, had got his hands on some dragon's teeth with unique agricultural properties. As soon as these hit the soil they began to sprout, which was good from the point of view of Jason accomplishing his task by nightfall, but bad in terms of the harvest. For each seed germinated into a fully-armed warrior, who popped up from the ground and joined the throng now menacing poor Jason. You need info to store and read info, and info on what that means, etc. about the warrior killling enemy, and for each enemy that n gtell info have an decoding aparatus. Suppose you decide to store information on a computer disk. You say 'all I have to do is put a + charge here and nothing there. I don't think it's that simple. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 17:10:58 Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb and Stephen, If information is stored in quantum form, I can't see why the number of particles in the universe can be a limiting fsactor. Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes - no information. Also there are ways of storing information holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous. The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena. Brent Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out. I always believed that
Re: Definition of a liberal
A liberal is a conservative who's been drafted and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/21/2012 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Come on. You could demolish Einstein special relativity with remark like that. --Mister Einstein, we member of the jury are not convinced by your thesis. There is a definite lack of rigor. Clearly E = mc^2 will not work with 2 interpreted by 2 raindrops. FAIL. No, because GR comes with an interpretation and that has been tested. And in fact the 2 is irrelevant. c is just a scale factor from the way we defined units and physicist commonly set it to 1. 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.
RE: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger : Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On the McDonald's example, please realize that corporations that support Obama have been given reign to opt-out of his national med plan. Based on this, let us realize, that in the US, we are seeing, not a military0industrial complex, of Eisenhower's fear, but another sort of oligarchy, comprised of other elites, in commerce, banking, and industry, as well as government unions, media, academia, and entertainment. It's a neo-marxist oligarchy which is ok with obedient capitalism and shares control. But it stll takes up back, in the Hayek sense of things to the Road to Serfdom model. Not healthy if one approves on large middle classes. Mitch -- 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.
Interesting facts about Galileo
I listen to Galileo by John L. Heilbron. Below are two interesting facts from the book together with links that I have found in Internet. 1) Galileo about Inferno Galileo has started his scientific career with a speech about how Inferno looks like where he has applied his mathematical genius to find out which theory was the correct one. Two Lectures to the Florentine Academy On the Shape, Location and Size of Dante’s Inferno by Galileo Galilei, 1588 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mpeterso/galileo/inferno.html 2) Galileo against clothes Galileo has a poem poem “Against the Donning of Gown” I now conclude, and turn to you, signor, And force you to confess, against your will, The Greatest Good will be all clothes to abhor GALILEO NATURISM His First Heresy Marvin Frandsen, Nude Natural http://www.free11.org/PRSIG/papers/2001.02.00.Galileo%20%20Naturism%20-%20His%20First%20Heresy.N%2020.3.Frandsen.pdf Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/12/galileo.html -- 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: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The infinite set of natural numbers is not stored on anything, Which causes no problem because there is not a infinite number of anything in the observable universe, probably not even points in space. no information can be stand alone, it must have context to give it meaning. I think that's true because information is not abstract, it's physical and is deeply involved with both energy and entropy. But that context can not be stored alone, it in turn must have context. No because matter and energy are generic. In any context the 2 electrons in a helium atom always have opposite spin. Thus one bit of information cannot simply be physically stored, Quiet, keep your voice down! If anybody hears you it will destroy the multi-trillion dollar computer industry and put millions of people out of work. But our brains do apparently store enormous amounts of information. And so the silly game of trying to inflate our ego by convincing ourselves that we are special and inherently superior to machines continues. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/18/2012 4:26 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: On the McDonald's example, please realize that corporations that support Obama have been given reign to opt-out of his national med plan. The waivers are only good for one year and the Administration already said last Sept it was doing away with waivers. Based on this, let us realize, that in the US, we are seeing, not a military0industrial complex, of Eisenhower's fear The MIC is doing very well thank you. but another sort of oligarchy, comprised of other elites, in commerce, banking, and industry, as well as government unions, media, academia, and entertainment. It's a neo-marxist oligarchy All those bank CEOs, hedge fund managers, oil company executives will surprised to hear they are 'neo-Marxist' about to lead the revolt of the proletariat. Brent But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. *Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. * --- Frederick Hayek, The Road to Serfdom -- 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.
