subject:"Re\: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff\/Penrose consciousness theory basis"

Hi John,

One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT 
the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip 
which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So 
if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip how could 
A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same amount?

Edgar



On Friday, January 31, 2014 1:59:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
 A's clock slow 


 Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at 
 near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
 others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
 shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
 going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
 symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
 A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
 would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

  So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL 
 (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's 
 slow clock slowing doesn't? 


 Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

   John K Clark




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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent,

But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are 
both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence 
shouldn't they have the same effect on time then?

But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through 
spacetime, then the distance through spacetime as measured by whom? A sees 
B move the exact SAME distance at the exact SAME rate through spacetime as 
B sees A move.

So why then has only A's clock ACTUALLY slowed when he reaches the galactic 
center? That seems to imply that there is some real absolute background 
space that A traveled through but not B. It seems to imply that spatial 
motion relative to the galaxy is somehow real and absolute. Is that what 
you are saying? Isn't that notion inconsistent with relativity?


Another point:

A couple days ago you said geometry doesn't slow time
Yesterday you said Everything is geometry
Yet time does slow...
So aren't those 2 statements contradictory?

Edgar



On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:25:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
  



 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

   A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
 A's clock slow 


  Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling 
 at near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
 others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
 shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
 going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
 symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
 A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
 would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.
  
   So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be 
 ACTUAL (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, 
 and B's slow clock slowing doesn't? 


  Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.


 That's right, but don't be misled into thinking it's the stress or 
 force of acceleration that slows the clock.  The acceleration just 
 changes the distance through spacetime.  It's not some effect that's making 
 the clock keep the wrong time.

 Brent
  

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Liz,

But see my responses to John and Brent on this ..

The question I'd ask you is why A's frame cannot be put into a single 
inertial frame of reference if his 1g acceleration was exactly the same as 
B's 1g acceleration during the ENTIRE trip?

Are you saying that the simple fact that the DIRECTION of A's 1g 
acceleration REVERSED at midpoint is the ONLY cause of A's clock slowing 
relative to B's?

Thanks,
Edgar


On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:17:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
 A's clock slow 


 Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at 
 near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the 
 others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could 
 shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is 
 going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be 
 symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see 
 A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they 
 would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

  So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be 
 ACTUAL (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, 
 and B's slow clock slowing doesn't? 


 Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

 That's true, and can be rephrased as A's trajectory cannot be put into a 
 single inertial frame of reference, while B's can. Hence the symmetry 
 between them has to be broken at some point.

 There's an even simpler way to view this. A's path through space-time 
 forms two sides of a triangle, while B's forms the base. Since the two 
 sides of any triangle must be longer than the base, A must have taken a 
 longer path through space-time, which according to SR means he experienced 
 less duration. The twin paradox comes down to 4D geometry!



-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
 BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
 trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
 earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip
 how could A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same
 amount?


If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of the
Earth at one g (32 feet per second per second), then he would be
experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth and one g from his continuing change
in upward velocity.

 both = 1g throughout the entire trip


No, not during the entire trip. And if the space traveler ever wants to
return to Earth to rejoin his friend so they can directly compare their
clocks then he's going to have to change the direction of his acceleration
by 180 degrees. So their clocks will not match because their travel
experiences were not symmetrical.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

John,

First, 2 substantial errors in your post below.

1. I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off 
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip. But 
even if he blasted off from earth's surface at 2g that would have a 
negligible and irrelevant effect on his clock because it would only last 
for a few minutes. This is obvious because returning astronauts' clocks are 
different by a hardly measurable amount.

2. A's direction of acceleration doesn't JUST change if he decides to 
return. It reverses at the MIDPOINT of the trip so he can slow and stop at 
the galactic center. If he returns if would have to change it again at 
midpoint.

So the points you make are not relevant to the discussion.

However note also that the DIRECTION of B's acceleration is also 
continually changing relative to A's motion simply because the earth is 
rotating. 

So how does any change in the direction of acceleration of A have an effect 
but the continual change in direction of B's acceleration does not?

Edgar



On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, 
 BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire 
 trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on 
 earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip 
 how could A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same 
 amount?


 If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of the 
 Earth at one g (32 feet per second per second), then he would be 
 experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth and one g from his continuing change 
 in upward velocity.

  both = 1g throughout the entire trip


 No, not during the entire trip. And if the space traveler ever wants to 
 return to Earth to rejoin his friend so they can directly compare their 
 clocks then he's going to have to change the direction of his acceleration 
 by 180 degrees. So their clocks will not match because their travel 
 experiences were not symmetrical. 

   John K Clark





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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  then feel free to invoke some non-comp or invoke more comp if that
 floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a
 consistent definition of your silly little word comp that is used on this
 list and nowhere else.


 False.


False? Who else besides you and a few other members of this list has even
heard of comp? Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comp

Wikipedia lists 27 possible meanings of the word comp and not one of
those 27 meanings has anything to do with AI or mind or the brain or
consciousness or determinism or materialism or information.  Not one!

  Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person
 should know get tiresome too.

  Childish immature remark.


Perhaps, but out of the mouth of babes comes truth. The fact is your
acronyms are even more obscure than comp is.


   once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some
 digital transformation


  I do believe that.

  Good. That's comp.


Apparently comp involves a great deal more than that, in particular a lot
of vague pee pee crap.

 Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
 consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
 pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
 program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.


  Only by a confusion 1p and 3p,


OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun indented).  Explain
exactly why my statement above is confused and or wrong and you will have
won this year old debate.

 you are stuck at the step 3.


John Clark is stuck when Bruno Marchal constantly sneaks in personal
pronouns like you and I in a proof about personal identity, and when
reading about  the 3p as if were one universal thing, but Bruno Marchal's
3p is John Clark's 1p.

 You are the only person stuck in step 3 that I know.


I guess they didn't make it that far, but it's been over a year and to be
honest I don't even remember what the first 2 steps were, they may have
been just as silly as step 3.

 John k Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread meekerdb


On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:




On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:


 One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, 
BUT the
point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip which 
was
exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So if the
accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip how could A's 
acceleration
slow time but B's not slow time by the same amount?


If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of the Earth at one g 
(32 feet per second per second), then he would be experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth 
and one g from his continuing change in upward velocity.


But A would experience acceleration quickly decreasing to 1g as he left the vicinity of 
the Earth. And the result wouldn't change if B entered a centrifuge and experienced an 
exactly equal acceleration while remaining on Earth.  This is why I emphasize that it is 
NOT an effect of acceleration, it is a geometric effect of different path lengths.


Brent



 both = 1g throughout the entire trip


No, not during the entire trip. And if the space traveler ever wants to return to Earth 
to rejoin his friend so they can directly compare their clocks then he's going to have 
to change the direction of his acceleration by 180 degrees. So their clocks will not 
match because their travel experiences were not symmetrical.


  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-01 Thread LizR

For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting
into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their
watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to
high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a
few nano or even microseconds difference, but that will be nothing compared
to the difference that will occur after a trip to another star and back. In
fact there are competing effects here, Alice is travelling at several km/s
relative to Bob, but experiencing a slightly weaker gravitational field.

Then Alice fires up the TC drive and heads off towards interstellar space
at 1g...

On 2 February 2014 14:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

   One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
 BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
 trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
 earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire trip
 how could A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same
 amount?


  If A were going into space and accelerating upward off the surface of
 the Earth at one g (32 feet per second per second), then he would be
 experiencing 2g, one g from the Earth and one g from his continuing change
 in upward velocity.


 But A would experience acceleration quickly decreasing to 1g as he left
 the vicinity of the Earth. And the result wouldn't change if B entered a
 centrifuge and experienced an exactly equal acceleration while remaining on
 Earth.  This is why I emphasize that it is NOT an effect of acceleration,
 it is a geometric effect of different path lengths.

 Brent



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread meekerdb


On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:




On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:


 A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees 
A's clock slow


Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at near light 
speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the others clock as running 
slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could shake hands and directly compare the 
times their clocks show then A is going to have to accelerate, and then things would no 
longer be symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see A's 
clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they would not match, 
B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.


 So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL 
(agreed
by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's slow
clock slowing doesn't?


Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.


That's right, but don't be misled into thinking it's the stress or force of 
acceleration that slows the clock.  The acceleration just changes the distance through 
spacetime.  It's not some effect that's making the clock keep the wrong time.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread LizR

On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

  A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
 A's clock slow


 Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
 near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
 others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could
 shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is
 going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be
 symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see
 A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they
 would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

  So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL
 (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's
 slow clock slowing doesn't?


 Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

 That's true, and can be rephrased as A's trajectory cannot be put into a
single inertial frame of reference, while B's can. Hence the symmetry
between them has to be broken at some point.

There's an even simpler way to view this. A's path through space-time forms
two sides of a triangle, while B's forms the base. Since the two sides of
any triangle must be longer than the base, A must have taken a longer path
through space-time, which according to SR means he experienced less
duration. The twin paradox comes down to 4D geometry!

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

PS on quoted post:

If, as you say, A's proper time (comoving clock) is running much slower all 
during (most of) the trip to the center of the galaxy, then doesn't that 
mean A would observe all the intergalactic stuff passing by him at MUCH 
greater than the speed of light? How would that work?

Stay at home observer B sees him traveling at just under the speed of 
light, but if A's proper time is actually slowing by a factor of 
~31000/20=1550 he must see himself traveling at much GREATER than the speed 
of light relative to the intergalactic stuff he is passing. Is that right?

Second, I seem to recall you saying that in the case of an observer falling 
through the event horizon of a black hole his own comoving clock (proper 
time) does NOT slow and he just observes himself falling right through it 
and reaching the singularity only 20 minutes later on his clock. 

So why is the comoving clock traveling to the center of the galaxy slowed 
but the comoving clock falling into a black hole isn't? In both cases we 
agree that a stationary observer watching back on earth sees these clocks 
both slowing don't we?

Thanks,
Edgar



On Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:11:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Brent,

 So what you are saying is that because everything travels through 
 spacetime at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's 
 path through SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path 
 through time must be correspondingly shorter?

 At least that's my understanding and the way I'd express it.

 However according to what you said yesterday that the time slowing effect 
 is due to the longer travel time of photons due to relative motion away 
 from each other, wouldn't A see B's clock slow by the SAME amount that B 
 see's A's clock slow DURING the trip due to the equal and opposite relative 
 motion and the equally longer and longer time photons from each take to 
 reach the other? 

 But that seems to contradict the first result which implies A and B should 
 observe each other's clocks NOT slowing by the same rate DURING the trip 
 because A is actually moving in space and B isn't.

 So what's your explanation for the apparent contradiction?

 Thanks,
 Edgar



 On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:25:09 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  
 Brent,

  Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation 
 for if I may...

 In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

 Two observers A and B.

 A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 
 light year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a 
 constant 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive 
 stationary at the galactic center,

 Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
 B's clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the 
 spaceship.

 Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

 It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
 1g acceleration for the duration of the trip.

 I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
 greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
 relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
 during the trip?

 And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how 
 does it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
 observers can agree upon?

 You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but 
 other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
 this case?

 What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?
  

 A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year  
 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very 
 near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But 
 the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at 
 speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because 
 it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact 
 values you have to integrate the differential equations:

 dt/dtau = 1/gamma
 dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
 dx/dtau = v/gamma

 where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)

  
  The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g 
 gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation 
 experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different 
 distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting, 
 which is indeed down to geometry (in this case involving curves rather 
 the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by 
 integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:14, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
 the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full  
of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.


 I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a  
complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the  
subjective experience exist.


I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct  
experience of the subjective.


Nice for you. But that does not invalidate the point that you can't  
prove this to an other person, or in the 3p sense. You don't show that  
eliminativism is inconsistent.






I don't have direct experience of YOUR conscious experience because  
it is a logical contradiction, if I did have it you wouldn't be you,  
you'd be me.


 And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external  
objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the  
matter in your nose.


Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective  
experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain  
the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective  
experience. I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a  
part of the problem.


Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective  
experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain  
it. And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say  
it was caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully  
described by information) just as I already know from direct  
experience that my subjective experience is caused.


That mundane explanation might be locally valid, but your own idea  
that consciousness is not localized (which indeed follows from comp)  
introduces a major difficulty, or an interesting problem.


Indeed, you are presently delocalized into an infinity of  
computations, and matter make sense only if it obeys some statistics  
on the computations (the FPI on UD*, or the arithmetical FPI, as you  
should know by now).






And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is to  
say a sequence of What caused that? questions is not infinite and  
consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that can  
be said on the subject.


Yes, but you have to invoke some non-comp to localize yourself in some  
unique reality, with selection principles, etc. Just a lot of  
supplementary ad hoc hypotheses to put the problem under the rug.


But, once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some  
digital transformation, then you can begin to understand that we  
have to justify the physical from modalities associated to that those  
digital transformations. And the logic of self-reference, together  
with the most classical definition of knowledge, paves the way, with  
testable statements.


Somehow, you just say that you are not interested in the mind-body  
problem.







  I think consciousness is probably just the way information  
feels when it is being processed;


In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness  
cannot be localized in one brain,


 Yes, because computations can't be localized either.

 Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of  
object having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.


And position not being relevant to consciousness is the reason your  
increasingly convoluted thought experiment about where the real  
you is located is worthless.


But I have never talk about any real you. *you* have tried to link  
the FPI with the identity question, but this has been thoroughly  
invalidated more than one time, by different people. This is a bit  
gross.


I stay in the 3p, because in UDA we use only the most superficial  
aspect of the first person, that you mention above, and which is the  
direct access to the personal memory (technically, the one which is  
annihilated and reconstituted in the WM experiences).


Your difficulty on step 3 looks like a childish bad faith. I don't  
believe it. Ask question if you have a real difficulty, but don't  
use your traditional irrelevant dismissive and confusing rhetoric  
please.


Like you said once, we can't predict, in Helsinki,  W or M, and that's  
all. It is an arithmetical truth, no number can predict its next  
*first person* states in case of multiplication of its computations.  
If you believe that a number or a machine can do that, you have to  
provide an algorithm, or a proof that such an algorithm exists. It is  
a child play to explain that it cannot exist, already with the simple  
3p definition of the 1p used in the UDA.


Bruno





  John K Clark








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
 A's clock slow


Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
others clock as running slow.  However if A decided to join B so they could
shake hands and directly compare the times their clocks show then A is
going to have to accelerate, and then things would no longer be
symmetrical, then A would see B's clock running FAST but B would still see
A's clock run SLOW. So when they joined up again and compared clocks they
would not match, B's clock would be ahead and B would have aged more than A.

 So my question is this: Why does A's clock slowing turn out to be ACTUAL
 (agreed by both A and B) when he stops at the center of the galaxy, and B's
 slow clock slowing doesn't?


Because A stopped, and that means A must have accelerated but B did not.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
 experience of the subjective.


  Nice for you.


Indeed.

 But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
 other person,


I can't even prove that there is another person that I could present a
potential proof to.

 Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective
 experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain it.
 And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say it was
 caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully described by
 information) just as I already know from direct experience that my
 subjective experience is caused.


  That mundane explanation might be locally valid, but your own idea that
 consciousness is not localized


Yes. Do you find a contradiction in that? I don't.

 Indeed, you are presently delocalized into an infinity of computations,


And if Everett is correct there are a infinite number of Bruno Marchals ,
that would certainly be odd but where is the contradiction?

 And if I also believe that consciousness is fundamental, that is to say
 a sequence of What caused that? questions is not infinite and
 consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing more that can be said
 on the subject.



 Yes, but you have to invoke some non-comp to localize yourself in some
 unique reality


Fine, then feel free to invoke some non-comp or invoke more comp if
that floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a
consistent definition of your silly little word comp that is used on this
list and nowhere else. Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend
every educated person should know get tiresome too.

  once you believe that your consciousness is invariant for some digital
 transformation


I do believe that.

 then you can begin to understand that we have to justify the physical
 from modalities associated to that those digital transformations.


Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of
consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the johnkclak
program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.

 Somehow, you just say that you are not interested in the mind-body
 problem.


Well, nobody around here has said anything very interesting about the
mind-body problem. And if the sequence of what caused that? questions are
not infinite than after a certain point there just isn't anything more of
interest to say about the mind-body problem.

 Like you said once, we can't predict, in Helsinki,  W or M, and that's
 all.


I can't predict the answer because you haven't precisely formulated what
the question is.

 I stay in the 3p, because in UDA we use only the most superficial aspect
 of the first person


I've looked yet again but I still don't see it:

http://uda.varsity.com/

 John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter  
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his  
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is  
still ignored by most scientists?


To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying  
Now we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is  
just a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you  
taken up mind reading, Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which  
matter is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter.  What you  
call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the  
world.  And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start  
with an axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by  
the equations and ostensively,


But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if  
only by the dream argument.


I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but  
that instruments, apparatus, measurement results were.


You remind me Bohr, when defining an atom by the set of classical  
devices capable of measuring it.


Instruments are fundamentally important, but useless as primitive.










physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in  
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done.  So you are factually  
wrong assuming matter is some blinding constraint on physics.


Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it  
is even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong  
on that idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.




The reason FPI is ignored by most scientists is that most  
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.   
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,  
because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory essentially  
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is  
ineffable.


To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people  
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that  
the fundamental questions are answered.


This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told  
me that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and  
those are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate  
atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.




When Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew  
what was fundamental?


That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not  
a theory. It is a concept.


Tell it to the bible thumpers.


I am not sure we can change their mind, they won't listen.  
Irrationalism is, alas, most of the time, immune to reason.






Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is  
still a taboo subject.

Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.



I don't defend it; I accept that they know what their own words  
mean when they explain it to me - and I find the concept they have  
explained and named God unbelievable.


It is part of the original definition, note.



You seem to want to tell them that when they say God they don't  
mean what they think they mean and instead they must mean what you  
want the word to mean.


I ask nothing to them, or anyone for that matter. But usually  
intellectual christians are aware of the contribution of Plato and  
Aristotle in theology, and are interested in the fact that  
hypothetical reasoning (in comp for example) can give new light on  
them and on the difference between them. Of course they don't believe  
in fairy tales.


There is no use to convince people who believe or pretend to believe  
in fairy tales.
In fact, there is no way to use reason for people who does not want to  
use reason, but based their intimate conviction on authoritative  
arguments.


But if seriousness in theology come back, then the fairy tales will  
disappear by themselves, in one or two millennia. If we continue to  
mock the theological question and the use of the scientific attitude  
to address them, people will continue the wishful thinking, and will  
continue to believe or fake belief in the fairy tales and literal  
interpretations of texts.


Bruno












For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least  
attribute them to others.


Show one. To say that I don't believe in God, nor in the non  
existence of God can be said by an agnostic. But when said with  
the meaning that God has no referent, it means either I disbelieve  
in fairy tales which is trivial or it means I believe in the  
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body  
problem is a false problem (and if you explain to them the FPI,  
you get no answer. In fact those

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Jan 2014, at 21:50, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place  
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would  
use tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any  
another name, people will add more connotations than with the  
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or  
monotheist big unique being or beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name,  
people will add more connotations than with the concept of god,  
will you stop using God and switch to goar?


See my papers: I do not use the word God. I use it in this list,  
because I answered post using it.


It's my recollection that you used it first (and also angels) it  
metaphorically describing the scope of unprovable truths in  
arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now.


Ah! Good memory! Yes I presented my formal friends G and G* in that  
way. I called G* the guardian angel of the machines.
It is a way to honor an argument by Judson Webb which shows the  
particular case of just Gödel's incompleteness theorem being the  
guardian angel of the Church thesis. Indeed you can look at Gödel's  
theorem as a confirmation of CT, as CT implies incompleteness  
rigorously in two informal lines.







In the Plotinus paper I use the one.


OK.  Does that mean the same as the ground of all reality?


Ground still looks a bit too much physicalist to me, and does not  
convey the fact that the personhood of it is an open question.





If so, it seems a bit too specific in that assumes a singular.


Which confirms my point. God's main attribute is its unicity.

Plotinus' work can be sum up into how the ONE became MANY, and how the  
MANY can return to the ONE.




Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and  
0 might be the goar.  This would be consistent with theologies much  
older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil.  Confucian yin and  
yang.


I don't think that the Yin and Yang is confucian. The book of  
transformation is older, I think. To verify.




And more recently Monod's necessity and chance.


Yin and Yang are not fundamental with comp, but can be explained by  
the tension between Bp which is quite yin and Bp  p, which is quite  
yang.


We should not equivocate fundamentally important and primitive (=  
has to be assumed, up to some equivalence, in the theory).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.


I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.

   and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
 without using a truth predicate.


I did read that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auda_ibu_Tayi

But I don't see the relevance

  John k Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
 drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.

  I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
 complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the subjective
 experience exist.


I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
experience of the subjective. I don't have direct experience of YOUR
conscious experience because it is a logical contradiction, if I did have
it you wouldn't be you, you'd be me.

 And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external objective
 effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the matter in your
 nose.



Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective
 experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain the
 external objective effect without mentioning the subjective experience. I
 agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the problem.


Problem? What's the problem? If I do not believe in your subjective
experience, as you say above, then I certainly don't need to explain it.
And if I do believe in your subjective experience then I can say it was
caused by the way matter interacts (which can be fully described by
information) just as I already know from direct experience that my
subjective experience is caused. And if I also believe that consciousness
is fundamental, that is to say a sequence of What caused that? questions
is not infinite and consciousness comes at the end, then there is nothing
more that can be said on the subject.

  I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when
 it is being processed;


 In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot
 be localized in one brain,


  Yes, because computations can't be localized either.


  Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object
 having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.


And position not being relevant to consciousness is the reason your
increasingly convoluted thought experiment about where the real you is
located is worthless.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

So what you are saying is that because everything travels through spacetime 
at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's path through 
SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path through time 
must be correspondingly shorter?

At least that's my understanding and the way I'd express it.

However according to what you said yesterday that the time slowing effect 
is due to the longer travel time of photons due to relative motion away 
from each other, wouldn't A see B's clock slow by the SAME amount that B 
see's A's clock slow DURING the trip due to the equal and opposite relative 
motion and the equally longer and longer time photons from each take to 
reach the other? 

But that seems to contradict the first result which implies A and B should 
observe each other's clocks NOT slowing by the same rate DURING the trip 
because A is actually moving in space and B isn't.

So what's your explanation for the apparent contradiction?

Thanks,
Edgar



On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:25:09 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
  
  On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:

 On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  
 Brent,

  Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for 
 if I may...

 In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

 Two observers A and B.

 A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light 
 year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 
 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
 the galactic center,

 Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
 B's clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

 Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

 It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
 1g acceleration for the duration of the trip.

 I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
 greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
 relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
 during the trip?

 And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does 
 it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
 observers can agree upon?

 You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but 
 other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
 this case?

 What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?
  

 A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year  
 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very 
 near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But 
 the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at 
 speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because 
 it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact 
 values you have to integrate the differential equations:

 dt/dtau = 1/gamma
 dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
 dx/dtau = v/gamma

 where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)

  
  The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g 
 gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation 
 experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different 
 distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting, 
 which is indeed down to geometry (in this case involving curves rather 
 the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by 
 integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).

  So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time 
 *is*responsible for the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not sure 
 whether that contradicts geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow - probably 
 not.
  

 Exactly.  The clocks faithfully measure the interval along their 
 respective paths.  It's the difference in the paths, the geometry, that is 
 the difference in duration.

   
  PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a 
 lot of stuff between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that 
 even a dust grain would hit a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb 
 once it was near peak velocity, which according to my calculations is 
 0.995c (or in any case p.d.q.)
  

 Even without dust the intergalactic hydrogen atoms would make it similar 
 to standing in the LHC beam - but with a lot more luminosity.

 Brent
  

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter  
into a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his  
train of authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still  
ignored by most scientists?


To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying  
Now we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is just  
a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you  
taken up mind reading, Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which matter  
is fundamental then matter=god, and god=matter.  What you call it  
makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the world.   
And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an  
axiom defining matter, it is just defined implicitly by the  
equations and ostensively,


But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only  
by the dream argument.




physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in  
fact that's exactly what Tegmark has done.  So you are factually  
wrong assuming matter is some blinding constraint on physics.


Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is  
even an unconscious dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that  
idea. the success of aristotle is related to that.




The reason FPI is ignored by most scientists is that most  
scientist judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.   
Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but he didn't research it,  
because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory essentially  
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is  
ineffable.


To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people  
who write dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the  
fundamental questions are answered.


This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me  
that physicalism is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those  
are known as fundamentalist atheists (even by moderate atheists). But  
I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name, etc.




When Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew  
what was fundamental?


That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a  
theory. It is a concept. Those who write dictionaries belong to our  
era where theology is still a taboo subject.

Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.





For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least  
attribute them to others.


Show one. To say that I don't believe in God, nor in the non  
existence of God can be said by an agnostic. But when said with the  
meaning that God has no referent, it means either I disbelieve in  
fairy tales which is trivial or it means I believe in the modern  
myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem  
is a false problem (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no  
answer. In fact those people ignore even the dialog).
Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences  
exists at all for it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone,  
once you take the original definition which is at the base of  
fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in that  
domain. It is the bet in a fundamental reality and the acknowledgment  
we don't know it.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place  
where precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use  
tao, that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another  
name, people will add more connotations than with the concept of  
god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique  
being or beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name, people  
will add more connotations than with the concept of god, will you  
stop using God and switch to goar?


See my papers: I do not use the word God. I use it in this list,  
because I answered post using it. In the Plotinus paper I use the  
one. In my thesis I even use psychology instead of theology. It is  
the idea which disturb some dogmatic people, not the word. In  
publication, I have never hesitated to change the vocabulary, but that  
hardly change anything. Scientists understand without much problem,  
but dogmatic philosophers continue to lie on the works, and to be  
listened by academician for authoritative reason.


Bruno



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the  
rise of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a  
unique reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It  
has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to  
politics.


But there was no rise of monotheism following Parmenides.


?


It rose following the Jews, who insisted that only *their* great-man- 
in-the-sky was really real.



Well, it is often said that the christian stole the jewish legend and  
the greek theology. Unfortunately, they took as much of Aristotle than  
Plato, notably the notion of primitive substance, doubly so for the  
catholics.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 19:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would  
nominate the strings of string theory and others computations of a  
universal dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR  
is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or  
immutable.


Those are the properties of the god of computationalism:  
arithmetical truth


So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of  
comp?  Well I guess that's one way to know what goar is - and a  
popular way at that.

...

  If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with  
you, let's just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is  
not necessarily a goar.


There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an  
explaination of.


But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent,  
infinite, etc... or even singular.  If this is science and not  
religion we must find out what goar is and its attributes - not  
assume them at the start.


?

We can only assume, and then correct the theory from the observation  
of facts and the internal coherence.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if 
I may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B. 

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light 
year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 
1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
the galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's 
clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g 
acceleration for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does it 
actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers 
can agree upon?

You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but 
other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?

Thanks,
Edgar

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  
 Brent, 

  I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your 
 interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an 
 open mind.
  

 It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in 
 the absence of matter (you know what vacuum means?), forms a BH.  If you 
 added matter to the Schwarzschild solution it would quickly disappear into 
 the singularity with a corresponding increase in the size of the BH.

  
  And I'm not going to go by what 1 person, who I don't even know and who 
 is presumably your friend says via an email.
  

 So you don't know who Sean Carroll is and you didn't even bother to look 
 him up!?  

 I'm afraid you're hopeless Edgar.

 Brent

  Again I challenge you to provide me some authoritative online sources 
 who agree with you that
  1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole
 2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
 of it but to the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event 
 horizon by the matter entering the black hole.

  I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
 correction if you can provide some authoritative ones.

  And I disagree with your interpretation of the Schwartzchild solution 
 which clearly is based on the ACTUAL mass of a BH. So far as I know all, or 
 at least most physicists, agree with me that it is the mass INSIDE the 
 black hole that produces the event horizon.

  Again, authoritative sources to support your 1. and 2. above? Can you 
 produce any? If not I find your explanation unsupported..

  Edgar

  
 On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:19:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Brent, 
  
  Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and 
 several others (eg. 
  http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13: 
 Inside Black Holes of 
  'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE of those sources say 
 what you are 
  saying, namely that 
  
  1. Matter (mass) vanishes inside a black hole 
  2. The intense gravitation of a black hole is not due to any mass inside 
 of it but to 
  the trail of space curvature left behind outside the event horizon by 
 the matter 
  entering the black hole. 
  
  I haven't found a single source that claims that but I'm open to 
 correction if you can 
  provide an authoritative one. 

 You didn't read the Wikipedia page I referenced, which showed that the 
 Schwarzschild BH 
 solution is found by assuming a vacuum, T_u_v=0? 

  
  In fact the Schwarzchild solution specifically HAS a mass term in it on 
 the basis of 
  which the radius of the event horizon is calculated. So my reading of 
 the Schwarzchild 
  solution is that it specifically ASSUMES that the black hole is created 
 by the mass 
  INSIDE IT. 

 But that's the equivalent mass that would be necessary to produce the 
 same field outside 
 the event horizon.  As I said, the BH is massive in that it warps space, 
 but it doesn't 
 follow that it has matter inside the event horizon which is trying to 
 send out gravity. 

  
  So are 1. and 2. above YOUR own interpretation of what's inside a black 
 hole or do you 
  have some authoritative source(S) that actually states that in plain 
 English you can 
  provide? 
  
  Now I certainly don't automatically discount the possibility that the 
 matter inside a 
  black hole leaves through the singularity

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s


Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
expanding but accelerating due to something we don't understand at all that
has been given the name Dark Energy.

 a primordial explosion was *theorised* by Lemaitre,


 Lemaitre independently rediscovered a set of equations that were first
found by Alexander Friedmann 5 years before.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
 Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.


No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just I do not believe in
a personal God.  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
Einstein's God has no purpose or goal (I have never imputed to Nature a
purpose or a goal).  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
consciousness ( God is not anything that could be understood as
anthropomorphic).  And Einstein's God has nothing to do with morality
(A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
and hope of reward after death).

To Einstein God meant  the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world, which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound of a
word too much.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if
 the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
 intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it
 adds to clarity to call that principle God?


  Yes, because it can still be something transcendent and responsible for
 your existence, and having no name


And that's the problem, you insist on giving the thing with no name a name,
and a ridiculously inappropriate one too!

 And we can also remain open that it *might* be a person


And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus too,
but I doubt it.

 John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:13 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
 Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.


 No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just I do not believe in
 a personal God.  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
 Einstein's God has no purpose or goal (I have never imputed to Nature a
 purpose or a goal).  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
 consciousness ( God is not anything that could be understood as
 anthropomorphic).  And Einstein's God has nothing to do with morality
 (A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
 education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
 indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
 and hope of reward after death).

 To Einstein God meant  the unbounded admiration for the structure of
 the world, which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound
 of a word too much.


1. You ridicule theology, philosophy, different notions of god as empty
language games, no room for valid reasoning... 2. and now want to convince
us of your valid reasoning on the subject.

Point 1 in isolation explains your usual bigotry and arrogance, but both
points combined make sense for once.

Thanks for enlightening us with your insights! You are a formidable
philosopher by your own standards and definition. PGC



   John K Clark


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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote

 Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
 clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what  the hard problem is.



 In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
 brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role and no
 reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we have.


That's not true, the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe
full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change. And
a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external objective effect,
like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the matter in your nose.

 I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels when it
 is being processed;


  In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness cannot be
 localized in one brain,


Yes, because computations can't be localized either.

 if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean one
 thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.


  Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in theories
 trying to explain it.


So if you say X causes consciousness you must either explain what causes X
or say that X is fundamental.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


  atheists are christians.


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

John K Clark

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:29, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence  
and if the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the  
universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being  
then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


 Yes, because it can still be something transcendent and  
responsible for your existence, and having no name


And that's the problem, you insist on giving the thing with no name  
a name, and a ridiculously inappropriate one too!


Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus. That is a false problem in theology,  
and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth  
without using a truth predicate. Then any name can be used as a  
pointer to that. We can only bet on. It is not granted.






 And we can also remain open that it *might* be a person

And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet  
Uranus too, but I doubt it.


Sure, that is possible, but the proposition that God is a person or  
not might have more appreciable consequences than a china teapot in  
orbit around Uranus (if that is the case: congrats to the Chinese).


Bruno




 John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:51, John Clark wrote:



On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote


 Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse  
that clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what  the hard  
problem is.


 In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of  
the brain seems to make consciousness into something having no role  
and no reason, and this contradicts the first person experience we  
have.


That's not true, the external objective environment (the weather, a  
syringe full of drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big  
subjective change.



I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a  
complete 3p theory of the brain-body, you can't prove that the  
subjective experience exist. An interview of the person will not  
suffice, as you can explain everything without it, at the level of  
neurons and muscular cells.




And a subjective experience like a itch can cause a external  
objective effect, like moving the matter in your hand to scratch the  
matter in your nose.


Sure. But again, if someone does not believe in that subjective  
experience, then a  3p causal description at some level will explain  
the external objective effect without mentioning the subjective  
experience.


I agree with you of course, but that is what makes a part of the  
problem.






 I think consciousness is probably just the way information feels  
when it is being processed;


 In which computations. You admit yourself that consciousness  
cannot be localized in one brain,


Yes, because computations can't be localized either.


Excellent. Like the numbers. They don't belong to the type of object  
having any physical attributes like position, velocity or mass.






 if you don't find that explanation satisfactory it can only mean  
one thing, you don't believe that consciousness is fundamental.


 Good point. Consciousness can't be fundamental, especially in  
theories trying to explain it.


So if you say X causes consciousness you must either explain what  
causes X or say that X is fundamental.


Yes. I have said at the start the fundamental laws I adopt: it is  
classical logic +


0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 29 Jan 2014, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 atheists are christians.

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


You should know that since age 12, then.

Bruno





John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/29/2014 12:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments.
why do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?

To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now we have the
answer to the fundamental question, which is just a crackpot kind of statement.

That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me. Have you taken up mind reading,
Bruno? If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and
god=matter. What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the
world. And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining
matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively,

But ostensive definition cannot work for what is fundamental, if only by the
dream argument.

I didn't mean that what was fundamental was defined ostensively, but that instruments,
apparatus, measurement results were.

physics could reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly
what Tegmark has done. So you are factually wrong assuming matter is some blinding
constraint on physics.

Primitive matter is. It is a dogma for many of them. Sometimes it is even an unconscious
dogma: they don't conceive we can be wrong on that idea. the success of aristotle is
related to that.

The reason FPI is ignored by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist judge
there is more progress to be made elsewhere. Everett introduced the idea of FPI, but
he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so. And your own theory essentially
supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable.

To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people who write
dictionaries and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are
answered.

This is not my perception. FPI is ignored by exactly those who told me that physicalism
is the only modern way to conceive reality, and those are known as fundamentalist
atheists (even by moderate atheists). But I don't want to insist on this, nor cite name,
etc.

When Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew what was
fundamental?

That is a more specific statement on some theories. But God is not a theory. It is a
concept.

Tell it to the bible thumpers.

Those who write dictionaries belong to our era where theology is still a taboo
subject.
Like all atheists you defend the Christian conception of God.

I don't defend it; I accept that they know what their own words mean when they explain
it to me - and I find the concept they have explained and named God unbelievable. You
seem to want to tell them that when they say God they don't mean what they think they
mean and instead they must mean what you want the word to mean.

For a logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to
others.

Show one. To say that I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God can be
said by an agnostic. But when said with the meaning that God has no referent, it means
either I disbelieve in fairy tales which is trivial or it means I believe in the
modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem (and if you explain to them the FPI, you get no answer. In fact those people
ignore even the dialog).

OK, that's one. To say that I don't believe in God, nor in the non existence of God
when said with the meaning that God has no referent, may well mean that God is a word
that has been given so many inconsistent meanings that I find no sense in it and I see no
reason to try to put any in. OR it might mean that I fail to believe in a mystic
principle that organizes the universe and fine-tunes it to be hospitable to humans. OR
it might mean I fail to believe a race of aliens that have created this universe in a
digital simulation and want to be worshipped for it. So it is a logical error to infer:
it means either I disbelieve in fairy tales which is trivial or it means I believe in
the modern myth of primitive matter, and physicalism, and the mind-body problem is a false
problem

Scientists have to be agnostic on both primitive matter (no evidences exists at all for
it) and God, which exists trivially for everyone, once you take the original definition
which is at the base of fundamental science, as it is the bet that we can do research in
that domain.

First, it's NOT the original definition; it's just an OLD definition that you like. The
original definition of a god was a superhuman demiurge who caused inexplicable events like
volcanoes, storms, disease, and motion of the planets. God was defined by the Jews as a
supergod who comprehended all the

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/29/2014 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Jan 2014, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we 
should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results 
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the 
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being 
or beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name, people will add more 
connotations than with the concept of god, will you stop using God and switch to goar?


See my papers: I do not use the word God. I use it in this list, because I answered 
post using it.


It's my recollection that you used it first (and also angels) it metaphorically 
describing the scope of unprovable truths in arithmetic - but it doesn't matter now.




In the Plotinus paper I use the one.


OK.  Does that mean the same as the ground of all reality?  If so, it seems a bit too 
specific in that assumes a singular.  Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he 
suggested that 1 and 0 might be the goar.  This would be consistent with theologies much 
older than Plotinus: Zoroastrian's good and evil.  Confucian yin and yang.  And more 
recently Monod's necessity and chance.


Brent


In my thesis I even use psychology instead of theology. It is the idea which disturb 
some dogmatic people, not the word. In publication, I have never hesitated to change the 
vocabulary, but that hardly change anything. Scientists understand without much problem, 
but dogmatic philosophers continue to lie on the works, and to be listened by 
academician for authoritative reason.


--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread LizR

On 30 January 2014 09:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and 0
 might be the goar.

 John A. Wheeler also.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread LizR

On 30 January 2014 05:13, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
 Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.


 No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just I do not believe in
 a personal God.  Besides not answering or even hearing our prayers
 Einstein's God has no purpose or goal (I have never imputed to Nature a
 purpose or a goal).  And Einstein's God had no intelligence or
 consciousness ( God is not anything that could be understood as
 anthropomorphic).  And Einstein's God has nothing to do with morality
 (A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
 education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would
 indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment
 and hope of reward after death).

 To Einstein God meant  the unbounded admiration for the structure of
 the world, which shows that even Einstein can fall in love with the sound
 of a word too much.


You are taking my comment out of context. *Based on the information
provided*, Bruno couldn't make the deduction he made.

And anyway, I was only teasing.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for if I
may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B.

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light year away,
using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g decelleration on the
second half of the journey to arrive stationary at the galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's clock back on
earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration
for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be greatly slowed due
to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS relative wouldn't A also observe
B's clock to be slowed by the same amount during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does it actually
produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both observers can agree upon?

You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but other than the
trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?

A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year 30,000yr. So the
spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c. So the trip takes 30,100+
years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if
it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only,
because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact values
you have to integrate the differential equations:

dt/dtau = 1/gamma
dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
dx/dtau = v/gamma

where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)

Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-29 Thread LizR

On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Brent,

 Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for
 if I may...

 In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

 Two observers A and B.

 A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 light
 year away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant
 1g decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at
 the galactic center,

 Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on B's
 clock back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

 Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

 It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 1g
 acceleration for the duration of the trip.

 I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be
 greatly slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS
 relative wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount
 during the trip?

 And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how does
 it actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both
 observers can agree upon?

 You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but
 other than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in
 this case?

 What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?


 A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year 
 30,000yr.  So the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very
 near c.  So the trip takes 30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But
 the proper time for the spaceship is very small; if it were actually at
 speed c, like a photon, its proper time lapse would be zero. Only, because
 it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to be 20 years. To get the exact
 values you have to integrate the differential equations:

 dt/dtau = 1/gamma
 dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
 dx/dtau = v/gamma

 where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)


The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g
gravitational field throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation
experienced by A can't be gravitational. All that leaves is the different
distances they travel through space-time to reach their final meeting,
which is indeed down to geometry (in this case involving curves rather
the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by
integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).

So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time
*is*responsible for the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not
sure
whether that contradicts geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow - probably
not.

PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a lot
of stuff between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that even
a dust grain would hit a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb once
it was near peak velocity, which according to my calculations is 0.995c
(or in any case p.d.q.)

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/28/2014 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

That's just your interpretation and you apparently ARE UNABLE to find any authoritative
sites to confirm it. Yes, of course the mass interior to a BH collapses into the
singularity but that doesn't mean it vanishes from the black hole.

Looking at Carroll's Wiki Bio it seems that a lot of his theories are highly speculative
and unconfirmed...

Here, on the other hand, is a quote from Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' which
says otherwise:

The hole must be born when a star implodes upon itself; THE HOLE'S MASS, AT BIRTH MUST
BE THE SAME AS THE STAR'S; AND EACH TIME SOMETHING FALLS INTO THE HOLE, ITS MASS MUST GROW

So what? Your question was about how does the gravity get out if the mass is inside the
BH. But the point is that when matter falls into the BH the mass of the BH increases but
there is still no matter inside. The matter is crushed into a singularity (in the
classical approximation of course) and what remains is a VACUUM solution to Einstein's
equations known as the Schwarzschild metric. The increased mass just went into warping
more spacetime. Notice that when Thorne describes and astronaut falling into a BH the
astronaut never encounters anything inside the BH except the singularity. And he assumes
the biggest know BH so that the astronaut reaches the singularity only 20hrs after
crossing the event horizon. So ANYTHING inside the BH will reach the singularity in 20hrs
or less. That's why a vacuum solution is a good model.

Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/29/2014 5:39 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for 
if I may...

In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.

Two observers A and B.

A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100 
light year
away, using a constant 1g acceleration to the midpoint and a constant 1g
decelleration on the second half of the journey to arrive stationary at 
the
galactic center,

Thorne tells us that the 30,100 light year trip takes 30,102 years on 
B's clock
back on earth but only 20 years on A's clock aboard the spaceship.

Now my question is what causes the extreme slowing of A's clock?

It can't be the acceleration as both A and B experience the exact same 
1g
acceleration for the duration of the trip.

I can understand that during the trip B will observe A's clock to be 
greatly
slowed due to the extreme relative motion, but since the motion IS 
relative
wouldn't A also observe B's clock to be slowed by the same amount 
during the trip?

And since the time dilation of relative motion is relative then how 
does it
actually produce a real objective slowing of A's clock that both 
observers can
agree upon?

You had said yesterday that geometry doesn't cause clocks to slow but 
other
than the trivial 1g acceleration isn't all the rest just geometry in 
this case?

What's the proper way to analyze this to get Thorne's result?


A rough way to see it is right is to note that c/g = 3e7sec ~ 1year  
30,000yr.  So
the spaceship spends essentially the whole flight at very near c.  So the 
trip takes
30,100+ years in the frame of the galaxy. But the proper time for the 
spaceship is
very small; if it were actually at speed c, like a photon, its proper time 
lapse
would be zero. Only, because it can't quite reach c, the time turns out to 
be 20
years. To get the exact values you have to integrate the differential 
equations:

dt/dtau = 1/gamma
dv/dtau = accel/gamma^2
dx/dtau = v/gamma

where gamma=sqrt(1-v^2)


The equivalence principle indicates that both A and B are in a 1g gravitational field 
throughout the exercise, hence the time dilation experienced by A can't be 
gravitational. All that leaves is the different distances they travel through space-time 
to reach their final meeting, which is indeed down to geometry (in this case involving 
curves rather the straight lines - but that is minor detail, and can be solved by 
integrating the relevant equations, as indicated).


So I assume the overall geometry of their paths through space-time /is/ responsible for 
the final mismatch between their clocks. I'm not sure whether that contradicts geometry 
doesn't cause clocks to slow - probably not.


Exactly.  The clocks faithfully measure the interval along their respective paths.  It's 
the difference in the paths, the geometry, that is the difference in duration.




PS I would instruct A to fly above the plane of the galaxy. There is a lot of stuff 
between the Earth and the galactic centre and I suspect that even a dust grain would hit 
a relativistic spacecraft like a nuclear bomb once it was near peak velocity, which 
according to my calculations is 0.995c (or in any case p.d.q.)


Even without dust the intergalactic hydrogen atoms would make it similar to standing in 
the LHC beam - but with a lot more luminosity.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/26/2014 9:19 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote:

On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I have provided the definition. Should I repeat?
God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is  
supposed to be responsible for my or our existence.

Sounds like physics to me.

If physics is transcendental, a lot of people may be wasting  
their time trying to find a TOE.
Depends on what transcendental things have to transcend.   
Bruno's fond of pointing out that physicist just assume that  
matter is fundamental but don't define it.  Of course they might  
say, It's whatever we find to be fundamental...and we're calling  
it doG.


Transcendental does have a lot of meanings, depending on who's  
using it, but generally I'd take it to be something like beyond  
our understanding, hence my (tongue in cheek) comment.


I think Bruno has a point. Well, at least, I'd be disappointed if  
physicist decided that they couldn't explain matter etc, and that  
they should just shut up and calculate from now on.


Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.  If you  
calculate stuff accurately and predict stuff that surprising,  
people will think you've explained it.


By definition, that can solve only the easy problem. You just  
dismiss the hard problem.


Yet, the hard problem is 99,9% solvable, but with the price that  
physicalism is wrong. net adavantage, we do get an explanation, not  
only for consciousness, but also for the origin of matter.


Here I 'm afraid you tend to be an eliminativist, here.


That's the main point.


I'm afraid so.



Science has advanced and people *suppose* that it has explained  
gravity and electromagnetism and atoms and descent of species and  
lots of other stuff.  But what it has done is show their relations  
and made accurate predictions AND *eliminated* the things people  
asked to be explained: Newton didn't explain what pushed the planets  
around.


He was tormented by that problem. We have progressed of course,  
notably through QM and SR.




Darwin didn't explain how animals adapted.


But Mendel, Morgan, and then Watson and Crick, Jacob and Monod, and  
QM, completed the picture. We have progressed.



Maxwell didn't explain the luminiferous ether. Just like we can't  
explain to Edgar how gravity gets out of a black hole.  Science  
advances a lot by eliminativism.


Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE  
eliminate the terms of the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like  
the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or the N rays, etc.


To eliminate persons and consciousness is different: that is a deny of  
key data.

Beside being humanly morally dubious, it is the contrary of science.

To eliminate the mind, can be a useful methodological simplification:  
we don't need consciousness to send a man on the moon, or to study the  
ring of Saturn. But to solve the mind-bod problem, and keep the comp  
theory in the cognitive science, we have to eliminate primitive  
matter, not consciousness (that's my point).
We have to eliminate what cannot be used, not the data in need of  
explanations.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do  
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but  
have expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be  
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the  
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.



This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a  
non personal God.


No.  That Einstein does not believe in a personal god does not  
entail that he does believe in an impersonal god.


Of course.

But Einstein has heavily insisted all his life that he does believe in  
the good Lord. The quote given by John Clark comes from Einstein  
insisting that he does not believe in a personal God, that he made  
when people misused his assertion of his belief in God.


(Einstein is of course a bit sloppy when describing his non personal  
god as a good Lord, but that's just a poetical means, like Plotinus  
calling the ONE father: it was just a way to attract Christians to  
Neoplatonism).





That's a pretty sloppy inference for a logician, and you do it twice  
more.


Read Jammer's book if you have any doubt that Einstein was not a  
believer in God (yet not in a personal or institutionalized God).
Einstein will reassessed that belief all his life. But he will also  
condemn all religious institutions, all his life.
Unlike Gödel, Einstein will not be interested in digging on this with  
the scientfic method, but thanks to Gödel, Einstein will eventually be  
open to the possibility that physics might not be the fundamental  
science, and that math could be. This is something that I have  
discovered recently. Einstein did understood a little bit what Gödel  
tried to explain to him, after all.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:

I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein  
quotes floating around the web.


They were real, but taken out of the context.

But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of  
confessional religion. Like Gödel.


Bruno






On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of  
that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein  
himself had to say about God:


it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not  
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have  
expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called  
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of  
the world so far as our science can reveal it.


And:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything  
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is  
a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very  
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of  
humility


And:

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even  
naive.


And:

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,  
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man  
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of  
punishment and hope of reward after death.


And:

I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe  
at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate  
senses to appreciate it.”


Although to a far less degree I will admit that Einstein was  
sometimes guilty of the same sin that members of this list  
habitually commit, falling in love not with the concept but with the  
English word God when all Einstein meant is awe at the structure  
of the world.


 John seems to be unaware what God was for the greeks,

John is board to death by the Greeks, scornful of their enormous  
ignorance and utterly repelled by the unhealthy ancestor worship  
that is epidemic on the everything list.


 John acts in a way which is typical for the usual christians.

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


  John K Clark



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 12:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:


 I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people  
on this planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic  
matter filled with elan vital.


Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the laws  
of carbon chemistry, and future computers will almost certainly  
contain carbon nanotubes and 2D carbon Graphene sheets.  And I have  
no idea what elan vital is and those who like the term have even  
less idea than I do, but whatever it is if meat can have it I see  
no reason why a computer can't have it too. So even by your  
definition a computer could be alive.



To be sure there was no misunderstanding, I do not seriously  
subscribe to that definition of life. Rather, I was using your own  
phrasing to show how it can be ridiculous it is to hold the  
meanings of words cannot change and must remain absolutely static.  
For we find that the meanings of many words change and evolve along  
with our understanding of the world.



But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call  
those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the  
attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which  
to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor  
worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a common  
kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many  
religions, though each religion also adds various additional things  
on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our  
theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these  
attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update  
accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we  
discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly,  
even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not  
conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something  
else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about  
some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have  
an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to  
adopt knew words each time we learned something new.


But that's a false analogy.  Life was something we could point to,  
so it makes sense to say we discover it does or doesn't have some  
attribute.  But God, since we stopped looking on Olympus, has just  
been defined by some set of attributes: Creator of the universe.   
Definer of morality.  Your ultimate value.  Love.  Omniscient,  
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.  The necessary being.  So it makes  
no sense to ask whether god has an attribute.  The attributes are so  
varied and inconsistent that the word has become meaningless.  It's  
then just a muddle to say, I'm going back to the really real  
original meaning.  The original meaning was one of many superhuman,  
immortal beings.  To pick Plotinus'es meaning, or Kronecker's, is no  
different than just making up another set of attributes and saying  
they define god.


The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into  
a God, and science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of  
authoritative arguments. why do you think the FPI is still ignored by  
most scientists?


To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now  
we have the answer to the fundamental question, which is just a  
crackpot kind of statement.


Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their  
precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a  
concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only  
atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition.  
Atheists are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both  
prevents the rise of the scientific attitude in the field. Both  
promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and both promote the  
absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and  
pseudo-religion.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3  
of that book is really informative about Einstein's religion.


Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein  
himself had to say about God:


it was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious  
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not  
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have  
expressed it clearly.  If something is in me which can be called  
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of  
the world so far as our science can reveal it.


This makes my point. Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a  
non personal God.


After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that  
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From  
that, one cannot deduce that he thought you can believe in a non- 
personal God (or god, if you prefer).


That is right.

But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does not  
believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein, out  
of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God.





(I would try to formalise this, something like ~p - q =/= p - ~q  
but my expertise in meta-self-doubt assures me I'd probably mess it  
up.)


~p - q is indeed not equivalent with p - ~q.

This means that ((~p - q) - (p - ~q)) is not a law.

But that does not mean that its negation is a law.

~((~p - q) - (p - ~q))   is not a law either.

Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:52, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
 You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,  
physicalist) theology for granted.


I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who  
ever lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.


Bruno is using Aristotle to mean materialist, since Aristotle was  
apparently the person who started physics on the materialism route.  
So taking Aristotle for granted just means taking materialism for  
granted. If you think Aristotle was a bad physicist, then perhaps  
you shouldn't do that (assuming you do).




That's why I said Aristotle theology.

It is fun that Clark insists so much that Aristotle was a bad  
physicists, but insist so much (even if implicitly) that we took his  
THEOLOGY for granted.


Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread LizR

On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:

 I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes
 floating around the web.

 They were real, but taken out of the context.

 But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of confessional
 religion. Like Gödel.


Didn't Godel update the ontological argument for the existence of God ? I
suppose that doesn't say anything about what God is (guy with a long beard,
or chthulhu, or white light...)

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread LizR

On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their
 precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a
 concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only
 atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution definition. Atheists
 are the best ally of the religious fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise
 of the scientific attitude in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous
 notion of God, and both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and
 Nature. It *is* pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.


fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of
their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are
creatures who--in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the
people'--cannot bear the music of the spheres

 -- Albert Einstein

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 27 Jan 2014, at 23:38, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those  
organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of  
holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems  
little different from a kind of ancestor worship (which you are  
also opposed to). I think there is a common kernel of idea behind  
the word God, which is common across many religions, though each  
religion also adds various additional things on top of and beyond  
what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to  
conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress,  
and our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not  
throw out the word life when we discovered it is just matter  
arranged in certain ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine  
God is not omnipotent, or not conscious, should we abandon that  
word and come up with something else? Should we do this every time  
we learn some knew fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me  
that any old text would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as  
scientific progress forced us to adopt knew words each time we  
learned something new.


Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems  
ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage? Hence we could  
say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to call them  
orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a discredited  
theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but space-time;  
we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can think of  
a few similar examples.


I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question  
should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of  
various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a  
relatively neutral term for the (possibly unknowable) principle  
behind the universe. (Assuming most people on this list are  
Westerners, I suppose we could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?)


That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where  
precisely we should not attribute any importance. I would use tao,  
that would make the results looking new-age. Use any another name,  
people will add more connotations than with the concept of god, and  
its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or  
beyond being entity.


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread LizR

On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:

 After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
 Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one
 cannot deduce that he thought you *can *believe in a non-personal God (or
 god, if you prefer).

 That is right.

 But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does not
 believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein, out of the
 context. Einstein said also that he believes in God.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist teasing a bit. (Also, I hadn't seen Brent's
comment when I wrote that.)

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call  
those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the  
attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which  
to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor  
worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a  
common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across  
many religions, though each religion also adds various additional  
things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If  
our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these  
attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update  
accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we  
discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly,  
even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not  
conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with  
something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew  
fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text  
would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress  
forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new.


Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems  
ridiculous to drag a word and its  associated  
baggage?


Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,  
transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality?  
Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?


Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate  
the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal  
dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,  
transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.  If you're  
not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's  
just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not  
necessarily a goar.  I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation:  
physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language- 
mathematics-physics-...




We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I  
would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a  
consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type  
theories popular on this list.


Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to  
call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a  
discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but  
space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure  
you can think of a few similar examples.


Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as  
the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations  
(theories) of that which is responsible for our existance.


Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be  
explained persists.





I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's  
question should be no. Although given the unconscious  
reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might  
still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly  
unknowable) principle behind the universe.


Any suggestions?

(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we  
could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?)


I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I  
think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any  
particular religion.


But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


Oops send a message by mistake, sorry. Comment below.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 05:57, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't  
rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all  
encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown  
principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not  
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you  
think it adds to clarity to call that principle God?


I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan  
vital found within organisms, does it still make sense to call  
those organisms life? Asking this question illustrates the  
attitude of holding the word in higher esteem than the idea, which  
to me seems little different from a kind of ancestor  
worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a  
common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across  
many religions, though each religion also adds various additional  
things on top of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If  
our theories lead us to conclude God has or doesn't have these  
attributes, that is progress, and our definitions ought to update  
accordingly, just as we did not throw out the word life when we  
discovered it is just matter arranged in certain ways. Similarly,  
even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or not  
conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with  
something else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew  
fact about some thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text  
would have an incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress  
forced us to adopt knew words each time we learned something new.


Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems  
ridiculous to drag a word and its  associated  
baggage?


Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,  
transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality?  
Or for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?


Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate  
the strings of string theory and others computations of a universal  
dovetailer, why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,  
transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.  If you're  
not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, let's  
just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not  
necessarily a goar.  I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation:  
physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language- 
mathematics-physics-...


That is poetry. But even such a circle is easy to explain in  
arithmetic, which we have to assume already for defining those terms.  
So why not adopt the simplest explanation, if only to discover its  
limit one day.








We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I  
would say the opposite is the case: their existance is a  
consequence of many theories, including most of the everything type  
theories popular on this list.


Hence we could say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to  
call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a  
discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but  
space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure  
you can think of a few similar examples.


Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as  
the Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations  
(theories) of that which is responsible for our existance.


Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be  
explained persists.





I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's  
question should be no. Although given the unconscious  
reification of various things (matter, maths, minds...) we might  
still want a relatively neutral term for the (possibly  
unknowable) principle behind the universe.


Any suggestions?

(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we  
could try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?)


I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I  
think god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any  
particular religion.


But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise  
of monotheism and the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique  
reality. That is the motor of the fundamental inquiry. It has given  
the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned to politics.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:13, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein  
quotes floating around the web.


They were real, but taken out of the context.

But they made my point. Einstein is a believer, but out of  
confessional religion. Like Gödel.


Didn't Godel update the ontological argument for the existence of  
God ? I suppose that doesn't say anything about what God is (guy  
with a long beard, or chthulhu, or white light...)


Gödel has formalized St-Anselmus  notion of God in ... The Leinizian  
modal logic. Then he proved his existence.


He did this just to illustrate that rigor can exist in Theology.

I am not sure he really believed in St-Anselmus notion of God, and I  
doubt he really took Leibniz modal logic as the only correct  
metaphysical account of the alethic (Leibnizian) modal logic.


Open problem: does the inner god of the machine believes in St- 
Anselmus-Gödel God? (= can we translate the proof of God existence  
into S4Grz?).


More on Leibniz modal logic soon.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as  
their precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To  
stuck a concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I  
know only atheists to stuck the God concept in the institution  
definition. Atheists are the best ally of the religious  
fundamentalists. Both prevents the rise of the scientific attitude  
in the field. Both promote the same ridiculous notion of God, and  
both promote the absence of doubt about Matter and Nature. It *is*  
pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.


fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the  
weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard  
struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against the  
traditional 'opium of the people'--cannot bear the music of the  
spheres


 -- Albert Einstein


Ah! Good to compensate Clark's partial quoting.

Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 7:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

  But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't
 rhetorical I'd really like an answer:  If there is no all encompassing
 purpose or a goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for
 the existence of the universe is not intelligent and is not conscious and
 is not a being then do you think it adds to clarity to call that principle
 God?



 I consider this question equivalent to asking If there is no elan vital
 found within organisms, does it still make sense to call those organisms
 life? Asking this question illustrates the attitude of holding the word in
 higher esteem than the idea, which to me seems little different from a kind
 of ancestor worship (which you are also opposed to). I think there is a
 common kernel of idea behind the word God, which is common across many
 religions, though each religion also adds various additional things on top
 of and beyond what is contained in that kernel. If our theories lead us to
 conclude God has or doesn't have these attributes, that is progress, and
 our definitions ought to update accordingly, just as we did not throw out
 the word life when we discovered it is just matter arranged in certain
 ways. Similarly, even if we were to determine God is not omnipotent, or
 not conscious, should we abandon that word and come up with something
 else? Should we do this every time we learn some knew fact about some
 thing? If we did, it seems to me that any old text would have an
 incomprehensible vocabulary, as scientific progress forced us to adopt knew
 words each time we learned something new.

Nevertheless, might there not be a threshold beyond which it seems
 ridiculous to drag a word and its associated baggage?


  Perhaps, but what word would you nominate for the infinite,
 transcendent, eternal, uncreated, immutable, ground of all reality? Or
 for those minds that simulate whole worlds and universes for fun?


 Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the
 strings of string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer,
 why would suppose in advance that this GOAR is infinite,
 transcendent(whatever that means), eternal, or immutable.


Those are the properties of the god of computationalism: arithmetical
truth


   If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you,
 let's just call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not
 necessarily a goar.


There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an
explaination of.


 I still like the virtuous cycle of explanation:
 physics-biology-intelligence-consciousness-observation-language-mathematics-physics-...


That is interesting, but it's not a complete cycle, for the physics or math
conceived of by intelligence is not necessarily the true or complete math
or physics.




  We are far from proving such (god-like) things do not exist, and I would
 say the opposite is the case: their existance is a consequence of many
 theories, including most of the everything type theories popular on this
 list.

Hence we *could *say the planets move in epicycles, but we prefer to
 call them orbits, since that word doesn't carry the baggage of a
 discredited theory. Similarly, we don't talk about the aether, but
 space-time; we don't talk about elan vital, but DNAI'm sure you can
 think of a few similar examples.


  Élan vital and DNA are two explanations (theories) of life. Just as the
 Abrahamic God and the comp God are two explanations (theories) of that
 which is responsible for our existance.

  Explanations may fall in and out of favor, but the phenomenon to be
 explained persists.



  I think God has enough baggage that the answer to John's question
 should be no. Although given the unconscious reification of various
 things (matter, maths, minds...) we might still want a relatively neutral
 term for the (possibly unknowable) principle behind the universe.


  Any suggestions?

(Assuming most people on this list are Westerners, I suppose we could
 try Tao ... or maybe Ylem ?)


  I think that might be somewhat more prone to misinterpretation. I think
 god is a little more neutral since it does not refer to any particular
 religion.


 But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Not generally. That is the case only in some specific religions.

Jason

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis



On 28 Jan 2014, at 10:19, LizR wrote:


On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that  
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From  
that, one cannot deduce that he thought you can believe in a non- 
personal God (or god, if you prefer).


That is right.

But the premise is false. Einstein did not only said that he does  
not believe in a personal God. Clark was quoting partially Einstein,  
out of the context. Einstein said also that he believes in God.


Sorry, I just couldn't resist teasing a bit. (Also, I hadn't seen  
Brent's comment when I wrote that.)


No problem with teasing, but careful in applying logic.

The misuse of logic has probably killed more people on this planet  
than anything else.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Liz,

No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the 
difference.

My proposed black hole effect is not as you suggested but due to the uneven 
Hubble expansion of space around galaxies.

The effect Brent is proposing has nothing to do with the Hubble expansion. 
It seems to be as if moving masses left their gravitational field behind 
them as they entered BHs. There is no known case in which moving masses 
leave their gravitational fields behind them. That seems to me to 
contradict GR.

Brent is trying to tell us that black holes have NO mass (but they still 
causes gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he 
believes.

Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have

Edgar



On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect 
 outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and 
 nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? 

  Your answer was that when mass enters a black hole the mass disappears 
 completely into the singularity and has NO gravitational effect outside and 
 that the gravitational effect of a BH is somehow left over space warping 
 from the passage of the mass before it enters the BH which seems like a 
 pretty crazy idea. *Passing mass doesn't leave trails of its space 
 warping behind in any other circumstances.* 
  
 I seem to recall that you had the idea that the mass of a galaxy would 
 leave behind a space warp even when the galaxy responsible had gone 
 somewhere else.

 Once the warp is formed it can easily separate from the matter that caused 
 it. At that point it is effectively just another mass of matter. That is 
 why it's called dark matter. And of course masses separate from each other 
 all the time.
 Don't think of it like it's continued existence depends on the original 
 galactic mass. Once it's created it exists as a separate dark mass that can 
 go anywhere it likes under gravitational forces just like VISIBLE matter 
 can...





-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
 don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we
 built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
 until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
 give a sh*t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism
 comes with a price and some side-effects.


 Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We
 eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we
 don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress.


  Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at
 all this amazing customized digital technology we have, waving around an
 iphone, that's because where they build these things, people are so
 miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from
 jumping off the effin roofs...


 There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area.  Given
 the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere.
 Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate.

 *At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed
 suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month.
 Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges
 that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical
 reminder.*

 *According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of
 participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in
 four-year colleges said they had seriously considered attempting suicide
 in the past year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone.***


Agreed and you make my point.

The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of
beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining
self-legitimizing histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and
unquestioning beliefs in institutional function, which includes exploiting
factory floors, forcing obedience in conventions through education systems,
reliance on fossil fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that
result in all our progress, can't keep up with the effects of an apparent
efficacy, through lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition
style separation of theology and science.

The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules
and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that
can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on
Nantucket or wherever.

I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of
people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different
labels, and since the law is atheistic (just swear on the Bible for a
moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much.

We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of
theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots
being handed the mike or air time. See climate change.




   so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a
 sh*t.

  Sure, it's comedy.

 But it's not trivial in proclaiming civilization has not made the
 progress promised by Science, liberalized from theology. I guess people
 think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science,
 philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and
 technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about
 the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use
 technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to
 envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts.

 Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne
 bit, fundamentally laying aside what with belief implication) with what's
 left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no
 surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer.

 Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense.
 Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto
 this. PGC


 The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the
 Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato.


Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers
for us. But they did articulate the problem with the problem and question
of knowledge's limits. Plato, Plotinus to Gödel and co. have even made some
progress. PGC



 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-01-28 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:46 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and
 don't care about x. Louis C.K. had a good one: Wow, I can't believe we
 built the pyramids - yeah, we just threw human death and suffering at them
 until they were built. There's no end to what we can achieve when we don't
 give a sh*t how to get there... Science that advances by eliminativism
 comes with a price and some side-effects.


 Just because there's a price doesn't mean you shouldn't pay it.  We
 eliminated the Egyptian gods, the divine Pharoh and their theology, so we
 don't get pyramids anymore - and I'd call it progress.


 Well Louis' bit finishes in the contemporary world with: Wow, look at all
 this amazing customized digital technology we have, waving around an
 iphone, that's because where they build these things, people are so
 miserable they have to deploy nets outside the factories to keep them from
 jumping off the effin roofs...


 There's a lot of young men and women concentrated in a small area.  Given
 the numbers I don't think the suicide rate is higher than elsewhere.
 Universities in the U.S. also have high suicide rate.

 At Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., there have been six confirmed
 suicides this academic year, including two on successive days last month.
 Last week, Cornell installed chain-link fencing along many of the bridges
 that cross the gorges on campus, serving both as deterrent and a physical
 reminder.

 According to a 2009 article in Professional Psychology, 6 percent of
 participating undergraduates and 4 percent of graduate students in four-year
 colleges said they had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past
 year--and nearly half of each group did not tell anyone.


 Agreed and you make my point.

 The possible maturing from a critical naiveté, in terms of implications of
 beliefs, their negation, naturalization through sustaining self-legitimizing
 histories as falsely true (e.g. through creation and unquestioning beliefs
 in institutional function, which includes exploiting factory floors, forcing
 obedience in conventions through education systems, reliance on fossil
 fuels, overemphasis on weapons manufacture etc.), that result in all our
 progress, can't keep up with the effects of an apparent efficacy, through
 lucky metaphors/isomorphisms perhaps, of our prohibition style separation of
 theology and science.

 The Pharaoh is now for example say: US law. Such monsters of ornate rules
 and codes benefit whom? Right, it's ideal for PR exploiting Pharaohs that
 can afford the army of slave lawyers to look after their pyramids on
 Nantucket or wherever.

 I don't think we've ended imperialistic and massive slave-like treatment of
 people, based on dominance theologies. We've just given them different
 labels, and since the law is atheistic (just swear on the Bible for a
 moment), its great to mask that we haven't changed in this regard much.

 We're also more vulnerable to PR manipulation, negating importance of
 theology in science. Believing all kinds of crap because of a few idiots
 being handed the mike or air time. See climate change.

PGC: good stuff!




 so that we can leave a grumpy comment on Youtube, while we're taking a
 sh*t.

 Sure, it's comedy.

 But it's not trivial in proclaiming civilization has not made the
 progress promised by Science, liberalized from theology. I guess people
 think less about such problems as good and evil, fundamental science,
 philosophy, theology etc. and we may be materially richer for it, and
 technologically stronger, but perhaps ethically poorer and more naive about
 the limits our ignorance imposes, without which we will tend to use
 technology for savage and low stuff, simply because we lose the capacity to
 envision more appropriate beliefs in such complex contexts.

 Eliminate/negate belief, and pair just half of science (the how-techne
 bit, fundamentally laying aside what with belief implication) with what's
 left, our default opportunism, and Louis' joke is no surprise. It's also no
 surprise why many argue this way: it's simpler and clearer.

 Doesn't make it valid. I think we may be half blind in this sense.
 Children with access to the weapons shed. The ignoramus Greeks were onto
 this. PGC


 The Greeks also kept slaves, considered women inferior, and gave us the
 Spartans and Alexander the Great as well as Plato.


 Nobody here is making the claim that the Greeks were saints or have answers
 for us. But they did articulate the problem with the problem and question of
 knowledge's limits. Plato, Plotinus to Gödel and co. have even made some
 progress. PGC



 Brent

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 12:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and most of the time, such eliminativism is a progress. WE eliminate the terms of 
the obsolete theories, like phlogiston, or like the cold and hot atoms of Lavoisier, or 
the N rays, etc.


Just as an aside, N rays is now used to describe neutron radiography

http://www.nray.ca/nray/res_XvsN.php

I laugh every time I see an engineering specification that calls out N ray inspection.  
Engineers never heard of Blondlot.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is that once you suppress God, you will make Matter into a God, and 
science into pseudo-religious scientism, with his train of authoritative arguments. why 
do you think the FPI is still ignored by most scientists?


To say I don't believe in God is quasi-equivalent with saying Now we have the answer 
to the fundamental question, which is just a crackpot kind of statement.


That's a great deal of attribution of thoughts to me.  Have you taken up mind reading, 
Bruno?  If one forms a theory in which matter is fundamental then matter=god, and 
god=matter.  What you call it makes no difference to whether it is a good theory of the 
world.  And since, as you've noted, physics doesn't try to start with an axiom defining 
matter, it is just defined implicitly by the equations and ostensively, physics could 
reach a theory in which matter=computation...and in fact that's exactly what Tegmark has 
done.  So you are factually wrong assuming matter is some blinding constraint on 
physics. The reason FPI is ignored by /*most*/ scientists is that /*most*/ scientist 
judge there is more progress to be made elsewhere.  Everett introduced the idea of FPI, 
but he didn't research it, because he saw no way to do so.  And your own theory 
essentially supports that judgement by showing that part of FP experience is ineffable.


To say I don't believe in God is quite clear to all those people who write dictionaries 
and has nothing to do with claiming that the fundamental questions are answered.  When 
Mach said, I don't believe in atoms. did it imply he knew what was fundamental?  For a 
logician you make a lot false inferences - or at least attribute them to others.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That would be like attributing importance to a name, at a place where precisely we 
should not attribute any importance. I would use tao, that would make the results 
looking new-age. Use any another name, people will add more connotations than with the 
concept of god, and its quasi-name God for the monist or monotheist big unique being or 
beyond being entity.


If I show it is empirically false that Use any another name, people will add more 
connotations than with the concept of god, will you stop using God and switch to goar?


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But it refers to an immortal person, and singular at that.


Yes. Singular. that the main contribution of the Parmenides: the rise of monotheism and 
the rise of monism. The idea that there is a unique reality. That is the motor of the 
fundamental inquiry. It has given the modern science, alas, without theology abandoned 
to politics.


But there was no rise of monotheism following Parmenides.  It rose following the Jews, 
who insisted that only *their* great-man-in-the-sky was really real.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis


On 1/28/2014 1:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


Supposing there is a ground of all reality, as some would nominate the 
strings of
string theory and others computations of a universal dovetailer, why would 
suppose
in advance that this GOAR is infinite, transcendent(whatever that means), 
eternal,
or immutable.


Those are the properties of the god of computationalism: arithmetical truth


So you're choosing the attributes of goar to match the theory of comp?  Well I guess 
that's one way to know what goar is - and a popular way at that.

...


  If you're not going to jump to conclusions, carrying baggage with you, 
let's just
call it goar.  And I would remind you that there is not necessarily a goar.


There is a reality, for which various theories attempt to offer an explaination 
of.


But the ground of all reality, goar, isn't necessarily transcendent, infinite, etc... or 
even singular.  If this is science and not religion we must find out what goar is and its 
attributes - not assume them at the start.


Brent

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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis