On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 25 Feb 2013, at 14:56, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> "The people who most hate smokers are ex-smokers." >> >> - PGC's father >> >> Since this thread has become a bit personal, I offer the view of a former >> judge of the German supreme court, who himself was not a smoker, nor did >> ever smoke: >> >> "It's not really the passive smoking that bothers people, with exception >> of course to people trapped in a close working environment where everybody >> smokes and smoking is permitted. It's not the smell on their clothes >> either, since we have invented washing machines and dry cleaning. We need >> an attitude change instead of more rules: I think public spaces should >> regulate themselves and find creative ways to not "lock anybody out", such >> as air vents over smoking sections of a bar, or that smokers at a bar will >> restrain themselves and be prepared to step outside if a guest with asthma >> arrives etc. >> >> The main issue is that everybody has vices and everybody in Germany has >> the constitutional right to act irresponsibly on personal choice matters >> that do not significantly hurt others. Significant harm is an open term >> here, to be calibrated by judges case-by-case. So the outrage on public >> smoking is people projecting their judgement of their own vices onto easy >> targets: passive smoking is a great example. Nobody has a problem walking >> through smoggy Berlin, Los Angeles, New York where particle emissions from >> fossil fuels of their SUVs also driven by non-smokers 'make my clothes >> stink, make me inhale carcinogens, cancerous toxins. Indeed, studies >> confirm that some cities have been deemed equivalent to smoking a few >> cigarettes a day, in terms of inhaled toxins. >> >> So why the fuss? People like to project what they dislike about >> themselves onto others behavior and feel the righteousness of judging right >> from wrong. I know this because I have been a judge all of my life; but I >> also know that the feeling is illusory and that these questions are much >> more difficult than our personal ethics. You can find temporary solutions >> to such issues and minimize harm. But you'll never get rid of the problem >> via regulation. You just move towards more extremism and uniformity. >> >> After all it is our imperfections that make us interesting. I've never >> smoked in my life, but passive smoke doesn't bother me, I even appreciate >> the smell of pipe tobacco. It's like I am transported to the orient." >> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20 Feb 2013, at 14:59, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> All classical psychedelics exhibit anti-addictive properties. Sure, >>>> people can't do mescaline or LSD regularly enough, i.e. every few days to >>>> every day, >>>> >>>> How is using every day (or every few days) not an addictive behavior ? >>>> Seems quite strange to say that to have **anti** addictive properties, you >>>> should use it like an addict, seems contradictory. >>>> >>> >>> This does not necessarily follow. Many people can use some medication >>> daily, without getting addicted. >>> Taking salvia everyday asks for a big effort. I call it the "huile de >>> foie de morue" of the drugs (Cod liver oil). >>> >>> ... >>> In fact, except in forum, I see very few people developing an interest >>> for that experience (except as a medication). But then I don't know so much >>> people interested in the consequence of comp or in "serious" theology >>> either. Salvia has this in common with comp: it does not go handy with >>> wishful thinking. It has other relationship with comp, *like insisting >>> on some secrecy of a part of the experience*, which corroborates the >>> G/G* distinction. >>> >>> >> And that is the part which I have difficulty with and why I keep it at a >> close but rare distance. The joke seems immense and euphoric in its own >> terms, but the relevant brain subroutines, if you permit, are offended by >> every letter I type here, so there is some sense of stepping over a >> threshold that is a prohibited hack. Intuitively a question would be: "So >> why was I invited?" The small composer and the skeptic in me don't like >> this, even though they know ultimately "resistance is futile". >> >> >> Yes, I understand. >> >> I will not add much, as I might say things on which I have to remain >> silent ... if I want to maintain good relation with the "lady". :) >> >> Now, the secrecy problematic is a constant problem in theology, but also >> in a large part of psychology and medicine. We can guess it is normal, as >> brain are wired for terrestrial survival, which on some point can conflict >> with other form of survival. Then with comp it can be formally related to >> the fact that Bx -> ~ x, admits solutions, like self-consistency (Dt) by >> Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. The whole G* minus G describes the >> landscape of the correct machine's secret. Comp makes some secret >> "conditionally" communicable, in the form "as far as I am consistent then >> ...". >> >> > That seems plausible, as far as I understand: > > The context of G* and G in your use of comp are provability logics for > self-referential correct machines. The provability logic G formalizes > arithmetic provability and consistency in sufficiently rich machines, like > PA or ZF. What separates G from G* is Bp->p. > > > Yes. The axioms of G* are: > > 1) all theorems of G > > 2) Bp -> p > > Another key difference is that G* is close for the modus ponens rule (a, > a->b / b), > but NOT for the necessitation rule (a / Ba). > > That's how bad my modal logic education and study habits are..."Theory as a set of formulas closed with respect to MP and N". > If that was not the case we would have that G* proves f, and be > inconsistent. > > Indeed we would have in G* the following proof: > > Bf -> f (by axiom 2 above) > B(Bf -> f) (by the necessitation rule) > B(Bf -> f) -> Bf (by Löb's formula, main theorem of G, and thus by "1" > above) > Bf (by modus ponens on the two last lines) > f (by modus ponens on the line just above and the first line (5 line > above)) > > (and f -> p is a tautology, so any proposition can be proved and G* is > inconsistent). > > > This points towards incompleteness of Gödel's second incompleteness > theorem, essentially -Bf -> -B-Bf, > > > Yes. By Löb we have B(Bf -> f) -> Bf. If you remind that Bf->f is > equivalent with ~Bf, you can see how to derive > easily -Bf -> -B-Bf, from Löb. OK? > > Yes, I think I see that, and think it is nice. > so if all the propositions Bp -> p are true about the machine, they cannot > be believed by the machine. > > > They cannot all be believed. But the machine can still believe Bp -> p, > for some p. Indeed she will believe this for, and only for, those p that > she can prove. > But the machine cannot believe in ~Bf. She can't believe in Bf -> f. > > By default a consistent machine believes in its own inconsistency. > > > This does not follow. The consistent machine does not believe in its own > consistency. That does not entail she believes in its own inconsistency. In > particular, if she is correct (a stronger statement than consistency), then > she will neither believe in its consistency, nor in its inconsistency. She > will be forever agnostic about that. > > OK, message received, I hope.. :) > > > Sort of like "the unbelievable truth gap" about which G* must remain > silent, am I reading you correctly? > > > G must remains silent, or the correct machine, whose believable logic of > belief is given G, must remain silent. > > G* is not silent. *He*, like us for simpler machine than us, can know that > the machine is consistent. So he can "believe" in ~Bf, but that concerns > the machine, not itself. > > G* knows all modal truth about the machine, and G* minus G contains all > the secret. > > The machine cannot believe what her G* is saying, but she can find those > truth by other ways. > > This is unclear to me now: is G* then still decidable or not? > > > > > >> >> >> As for Quentin, I think he's right: poisons are a contradiction. For >> beside their danger and pleasure, they are equally solvents, medicines, >> cleansers or Cod liver oil (hemp seed oil trumps industrial fish farms with >> antibiotics etc., as I am sure you know, it is cheaper too). Perhaps they >> harm us when we don't have our numbers right, concerning dosage and >> context. "Be precise with the values" Paracelsus said famously. >> >> Also Quentin, have you mixed MJ with toboacco when you suffered? Because >> that mixture is narcotic, when MJ on its own is more self-limiting. >> >> >> That's a good question. >> MJ + alcohol can also be quite narcotic for some person. Combination of >> medication is known to be hazardous, and should be handle with caution. >> >> I agree with what you say below. I think that prohibition is just a >> criminal technic to sell more drugs, without control of quality, nor >> control of price, in a way making it possible to target the kids, at every >> corner of every street. LEAP (http://www.leap.cc/) provides many >> evidences. The evidences are monumental that the more a drug is severely >> prohibited in a country, the more it is consumed in that country. >> >> Prohibition makes de facto a nationalization of health, which is the >> complex locus where safety can be maximized by augmenting the competition. >> >> If we legalize all drugs, and tax them relatively to genuine statistics >> of problems, people would quickly see which products are "really" >> dangerous. >> >> The very idea of criminalizing an abuse problem, that is an health >> problem, is a total non sense. It makes a fake sense through the myth that >> the good should fight the bad, where the good can only help the bad toward >> less bad. >> >> Addiction can be cured with iboga, together with some psychological >> accompaniment. Jail only aggravates the "problem of drugs", itself brought >> by prohibition. >> >> bruno >> >> > At least you see some articles from increasingly mainstream media that you > wouldn't see a few years ago: > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/global-support-grows-for-legalizing-drugs-a-884750.html > > > > Yes, the news are rather good. I stay calm, because I said this already in > the seventies, ... > > Nobody can touch my illusions. That was just some compy indeterminate copy of you in some other branch in the 70s. I'll defend it by saying that in a propaganda sense "war on drugs" was louder in the more limited mediascape of the seventies, but that facts like immense budget increase to wage that war + so many more prisons and lives lost relative to any year in the seventies, make any glimpse of such article welcome. I wonder what the Headline would be if legalization happened: "Humans wage war on humans' vices and medicines. This was stupid. Why? Read this for cui bono of the Drug War." > But it is wonderful that the state of Washington and Colorado have > legalized both medical and recreative cannabis. > > When the UN asked to President Obama to do something, about Colorado and > Washington, it is a relief and pleasure he answered them that he has other > priorities. > > And now some pressure arrived from the financial world, which means they > begin to wake up. They can't *afford* the big lie, and it is good they say > so. The war on drugs cost trillions, and those who benefit from it, are > more and more clearly appearing as small special interest minorities, and > the criminals. > > A released crack dealer was interviewed on NPR, October 2012: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=162383174&m=162384713 He said legalization would've been terrible and would have ruined his golden years. However, there are also voices of a nasty prohibition "argument": that criminals in a legalization scenario would move more to weapons, guns and human traffic, which would be more harmful. This is nonsense, because the threshold of the psychological-behavioral barrier, for teenagers to go smoke something society doesn't approve behind some bush, is significantly lower than threshold for killing, severe bodily violence etc. in most people. > > Of course, they don't go far enough or even realize that the "prohibition > side of the argument" is not grounded on any facts and is not an argument. > > > Alas, yes. But the cops of LEAP are already 100% clear about that. People > will eventually understand. > At some point, they will not understand how we have been able to think > differently. > > > > They all seem genuinely afraid of what will happen "the moment everything > becomes legally available" with some age and dose restrictions at some > national, government regulated drug provider. It's clear that a few > conservatives will go a bit nuts on coke etc, but I would predict, that > after a phase of abusing the newly found freedoms, that prohibitionists > would use to show "aha, you see we said it was a bad idea!", people would > still emerge from any high with the same old questions: "How am I managing > my life? How's my family? Long term prospects? Health? My bills, my > taxes?". They think that snorting cocaine "will make people hallucinate > those questions away and we'd have everybody running wild on the streets in > total anarchy". > > > I am even rather sure there will not be a phase of abusing. Those who does > not already smoke cannabis recreatively will not like it. > > College parties, festivals, party havens etc. I think we would see a spike in accidents, unless public awareness does its job for once through media. But fat chance :( And every incident would be used and highlighted for media's and advertiser's margin, similar to with Cannabis today. Nobody cares about tobaccos victims, unless we can judge them, but prohibitionists would be like hyena waiting to jump, if our politicians showed miraculous courage to move in this direction. > The motto of non cannabis smoker above some age is "hmm... I think I will > stick to wine". But the number of person using it for a variety of medical > problems will grow, but they will not abuse. > > > > > The question of education comes up, which is serious not in some > ideological sense, just merely on the level of technicalities of dosing, > interactions with other medication, routes of administration etc. > > > Yes, but that concerns all Food and Drugs. Consumers have the right to > know about the traceability of the products used, about possible side > effects, the statistics of frequence/dose leading to possible addiction, > etc. > > Only salvia contains a user guide inside, which, to be sure, is only > available and "readable" at low dose :) > > ...If the user can accept the language at that level. Otherwise I don't know if they'd feel anything. As far as I know, people tend to become aware of activity at those lower levels only *after* being exposed to concentrated extracts. I don't know of anybody who initially engaged Salvia "non-extract" low dose and said they felt something. > > > Because you can be sure that an over-protected poison-naive population is > going to read the warning labels and take the labels very seriously, like > they always do. But for today such questions are just wishful thinking, > when we can even deal with just MJ legalization. > > > Some countries have legalized heroin, in some unofficial way, which helps > only the middle class (that's bad), because it was clearly understood that > it diminishes the spread of AIDS. The cops already explain, sometimes in > schools, that the more a drug is dangerous, the more important we need to > legalize it, because legalization is the only way to regulate it properly. > And that's important, about a dangerous drug. > > So I don't worry about this. Cannabis, by its very low dangerousness > (compared to aspirin or alcohol, ...) was the best drug to make illegal > (best for making huge black money benefits for a long time). > > So I think that once cannabis will be legal, all the other will follow, > like a card castle, and eventually everyone will understand that > prohibition of food and drugs is just a nonsense in all directions > (ethical, economical, ecological, medical, social, ...). > > Some people will still abuse of some products, and 'desintoxication > centers' will develop, but this will concerns *any* products. In Korea, in > all major cities, you have a huge number of 'desintoxication center' > specialized in video game addiction. I have heard about case of death, with > person playing continuously, and dying from lack of water, nutriment, and > hygiene. We can overdose with video-game. > > Abuse is a problem, but it is not specific to a product. Of course some > products are more addictive than some others, and that might point on a > threshold for suggesting a medical prescription and social security > financial recovery. > For heroin, there are evidence that the need of doing the experience again > and again is in a large part driven by the fear of no more finding the > product or the money to buy it. Apart from the use of ibogaine, heroin > might be the best antidote to heroin, once it is prescribed by a doctor, > and free. I extrapolate from some studies in my country, but it makes > sense, it seems to me. > Empires can fall in a day without warning but reaching that day can be a thousand years, if I read our short history book correctly. But acceleration, towards higher and/or lower values, is afoot, especially since computers are everywhere. I think things will just get weirder. And I don't worry either because as H.S. Thompson wrote: *When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. *PGC --- > 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 email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.