On 26 Jan 2015, at 23:59, Kim Jones wrote:
On 27 Jan 2015, at 4:44 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 00:02, Kim Jones wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015, at 7:43 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
I study the consequences of a common assumption, and assuming a
universal person is natural in this context.
Here is the big sell, then. You have to somehow demonstrate to the
human race that we are a universal person.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, Kim. But here we are close to a
problem. Why would I do that?
Because "they" are going to install a world government sooner or
later which will mean the re-enslavement of humanity.
It is already done.
Well, I read more about Constantin, who christianize the empire, but
the re-enslavement will begin only two centuries later, with the
closure of Plato-academy, but also with the birth of science and
mechanism.
The modern re-installment begun with prohibition, and Kennedy's
murder, I think. It has broken the key elements of democracy: a free-
press.
The "one person" concept could be hijacked by the forces of evil.
Plato's Republic has a very very dark side.
It was the naive idea to put knowledgeable people at the top. The idea
that opportunist politicians are wiser in the average than experts
will come much later.
If there is only one person, it is enough to convince that person,
or to see that such a person is born conceiving that thing.
OK - you've pretty much convinced this person!
Not really. You would not push me to convince the others :)
And I reckon I was born with the ability to conceive of the unseen
reality. Mathemusicians are maybe like that. We are a platonic clan.
Are you sure that's all there is to it? I haven't been able to
convince anyone else of this yet. I know lots of people who remain
to be convinced. I don't see the need to endlessly debate the thing;
I'm now looking at the practical, everyday value of such a view.
Sooner or later you just go with it to see where it leads. That's
what I'm doing. I gave up years ago trying to find the difference
between "right" and "wrong". Now I just look for "what
works" (relative to some plan or goal) as opposed to "what doesn't
work". You have to know the goal with this method. For me the goal
is education.
Education seems to me more like a mean. And in theology it is unclear
if people want to know, or would manage the knowledge. Evolution and
life is partially built on that illusion.
But some people want to know, and want to find the exit door. Now, as
I said, we can do that with 4 minutes of a "successful" salvia
experience (except that we tend to forget it), or 30 years of math and
logic. But apparently the results are the same: people who finally
begin to grasp the consequence of computationalism react like most
people on salvia: never again. salvia has helped me to understand that
people does not want to know, and it is somehow natural. Maimonides is
perhaps right: theological knowledge is not good for everyone. All
universal machine can understand, but those who have developed many
attachment in life prefer the illusion, and hate salvia, theology,
talk about death, etc.
We are close to the theological trap. That is something which I
have better understood thanks to the salvia experience:
illumination has a life spoiling effect: like reading the end of
the novel or thriller.
Indeed. Why bother, then? What drives us to desire illumination,
given we only succeed in making our lives miserable when we find
what we seek?
Yes, why bother? Probably to avoid rebirth. The indians are right, the
problem is not mortality, but immortality.
But then, of course that is the base of the whole Platonism:
guessing the reality behind the appearances.
Ahhhhhhh! A game it is.....It's a personality-type then, as I have
been saying. One is predisposed to desire this kind of thing. Others
maybe not. I've got it bad. You have it bad.
Do you agree with me that we cannot divide the two belief-tribes of
Aristotle and Plato into anything more fundamental in terms of
belief systems? If yes, what does it mean that we confront life
continually as the one or as the other?
In the aristotelian frame, this is the difference between the believer
and the non believer ... in something beyond what we see.
For platonists, we are all believers, even Aristotelians are, and the
question is more about the nature of what we believe in.
What drive us is curiosity, awe in front of the mystery and in its
beauty, despite the hardness of truth.
It is a contemplative things, quite opposite to the self-extending
habit of the singular first person who believes being different,
and who will tend to exploits all the illusion.
Agreed. The Tao is Very Silent. But, with comp, are we replacing the
singular first person habit of exploiting the Grande Illusion with
comp or are we adding a string to our bow? If so, what is the
advantage of this extra string?
It depends of what you really want. A bigger bow with new strings to
perpetuate the illusion, or abandoning the bow, and use the exit door?
Best of British, old son! The math alone maybe will convince
another mathematician, but without your guiding values, they will
fail to see the big picture we are sketching here, and instead
will prefer to slap you down for it!
Yes, they don't listen to the guy who listen already to the machine.
Ce sont les vrais salauds et les salopards. They know that
"something like" your comp conjecture is possible (?????) - yet
they don't want you to tell others?
They want both mechanism (my "conjecture/theory) and materialism. In
french we say that they want le beurre et l'argent du beurre (the
butter and the money of the butter).
In my case, they want to hide their scandalous behavior, only. They
want save their notoriety. i doubt it has anything to so with the work
per se, despite their strong-atheism, which is just a simple pretext.
But, at another level, people are just used to Aristotelianism, and
are not interested in the mind-body issue, especially when tackled
with the scientific method.
Things will take time, the humans does not recognize themselves in
the other human, so for PA and cuttlefishes, that will take some
time.
So much for the self-accelerating effect of consciousness....
It has been exploited mainly to move quicker than the preys and the
predators, until now. Contemplation is not for tomorrow, and will
perhaps never existed really on the terrestrial plane, and that may be
part of the game.
Theology matters for the afterlife and parallel lives, or for our
values in some long run, but is counter-productive for life. You
better not eat the forbidden apple ... if you want play the game.
Especially with the (superficial) reductionist look of mechanism,
(which is refuted by the incompleteness phenomenon), theology can be
misleading taken as a reductionism, when it facts it is liberating.
Computationalism predicts easily that biotechnology will give rise to
diverse theo-technologies, and the real question is how long you want
to stay in the samsara.
The general ethics is that souls can do what they want with their
body, if always with consent, and not coerced by others. You have the
right to say "yes" to the doctor, and the right to say "no".
Things does accelerate, from one cell to multicells, then from brain
to languages, then from languages to technologies, then from
technologies to digital technologies, it is each time big-bangs
abstract big-bangs, it is the productive nature of the complement of
creative sets: productive sets. That extends in the transfinite.
The concept of the Universal Person needs to be hurled at humanity
from the rooftops and from the pulpit and the schoolroom.
Beethoven and Schiller tried in the 19th century. Jesus may have
had something or other to say about it but nobody much appears to
have understood.
But I thought it was more or less obvious, that the arithmetical
hypostases provides a general theory of the person, which is,
relatively to "truth" a discursive reasoner (G and G*), a soul
(S4Grz), an observer (Z*, Z1* with the arithmetical emulation of
computationalism), etc.
I see what you mean, but Plotinus's hypostases may need to be
described in more normative language for some.
Why normative? Simpler, clearer I can understand, but at the start,
the universal baby is pure "truth" norm.
Most will see the three levels of reality a little bit like a(n
un)Holy Trinity - even though these hypostases underlie even the
concept of the Christian "tri-une" God. Yours is a form of gnostic
wisdom, a deeper investigation of the anatomy of belief.
Yes, the anatomy of machine's beliefs, with simple definition. A
machine believes a if she asserts a, and I limit myself to machines
who believe in the axiom of RA, and (for the reasoner, knower,
observer) in some amount of induction axiom (in the math sense). Then
I gave them inductive inference ability, and they can have any other
beliefs as long as they stay arithmetically sound. In that case the
hypostases apply to them. Those person are perhaps "enlightened" by
the fact that they don't betray the universal person they start from.
It is an ideal case. Humans, and any "real life" creature, by its
entanglement with complex and long histories, has needed an ability to
change its mind at each instant, and develop a non-monotonical layers,
where we can retrieve beliefs. In that case the theory above remains
correct locally, and is the reason why theology get separated from
science, by the difficulty of getting right the global picture, we
tend to take seriously only the local pattern.
Write a book called "The Anatomy of Belief". Unless Smullyan or
someone already has...
Belief theory is a whole subject. Philippe Smets was an expert in
beliefs. I was hired at Iridia to find the modeal logic of belief. It
was found by other people menwhile, and found them again with the
[]p&<>p hypostase (the "first person plural point of view"). The
passage from []p to
[]p & <>p, transforms provability (believable) into a form of more
immediate (non transitive) belief, having a calculus (Perhaps Plato
and Plotinus "bastard calaculus") of probability/credibility.
Mu use of belief is more general, then specialized in each of the
points of view/hypostases.
A general theory of person defined implicitly a universal person,
which is a sort of universal baby,
Kubrick and Clarke's enigmatic "star child" at the end of "2001"
Nice image.
which lives in us and all arithmetical incarnation of our
recursively enumerable extensions.
Why is it I don't have any trouble with that idea? Seems entirely
natural
People must understand by themselves.
The choice is between some amount of work in the math, or 4 minutes
of salvia.
I skipped math at school, so I guess I need to do the salvia. But,
what I am saying is I can buy the framework without the math or the
salvia, so what is wrong with me? :-/
Nothing. All universal machines can. If the theory is correct, it is
only a matter of being correct with oneself.
Ramana Maharsi suggests the koan "Who Am I?", I think it is the best.
I am not saying something so original, it is only a recent phenomenon
than we take matter so seriously in metaphysics and in our lives.
The point is that even PA cannot avoid the understanding of this, and
indeed what I say is just what the universal machines say.
Although you can see on youtube that surviving a near crash plane
landing can help too, and more generally all so called "mystical"
experiences.
My partner recently came out of a nine hour cancer operation. Where
does the "person" go during nine hours under anaesthetic?
You must ask her. She might have had an experience, and not remembered
it.
It can depend on the anesthetics.
Plotinus: "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will
be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to
distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that
the two are one."
If comp is finally the better view of theology then it needs to be
understood and acted upon.
What if it is ethically better, and then refute (too much white
rabbits, some mysterious primary matter does exist, Aristotle comes
back!
Hmmmmmm. Pass the salvia.....
I am not sure you need it, as above you claim you are open to the idea
of universal person lost in many dreams (cohering enough to be multi-
users dreams with decent first person plural notions).
Salvia, nor any plants, nor anything, even God(s), can make an
experience proving you anything (beyond the fact that you are
conscious). But they can destroy prejudice and help to conceive
different views on reality.
Some people can take too much literally the salvia "discourse", but
usually salvia refutes all naïve interpretation of an experience by
another experience. That can perturbe many people.
For some people, the salvia experience is the first time they can
conceive reality in an non aristotelian way, and some reacts like if
it was the most nightmarish experience they ever had. For some it is
a blisful experience, a sort of relief.
I am just an humble scientist, Kim. Yes, it seems to me that the
evidences are going to send us back to Plato, but we still don't
know, and probably will never know for sure.
That's right, but we have to live somehow in a way that does not
place us at odds with ourselves! Humans are forever at odds with
themselves; surely comp has a place in education. This is ancient
wisdom, rebottled as new knowledge.
New beliefs. Only God knows if that is knowledge. It is belief, even a
strong (logically) belief in a from of reincarnation.
People must understand it, in the 3p, and for that you need just good
course in math and logic, then they can make it more personal by
remembering dreams, and perturbing heir brains, but it is more
hazardous, can also been misused for brainwashing by common liars, well.
No worry, if the theory is correct, all path go back there, but there
are *many* path.
But it fits about everything together in a simple theory, and it
might helps to develop ethic working for some millenaries.
That's what I want to see happen. Please write another book:
"Comp for Kids"
Let's try and make this thing as simple as possible. Complexity is
easy.
I am not sure complexity is easy.
Simple is never simple. The easier it is to understand, the more
people will understand. You change a person's perception of
something and you change their emotions. You change someone's
emotions and you change their behaviour. That's the goal. We want to
change human behaviour.
Comp is more harm reduction + hell is paved with good intention. the
rest if "try to drink if thirsty, and try to east if hungry".
Religion is fundamentally personal. Save your soul (and you will save
all souls).
You have to enrich human perception to be in a position to effect
changes to human behaviour. Comp is a way of perceiving reality.
It is a theory. It leads to a theory of everything, which is already
teach in high-school. I try to share my enthusiasm to it, and if that
works and can change the behaviors of some, that is good. But my goal
is not to change the behavior of people. Well, there is the task of
reasoning correctly, but this is by teaching some math or other
matter, not by teaching how to reason correctly, because that does not
really exist.
The earlier in life people realise they are each other the more
chance we have of reducing violence on this planet.
Even this is not clear, as the human (and machine) psyche is very
complex, and that love and hate, even peace and war, are more related
than we can think.
I am an ultra-conservative Platonist. I am skeptical on most
contemporary beliefs, I do research. I explore something infinite, and
which concerns us in the limit. I use standard tools accepted by
anybody.
We just live a wonderful period thanks to the discovery of the
universal machine (Church, Post, Turing, Kleene ...), and of what the
universal machine can prove, and not prove about their provability
issues, knowledge issues, observability issues, etc.
For once we are looking at the ways in which persons are the same
rather than minutely examine the ways in which persons differ.
In theology, I only study what is common in all known theologies.
But people fear to lose their identity, they are unaware that the
math shows that the rabbit hole run very deep, and you can't loose
your identiy. By the Galois correspondence between syntax and
semantics, the more closer to the universal baby you are, the more
possible identities you can develop.
In principle, a person should be capable of a number of parallel
identities/lives. There is no overwhelmingly convincing reason why
we should maintain just one identity. Live in several universes at
once. It's all of it in your head anyway (including your head
itself) so the illusion is absolutely perfect, as always. The
leading of parallel lives is what in fact goes on with those who
have the means but usually, every effort is made to keep secret the
'existence-bis' so that the wife and the paparazzi will leave the
official person alone. DSK was brought down by the weight of his
secret parallel lives. Very few seem to be more than one person
successfully in the eyes of others. There is a need for humans to be
able to explore the rich possibilities of parallel identities
without the risks.
The Universal Person sees no point in war, murder, prohibition and
the like because it no longer merely applies to others;
Well, you mean the universal person which reminds itself to be the
universal person.
We know what do the universal person which forgets that, and
believe she is mister X, living in new-Y, in country Z, on the
planet P, in the solar system S in the galaxy M-W.
So how to make sure they don't forget is a big part of the goal. The
amnesiac effect of a person being instantiated surely doesn't have
to extend to a person forgetting that they are suffering amnesia?
Forgetting plays an important rôle in the development of competence.
Biology (competence) is somehow trade of with theology (Intelligence).
That is why the conditional in theology is of upmost importance. That
is why it is scientific to insist that science is only belief, never
knowledge, still less global certainties. Then comp offers a theory of
knowledge (but only assuming comp, and correctness of the machine)
which explains this fact.
it applies to the self. You don't disallow others from doing what
you allow yourself - this is not libertarianism; this is self-
referentially correct behaviour of a consistent machine that knows
that it cannot prove with arrogant certainty its own consistency.
You even become compassionate toward the arrogant. (They usually
don't like that when they discover it).
Also, if the conception of that idea was more widespread; it
might limit the attempt of some people to annoy or kill other
people, given that they would be more likely able to suspect
being, maybe, those other people when put in a different general
situation.
This then, is our only hope to enter into the experience of
another in the hope of understanding their otherness.
We can progress in that direction.
Paradoxically, you now ERASE the concept of "otherness" in your
outlook.
Which is close to solipism. But it is not solipsism: it is the
exact contrary: you recognize yourself in a vaster collection of
entities.
This requires humility, modesty and great reserves of imagination.
This is more than simple empathy. This is the fundamental
assumption that you ARE in fact more than one single individual
yourself but that you only have your personal perspective.
Yes, a body is a way for God to look at Itself, and even to say
"hello" to itself, more or less explicitly. God plays hide-and-seek
with Itself, and sometimes, he/she finds itself.
You SURE you haven't been dipping into "Conversations with God" by
Neale Donald Walsch? :-)
Never heard of it, actually. But the idea is very natural. Sri
Aurobindo did express something similar, which I quote sometimes.
Different people are now seen as the self from a different
perspective. This kind of happens already in the tribal/family
view of persons but tribes and families despite being able to
empathise and psychologically bond with their own - never seem to
get over their inability to empathise with different tribes and
families.
Yes. It is normal also, the predator might become depressed in case
it develops too much empathy for its prey, you can't avoid some
struggle in life, although you can take harm reduction path, which
are transfinite in length, or take shortcut, like death and other
illusions.
It helps from going from:
Hitler is the bad. We won against Hitler the bad. The good has
won, cheers and tra-la-la ...
To "I have made a big cruel mistake, I succeeded in stopping it,
how can I prevent to do it again", ...
This implies that humans may one day "learn the lessons of
history" but they never do. The reason is they study too much
history. If you read 1,000 books about the causes of WWI then you
have not become an expert at how to prevent war but rather an
expert at how to cause war.
There is no school subject called "Human Universality". Why do
humans never study the ways in which all the tribes and clans and
families are the same as each other? What really is the difference
between a Jew and a Palestinian? A Chinese and a Japanese? A
German and an Austrian? A Christian and a Muslim. All of these
designators are fake, fake, fake. They all say "I want to be taken
seriously on tribal family grounds, not on grounds of human
universality."
Without saying, I see you came back to the universal human person,
but we started from the machine, or non-machine, universal person,
which is already in most mammals and some invertebrates (I would
bet), but also in PA and ZF, despite their very miserable bodies
and their lack of senses and memories.
We are not human beings having from time to time glimpse of the
divine, we are divine beings having from time to time amnesia, due
to the finiteness of our conditions in the neighborhood of zero.
If I were a painter, I would do a canvas entitled "The Finiteness of
Our Condition in the Neighbourhood of Zero". Maybe music can capture
this better.
I might say too much, here, like betraying my own G*-G difference,
but it is just for being short and avoid jargon.
The question is: will obscurantism last for one more century, or
one more millennium.
Well, with the help of things like comp, perhaps we can break this
cycle. Comp is a tool for humans to better understand themselves.
Well, the tools is the brain, and the computers, and the math to
reason them.
Who cares if it's "wrong". If it leads to greater empathy, civility,
modesty, humility and less arrogance and violent opposition and
subjugation then it's "right" even if it's "wrong".
I care if it is wrong. I am platonist. I sure for the truth only. It
is not that I trust it so much, but I trust it more than the lies.
now, at the meta-level, comp *is* empathy for a larger class of
individuals. Like Craig, we give the human right to people having an
aritificial brains. Unlike Craig, we attribute them consciousness and
personhood. To them, and to possible very different machines and beings.
I search the truth, in a conservative mode. Science stooped for me
when Platonists disappears. It surivives a bit thanks to the mystical
branch in all religions, and it will reappears because the math does
not leave much choice.
Machine's theology, a branch of pure mathematics, will offer an
etalon theology to compare the different current theories, and that
will be helpful.
So write a truly easy to read book about it.
The UDA was already AUDA made easy. When I explain AUDA, the
diificulty is elementary (mathematical) logic, which is intrinsically
difficult. people have hard to understand when they are asked to not
interpret, or not understand. A bit of programming computer can help
for this.
Don't hesitate to ask any specific question, if you don't understand
something. It is the best way to help people, but when it is based on
logic, I am not so gifted in pedagogy, and there are many very good
books (perhaps even too much).
But we are not even at the beginning of that history. We need more
spiritual and intellectual maturity, which are in bad shape after
having separated, too much, the intellect ([]p) and the soul ([]p &
p) for so long.
Now I'm depressed. Airdrop salvia cigarettes to ISIS?
It can help to doubt about the 70 virgins, that's for sure. They will
quickly demonish it, and made it illegal, cut the head of those
smoking it, that is for sure too.
If they ever touch it. Salvia is a disphoric. It is not "pleasant". It
has few success. Most people are not interested at all. There is no
dopamine production like with heroin, coffee, alcohol, cannabis,
cocaine, chocolate, psylocibe, sex, ...
They will not take the medication, they have not the right mindset.
I'm afraid to say.
Atheists are correct on many things in their critics on religion,
but they throw the baby with the bath water.
Yes. I have been scathing about Dawkins for his replacing God with
matter, but I can only consider him a hero for taking on the
theocrats and challenging the edifice of power in this world that is
institutionalised religion.
He is the best ally to those theocrats, as it is mocking the
theological enterprise and try to kill the baby after having thrown
the bath-water.
The fight between atheism and christianism is fake: they are
Aristotelians defending the same ontology (with or without the
creator) which prevents the coming back about the doubt on the
universe, which was the birth of science.
For a platonist, atheism and christianism are about the same religion.
They have the same God (one to believe in, one to deny), and the same
primary material universe. The debate God/Not-God hides the real
question: is the physical reality WYSIWYG, or not. A christian is just
a little less wrong, as there is not just matter, and there is
something else.
Well, today, in europa, I would say christians keep better the
scientific attitude than (strong) atheists in the field of machine
theology, to say the least.
The atheists confuse all the time the object of an inquiry (God, to be
short) and what humans perpetrates when they take answers by some
people as unchangeable dogma. That is bad in any field, and thanks to
enlightenment period, we are a bit more free in biology and
astrophysics, but why not the same freedom in theology?
By discouraging the serious research in that field, they gives a sort
of right to people to continue to use the dogma, the fairy tales, if
not the violence.
If Dawkins was sincere in his wanting to challenge the edifice of the
institutionalised religion, he would welcome the coming back of
theology back in academy, through Gödel's ontological essay, through
machine's theology, through analytical tools, etc. He would study what
already exist in the literature, he would better separate the talk of
the serious theologians from the common employees of the spiritual
dogmatic quasi-political edifice.
When the atheist Michel Onfrey published his book "atheology", where
he demonizes the jews, the christians and the muslims, a bishop said
that such book was all good for them: it is only free advertizing for
the God of Abraham.
Atheism has no fundamental meaning, because to be precise, it needs to
say what "theo" is for, and the most common definition insists that if
"theo" is responsible for all what is, it is by no matter simple to
define what it is precisely, but it is (for the greeks who created the
science) a possible inquiry, where research and dialog are possible.
The fundamentalist strong-atheists, and pseudo "free-thinkers" does
not want, in all precise appearance in some countries, that theology
might be something we need to revise in any way. I have doubts about
the real motivation, though.
I liked dawkins' book on the egoist gene, but then, when he does
philosophy/metaphysics he takes too much for granted physicalism,
display some lack of rigor, and is either ignorant or not honest on
the mind-body problem.
The god of Plato is Truth. Faith is the faith in personal research
only. You need to believe in some truth to enact the research, and you
need to believe in some fundamental truth to enact the fundamental
research, and you need to keep in mind you can propose only theories,
nobody knows such truth in any public way. No authoritative argument.
Those are the real blaspheme: to pretend that you have some
acquaintance with God (or Truth) to influence others or make a law
voted, whatever.
The lack of rigor in the exact science is not grave. In the best case
you get only the sarcasm of a colleagues, and in the worst some
catastrophes. But the lack of rigor in the human sciences, including
human theology, is much graver. It can lead to centuries, if not
millennia of unnecessary suffering.
I follow the atheists in their anticlericalism, although I can think
that this is also not much constructive,. I follow them on
agnosticism, and I consider strong-atheism as a viable alternative to
comp. The problem is only with those who pretend that science enforces
strong-atheism. That does not make any sense, except the trivial
skepticism in Fairy Tales.
Bruno
K
Confessional religions are correct on many things, but they put too
much clothes on the baby making it suffocates.
We might eventually learn the (infinite) lessons of history, with
or without the human body. There is something very patient there.
Bruno
K
But that is not normative, only it might encourage the "spiritual
experiences" (be it with music, or whatever) which can help
people to recognize themselves on a vaster spectrum.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
