What questions are you answering Konara if you give us answers don't for get to include the questions the answers are for.. Allan
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Konara Abeyrathne <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a fantastic diologue.let our holy jeasus answer some questions. > My personal philosophy is every sciencetific views are having loop holes as > we all are ego centered and selfish.The world and all living beings are not > creations of anybody but are results of cause and effect law when the cause > disapear effect too goes off.---- I am K.M.G.W Abeyratne from Sri Lanka > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:19 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would certainly sign up for the brain-machine interface and a bit >> of splicing with a prawn to see in 16 colours (preferably with an >> alien who sees the dark). One possibility is that we don't know how >> to use our brains much - capacity is massive potentially. I rather >> like the idea that biological intelligence is short-lived and other >> civilisations have passed through it. Stuff like Skydrive (which >> sadly are attempts to rent software to us at high prices) could be >> conceived as a thought-cloud in which individuality as we think of it >> becomes as redundant as the PC once netware works. We may see a >> network in which all skills are embodied and means of production >> available to all. In some parts of science we are thinking the >> machines are up to a lot we don't understand already. >> More in my own field - we are finding brain changes associated with >> social isolation. In mice these changes leave the mice uninterested >> in new mice (the opposite of normal). The brain is much more plastic >> than most imagine and humanity is changing. On the familiarity thing >> James, E = mc2 is actually as slightly larger equation including p >> (momentum) and looks like the right-angled triangle introduced to us >> in Pythagoras' theorem. I take Deutsch as warning us against Bacon's >> Idol of the Theatre. >> >> On 20 Nov, 04:56, James <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Whew Neil, I lack the time to grasp it well, though my instincts tell me >> > to re-skim Pierce and modal logics to find out why it sounds so >> > familiar. In my limited view S4 really bites us in the cognitive bias >> > (meh, posterior) and Deutsche lays that out well on counterfactuals IMO. >> > Hope I get more time soon to compare his robot with the 3,2,1 >> > configuration in Trikonic geometry (while fresh in memory). >> > >> > Again, it points me toward a much less dramatic revolution for our >> > equation (depending on which emotions one prefers), transhumanism one >> > way or another (good and or bad), a very exciting time in the >> > anthropocene is it not? :p >> > >> > Hope all is well everyone! >> > Best Regards >> > >> > On 11/16/2012 11:14 AM, archytas wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439 >> > > Should produce David Deutsch's paper free. >> > >> > > This is a good example of science philosophy trying to shift thinking >> > > boundaries. There's some physics in it, but probably not enough to >> > > put off a few readers in here. David works on how science may be >> > > restricted by our traditional myths of origin - and that we tend to >> > > posit origins (Big Bang etc.) that may be as unhelpful as god concepts >> > > to science (as opposed to spiritual discussion). >> > >> > > He also challenges ideas of mathematical a priori - such as Kant's >> > > claim to know the geometry of the universe in such a manner. >> > >> > > The paper is speculative and I read it because I'm tinkering with >> > > ideas of what economics might be if it was a science. I'm not a >> > > believer in scientific method beyond tropical fish realism. What has >> > > always struck me about economics is that it seems the prime reason for >> > > not doing things because it renders our hopes impossible. A truly >> > > scientific theory seeks to show us what is possible and what won't >> > > work. We make the Higgs' boson (or at least get to see some of its >> > > decay particles) from hydrogen in several kilometres of the LHC at >> > > CERN and shouldn't forget the construction involved. >> > >> > > Classical constructors in science are catalysts. Biology is full of >> > > them. David says the ultimate constructor may be knowledge and we >> > > might be able to get to a sensible theory of human beings as such. >> > > The 'unit' he is proposing is the task. I guess the problem he >> > > wrestles with is the way we become technicians of dogma. >> > >> > > I'm fairly sure my own revulsion with economics is based on the Bible >> > > story of kicking over the tables of the money-lenders. David Graeber >> > > has a book out suggesting religion was much more concerned with that >> > > through history and rebellion against debt.. >> > >> > > Origin in physics is not really Big Bang (or any of the alternatives) >> > > and remains prone to the 'turtle argument' (the world is held up by a >> > > turtle, so what holds up the turtle - another turtle, then another >> > > turtle until, after that, its turtles all the way down). >> >> -- >> >> >> > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
