On Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> I can not resit to say something here.
>
> 1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
> way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
> society if the the adivi
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> I don't think so, because the robot rat seems to keep running into things.
> A real rat would skidaddle out of there.
>
>
>
This experiment is not quite what you think. It used only 60,000 rat
neurons (equivalent to th
Roger,
It is the compactified dimensions that are the monads, not the strings.
Obviously you did not read and /or understand all I have been telling you.
Richard
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> 1) The is no master string to govern the strings,
> so strin
On 8/18/2012 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Aug 2012, at 16:41, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Admittedly, the more I dig into Leibniz, the more questions I have.
But I won't abandon him yet, thinking I misunderstood one of his
statements. Or perhaps Russell misunderstood what Leibniz mea
Dear Roger,
From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by
many authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is
given purely in terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the
monads. This synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to
Br
I can not resit to say something here.
1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person. It can gain the a status
of living god. In the past they wer
I can not resit to say something here.
1)Adivination may be very dangerous, because adivination can be a powerful
way of manipulation. an autoproclaimed adivine can manipulate you or your
society if the the adivine is a powerful person. It can gain the a status
of living god. It can even be a phi
Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social
Science, London School of
Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.
Abstract: David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural human
desires,
On 18 Aug 2012, at 16:41, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Admittedly, the more I dig into Leibniz, the more questions I have.
But I won't abandon him yet, thinking I misunderstood one of his
statements. Or perhaps Russell misunderstood what Leibniz meant.
According to Russell, "Complete set of
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Roger wrote:
> It is the subject line, after all...I change the subject line to keep
> track
>
Just today you have posted 29 times, and the day isn't half over, and
nearly all have new subject lines. Do you really have something new and
meaningful to say about
Hi Roger
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
>
> 1) I can accept your hedonism.
>
>
I do not, even though as musician it influences consciously or not. Leads
again to too many possible conceptions of selves to satisfy. The
computation of "muddling through
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
1) I can accept your hedonism.
2) If you like, you let that be the salf's agenda.
I was thinking of ordinary people in the world.
IMHO A more realistic agenda would be money, sex, and power.
Those failing, you become religious.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/201
Hi John Clark
1) It is the subject line, after all...
I change the subject line to keep track
(I store my replies) of what my replies say.
And this is still about 0s and 1s.
2) I've lost the exact train of throught, but
from what I say, I believe I was trying to point
out that 0s and 1s or ASCI
Hi Richard Ruquist
1) The is no master string to govern the strings,
so strings are unlike monads.
2) Strings are theoretical constructions, which have no meanings.
Monads have meanings derived from the bodies they refer to.
This goes way beyond algebra.
3) Monads can perceive (although
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, as Leibniz puts it, you couldn't tell the difference, they would
"seem" to have windows, but actually, since substances,
being logical entities, cannot actually interact,
they all must communicate instead through the supreme monad,
(the CPU) which presumably read
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Roger wrote:
>You're wrong.
>
It wouldn't be the first time. By the way, it would be helpful it you
didn't change the subject line every time you post, particularly if you
post several dozen times a day.
> Very few if any high school students would even believe
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:46, Roger wrote:
>
> But humans are not entirely governed from outside, they have their own
> agendas.
>
>
>
> We have a top level agenda: maximise self-satisfaction, and minimize
> self-dissatisfaction. This can be
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
I don't think so, because the robot rat seems to keep running into things.
A real rat would skidaddle out of there.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the fo
Hi John Clark
Thanks for that. I guess that the various approximations are
supposedly faster ways to get to that value. Thanks again.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the fol
Hi Bruno Marchal
There is ontological genocide here of everything but numbers.
"Concrete" (below) is here used as a mathematical type,
the implication beuing that the world is made up exclusively of numbers.
What ever happened to the Higgs boson ? What natural number is it ?
Whatever happened
Hi Bruno Marchal
This is probably just my ignorance of what comp is, but there seems to
be a discrepancy between comp, which fits with Plato or Platonism,
and real life, which actually fits more with Aristotle. Plato is
"ought to be" and Aristotle is "is in fact".
There is a troubling dualism
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Roger wrote:
>how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
> don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
>
But we do know the precise value of pi, 250 years ago Euler proved that pi
squared divided by 6 is EXACTLY equal
Roger,
In string theory the monads are responsible for the creation of space via
compactification of the extra dimensions of space. I have never understood
why, especially on the Mind/Brain forum where we already went thru all of
you present thinking, why you never accepted the compact manifolds of
On 18 Aug 2012, at 16:03, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
How can that be ? I'll try to keep that in mind that the natural
numbers are concrete,
OK. It is a bit of a vocabulary choice, but many mathematician agrees
with the idea that a number is more concrete than anything else. Hardy
wr
Hi Bruno Marchal
Admittedly, the more I dig into Leibniz, the more questions I have.
But I won't abandon him yet, thinking I misunderstood one of his
statements. Or perhaps Russell misunderstood what Leibniz meant.
According to Russell, "Complete set of predicates" means "sufficient, complete
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:53, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You might think of intelligence or the self or life as a striving
toward a goal.
Purposeful.
No problem with this. AI can be defined as the art of giving goal to
machines.
And we can already write a general program with a general g
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:50, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
BTW how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
Because PI is a clear concept, and you can prove that some algorithm
computes its exact value, as
Hi Roger,
What you say about evolution is probably true. But evolution
(changes in dna) is not the critical problem.
I was referring to the creation of life (dna), which absolutely must
happen before it evolves.
This might have happened in one day. It is a local and contingent
phenome
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:35, Roger wrote:
IMHO
Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal
logic of Plato, final causes. Eternal truth,
not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No.
Whoa! You are close to Platonism. Nice (with respect to comp).
Science deals
Hi Bruno Marchal
How can that be ? I'll try to keep that in mind that the natural numbers are
concrete,
but to me at least concrete things are physical (exist in spacetime)
while numbers are nonphysical (exist outside of spacetime).
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "I
On 18 Aug 2012, at 15:21, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I was trying to make monads more understandable, I realize that
chips are finite.
The philosophies of Plotinus Leibniz are built on L's different
logics.
a) The philosophy of Plotinus folllows what Leibniz calls the logic
of rea
Hi Bruno Marchal
You might think of intelligence or the self or life as a striving toward a goal.
Purposeful.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Bruno Marchal
BTW how can they know if the calculation of pi is very precise if they
don't really know beforehand what its precise value should be ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Re
On 18 Aug 2012, at 14:47, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Being might be defined as =, meaning "is". It is a state, not a thing.
Then if a state, it is a state relative to some other state. L says
that a more
dominant monad (superior state) will act on and will always act on a
less dominant m
Hi Bruno Marchal
What you say about evolution is probably true. But evolution (changes in dna)
is not the critical problem.
I was referring to the creation of life (dna), which absolutely must happen
before it evolves.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no G
On 18 Aug 2012, at 13:59, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb -- I go with the dictionary:
ab·stract/abˈstrakt/
Adjective:
Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or
concrete existence.
con·crete/känˈkrēt/
Adjective:
Existing in a material or physical form; real or so
Hi Bruno Marchal
Intelligence such as had to be present before the Big Bang, is purposeful and
so looks forward and is pulled toward final causes.
Life is also like that, which puts life as implicitly present before the BB. It
strives and is purposeful (has entelechy).
Dead objects are pushed
On 18 Aug 2012, at 13:41, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. They
dream by encoding computational state
IMHO
Religion deals with the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven: the eternal logic of
Plato, final causes. Eternal truth,
not contingent facts. Either and always Yes or No.
Science deals with the Kingdom of Earth: the contingent world of Aristotle and
Lebniz.
Contingent facts, not eternal truth. S
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> It would be useful if the ratbrain robot scientists would
> try to do some kind of biological imaging (magnetic resonance ? who knows ?)
> to verify that the segment of rat brain isn't just acting as
> an electrical conduct
Hi Bruno Marchal
Intelligence is that which purposely propels living objects into the future
based on final goals.
Dead objects must obey the deterministic physics of efficient (previous) cause.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent
Hi Bruno Marchal
I was trying to make monads more understandable, I realize that chips are
finite.
The philosophies of Plotinus Leibniz are built on L's different logics.
a) The philosophy of Plotinus folllows what Leibniz calls the logic of reason
or necesssity. Heavenly, unchangingly always
Hi Bruno Marchal
Being might be defined as =, meaning "is". It is a state, not a thing.
Then if a state, it is a state relative to some other state. L says that a more
dominant monad (superior state) will act on and will always act on a
less dominant monad. Darwinism, if you like, before Darwin
Thanks, many thanks.
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-18, 05:49:38
Subject: Re: Monads as computing elements
Until the middle of your message i?hough?hat this was in other of my lists, the
haskell list haskell-c
Hi meekerdb
"I think science is about finding good explanations, and "good" means having
scope, consilience, and predictive power - not necessarily deterministic."
That's the purpose of science, not what it seeks.
"Then it is a false belief since it has been found that some events are random.
Hi meekerdb
OK, I have since been informed that the brain itself can focus its activites
and act as a whole as a self.
But IMHO the self is what does the organizing.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could funct
Hi meekerdb,
1) Sorry, I did say "religion", but should have also used that word instead of
the Bible.
2) IMHO wars are fought based on the goals of money, sex, and power, using
religion as a cover.
- Have received the following content -
Sender: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Hi meekerdb -- I go with the dictionary:
ab穝tract/ab'strakt/Adjective:Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a
physical or concrete existence.
con穋rete/k鋘'kret/Adjective:Existing in a material or physical form; real or
solid; not abstract.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Hi meekerdb
Can computers have orgasms ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-17, 14:43:24
Subjec
Hi William R. Buckley
Sort of, but statements (written words on a page) are objective,
words read (as you are reading this) are subjective (in the mind)
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/18/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- R
There is also the mathematical "monad" (see links below). I don't know if they
are the same as Leibniz's monads,
but there is a Leibniz programming language:
http://www.monads-security.org/
"As the hardware development possibilities at Darmstadt were limited Prof.
Keedy worked there from 1982
On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithme
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:52, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view, this is the Chicken vs Egg paradox, my solution
to it being that life has been present even before the Big Bang
in the fiorm of (cosmic) intelligence.
The chicken-egg paradox is solved by a theorem of Kleene in
theoretical comp
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:49, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The possible only exists in this world given enough time.
That is one practical argument against the creation of life in a
deterministic world.
Some say 19 billion years of random constructions isn't enough.
But evolution is not 19
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Roger wrote:
By ontologically primitive entity do you mean substance ?
Well, if by substance you mean "ontologically primitive". I can be OK.
But I prefer to avoid the term "substance", as many interpret it in
the material sense.
Bruno
Roger , rclo...@v
On 18 Aug 2012, at 03:40, Roger wrote:
Monads as computing elements, the supreme monad
as the central processing computer chip.
I think that Leibniz's monads are in some ways similar to computer
calculations,
for they exist in logical, rather than physical space, and all are
capable of
co
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:57, Roger wrote:
I donb't seem to be able to convince Stanley Salthe of this, but
I think that life must have two irreplaceable qualities:
1) Autonomous intelligence, that intelligence of nature found in
our fine-tuned world.
2) What amounts to the same thing, th
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:49, Roger wrote:
What if I put on a fake moustache ? Or glasses ?
Would the computer still know it's me ?
Some will, some will not. Today, we can program a computer which
recognize better a fake signature than most human could. So, hand made
machines might be bet
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:40, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I apologize for my abruptness. Agreed, mathematics can have God-like
powers.
Nice.
By blueprint I meant mental pre-conception of a world. Thus there
had to be intelligence
before the Big Bang to create the world as such. This pre
On 17 Aug 2012, at 22:26, Roger wrote:
1) For wine-tasting -- What one must have is knowing that one knows
that the wine tastes good.
Such as one can prove that 1+1 =2 but one still has to accept
that as true.
Yes. In fact the proof that "1+1=2" will lead to the truth of "1+1=2",
Hi Roger,
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:35, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
More simply, materialism contains no concept of a singular focussed
agent, the self.
That is true but not obvious to prove. The problem is that a priori
materialism is compatible with mechanism. It looks like we can
impl
2012/8/16 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the COMP
> hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a simulation of
> the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons I will descr
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
Are there any explicitly known arithmetic propositions which must
be true or false under Peanao's axioms, but which are known to be
unprovable? If we const
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and
religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit
of fear
because most people b
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers,
0, +, and *, right?) a
On 17 Aug 2012, at 20:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/17/2012 10:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view (perhaps not yours) things are as they are and move as
they
do for a reason, called "sufficient reason".
Science is the pursuit of sufficient reasons.
I doubt that. I think science is
On 17 Aug 2012, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> in case the special characters don't come out...
>
> I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (number
Until the middle of your message i though that this was in other of my
lists, the haskell list haskell-c...@haskell.org.
Haskell is a language that uses "monads" . But in tis case, the concept is
borrowed from category theory. But the categorists probably borrowed it
from Leibniz .
Each monad def
On 17 Aug 2012, at 17:23, Roger wrote:
Wouldn't Godel incompleteness be the fatal flaw in at least some
Turing machines ?
It is a "fatal flaw" in the sense that it prevents all Turing machine,
including all universal machines, to be omniscient, even just about
arithmetic and machines.
69 matches
Mail list logo
