Re: The Meaning of Life

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the
> chocolate
> > > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
> be
> > > explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology
> etc., only
> > > the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
> > > experience.


Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and
> personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is
> claiming that there's some normative rules governing them.  I agree:
> How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the
> "right" way of interpreting things?  Not! This is not what I am
> talking about.  You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order
> to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning.
>
> Personal feelings of "oo that's good" or "bleah" are fine for what
> they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision
> making system?  Without real morality the answer *must* be yes.  As in
> Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that "whatever I
> *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good
> stuff, is good stuff".  Marquis de Sade with no escape.


It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the
tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for
example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that
they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of
profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for
this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to
explain it, and to explain morality as well.

Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 3/9/07, John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>  Stathis:
> your starting the argument: "IF" the M-W-I(dea) is valid, it it seems to
> imply"...which is a bit shaky (what if not?) - the "law-like" is a breakable
> compromise between confro nting arguments. Do I read some denigration of the
> White Rabbit? (coming from a wide interpretation of "all possible")
>

I was merely pointing out that it is a problem to be explained, and Russell
has provided one explanation. As for the "if", well, we wouldn't want to get
too dogmatic about the things we discuss here, would we?

 Now to the meat of it:
> have you ever tried to outline the 'mind' of the early hiominid to
> survive? Before Immanuel Kant and even the Mother Goddess? Maybe with some
> notion of the most advanced and best weaponry 'ever': the hand--ax? or the
> 'mind' of an amoeba?
> Just asking questions in extension of ourselves.
>

You are perhaps asking about paleopsychology, a field I don't know anything
about, if anyone does. However, I was talking about what it means to survive
rather than the process whereby survival might be ensured.

Stathis Papaioannou

  - Original Message -
> *From:* Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
> SP wrote to BM:
> How so?  The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive no matter
> what. The consequences of natural selection obtain only within worlds which
> are law-like - and we're back to the white rabbit problem.
>
> You survive if a sufficiently close analogue of your mind survives. This
> can theoretically happen in many ways other than the obvious one (survival
> of your physical body): in parallel worlds, in a distant part of our own
> world if it is infinite in extent, in the Turing machine at the end of time.
> The white rabbit universes are a problem: since we don't observe them, maybe
> these theories are wrong, or maybe there is some other reason why we don't
> observe them.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Tom Caylor]

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tom Caylor wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with the Russell quote as it stands.  Unendingness is not what
> > > > gives meaning.  The source of meaning is not "living forever" in time
> > > > (contrary to the trans-humanists) but is timeless.  However, the quote
> > >
> > > > makes a bad assumption when it talks about losing value.  The real
> > > > problem is how there can be any true objective value to love in the
> > > > first place (other than the so-called "irrefutable" first person:
> > > > "It's all about me").
> > >
> > > Why should there be?  Values are relative to people.  Love is our
> > > word.  We invented it to describe what we feel.  Having some Platonic form
> > > of LOVE out there is superfluous.  You're just making up a requirement for
> > > "the really real ding-an-sich" so that you can say God provides it.
> > >
> >
> > You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the chocolate
> > fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can be
> > explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology etc., only
> > the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
> > experience.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
>
> I hope that didn't come across as facetious, Tom. These are serious
> questions and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with an
> intelligent and scientifically well-informed theist.
>
> Stathis
>

Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and
personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is
claiming that there's some normative rules governing them.  I agree:
How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the
"right" way of interpreting things?  Not! This is not what I am
talking about.  You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order
to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning.

Personal feelings of "oo that's good" or "bleah" are fine for what
they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision
making system?  Without real morality the answer *must* be yes.  As in
Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that "whatever I
*happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good
stuff, is good stuff".  Marquis de Sade with no escape.

Tom


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
> 1/   [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance
> within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black
> hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity,
> would it not?


Yes, but it could take a very long time to get there in a massive enough
black hole.

Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: JOINING post

[John M]

I feel a misunderstanding here:

"origination point" IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent 
'point' (within and for) the evolving total to grow out from. 
As I used 'origination" refers to the entailment producing such "point" - if we 
use a 'point' to start with. 
Such 'point' is the limit we can go back to, not further to 'its' entailing 
circumstgances we have no access to. 
I tried to adjust to a vocabulary I responded to, not my own and preferred one. 
Hence the misunderstandability.  Sorry.

John Mikes
  - Original Message - 
  From: 明迪 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 AM
  Subject: Re: JOINING post


  Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the same 
as the word 'origination-point'.

  You said: (1)

1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.


  And you also said: (2)

we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it 
may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely).


  From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items later 
or equal to origination-point." 

  I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.


  Mindaugas Indriunas


  On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use 

in our speculations only our present cognitive
inventory of our existing mind.
No information from super(extra)natural sources
included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier
items than the origination-point (whatever it may be) 
of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite
precisely).
Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg
cannot 'generate' information about ' no information'
topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence 
items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion.
What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the
conventionally outlined "scientific method".

John M



--- 明迪 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Dear John Mikes.
>
> I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
> to 1 part of your
> letter:
>
> 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know. 
>
>
> If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does
> produce the data that
> we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to
> (with some certainty)
> know it. Even the cellular automaton that is 
> equivalent to universal turing
> machine, has its beginning.
>
> Mindaugas Indriunas
> 
>
>
>
>


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

[John M]

Stathis:
your starting the argument: "IF" the M-W-I(dea) is valid, it it seems to 
imply"...which is a bit shaky (what if not?) - the "law-like" is a breakable 
compromise between confro nting arguments. Do I read some denigration of the 
White Rabbit? (coming from a wide interpretation of "all possible")
Now to the meat of it: 
have you ever tried to outline the 'mind' of the early hiominid to survive? 
Before Immanuel Kant and even the Mother Goddess? Maybe with some notion of the 
most advanced and best weaponry 'ever': the hand--ax? or the 'mind' of an 
amoeba? 
Just asking questions in extension of ourselves.

John

  - Original Message - 
  From: Stathis Papaioannou 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM
  Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
  SP wrote to BM:
  How so?  The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive no matter what. 
The consequences of natural selection obtain only within worlds which are 
law-like - and we're back to the white rabbit problem. 

  You survive if a sufficiently close analogue of your mind survives. This can 
theoretically happen in many ways other than the obvious one (survival of your 
physical body): in parallel worlds, in a distant part of our own world if it is 
infinite in extent, in the Turing machine at the end of time. The white rabbit 
universes are a problem: since we don't observe them, maybe these theories are 
wrong, or maybe there is some other reason why we don't observe them. 

  Stathis Papaioannou


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: JOINING post

[John Mikes]

2 objections:

A. If I state that i cannot do something that does not (logically) imply
that I CAN do another thing.

B. Your last line is "your opinion" substantiated by nothing, I appreciate
anybodies "opinion" as such, it may have a personal (not factual) meaning -
weight.

We diverted from my point that I resist to "reach back" in statements to a
state that may have been (or may not have been?) before (outside?) our
comprehensive limits.

John M



On 3/6/07, 明迪 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the
> same as the word 'origination-point'.
>
> You said: (1)
>
> >  1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> >
>
> And you also said: (2)
>
> > we CANNOT reach to earlier items than the origination-point (whatever it
> > may be) of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite precisely).
> >
>
> From (2) claim it logically follows a statement "we can reach to items
> later or equal to origination-point."
>
> I agree (2) statement, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.
>
>
> Mindaugas Indriunas
>
> On 3/5/07, John M < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
> > what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use
> >
> > in our speculations only our present cognitive
> > inventory of our existing mind.
> > No information from super(extra)natural sources
> > included. Accoredingly we CANNOT reach to earlier
> > items than the origination-point (whatever it may be)
> > of our existence (I called it 'universe', not quite
> > precisely).
> > Nor can a 'valid' ALGORITHM reach back further. Itg
> > cannot 'generate' information about ' no information'
> > topics. All we can speak about are intra-existence
> > items, the rest is fantasy, sci-fi, religion.
> > What I may use in a narrative, but by no means in the
> > conventionally outlined "scientific method".
> >
> > John M
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 明迪 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear John Mikes.
> > >
> > > I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
> > > to 1 part of your
> > > letter:
> > >
> > > 1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
> > >
> > >
> > > If we do come up with an alorythm that actually does
> > > produce the data that
> > > we postdict (predict in the past), we may be able to
> > > (with some certainty)
> > > know it. Even the cellular automaton that is
> > > equivalent to universal turing
> > > machine, has its beginning.
> > >
> > > Mindaugas Indriunas
> > > http://i.tai.lt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > >
> >

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

[Mark Peaty]

SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event 
horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being 
inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.'

MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind.
1/   [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance 
within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black 
hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the singularity, 
would it not?

2/   I once heard someone on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 
Radio National Science Show [on every Saturday after the midday news] 
describing our universe in these terms. His point was that whatever we 
might think about what was 'beyond' the bounds of 'our' universe, 
nothing from here can escape to 'there'. As I understand it this is in 
line with Einstein's concept of the universe being closed in upon 
itself, the key cause of which is gravity, the curvature of space-time.


MP: Going off at a tangent, I have a question which is quite possibly a 
dumb question that just needs to be asked because it CAN be asked.

Preamble: The expansion of the universe, characterised by the Hubble 
Constant I believe, is usually explained non-mathematically by analogy 
with the stretching of the surface of a balloon as the balloon is 
inflated. The balloon surface is stretched uniformly, pretty much, by 
its having everywhere the same tensile strength and elasticity and by 
the force which causes the deformation being applied equally all over 
because it is the averaged effect of all the gas particles within the 
contained volume. That much makes sense, and the overall effect is to 
cause point locations on the surface of the balloon to recede from one 
another at a rate which is proportional at any given moment to the 
distance between the points, measured along the surface.

Question: Would it be mathematically equivalent, or significantly 
different,  to consider the measured change in size and in distances as 
a uniform *contraction* of the metric, ie the measuring system, rather 
than an expansion of the location, so to speak. In particular, why is it 
not feasible to consider the Big Bang and subsequent Inflationary epoch 
as being in effect a collapse?

 
Regards
Mark Peaty  CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
 


Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On 3/8/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
>
> NB: I hope that my imaginary destination in your speculation of
> possible
> post mortem exploits for my erstwhile sceptical soul is not a
> post-Freudian slip. I know that many of my contributions to this and
> other lists have lacked the erudite succinctness of those with greater
> talents; failure of concentration [AKA 'ADD'] has been a
> characteristic
> of life for me, but I think that 'awaking' to the innards of a black
> whole would do more than wonderfully concentrate the mind:
> concentration
> itself would become the major problem even for a ghost! =-O
>
>
> You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event 
> horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being 
> inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> >

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---