Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
As usual with scientific journalism, the media over hypes the more modest claims of the original article: We analyzed bee flight movements in an array of four artificial flowers maximizing interfloral distances. Starting from a single patch, we sequentially added three new patches so that if bees visited them in the order in which they originally encountered flowers, they would follow a long (suboptimal) route. Bees' tendency to visit patches in their discovery order decreased with experience. Instead, they optimized their flight distances by rearranging flower visitation sequences. This resulted in the development of a primary route (trapline) and two or three less frequently used secondary routes. Bees consistently used these routes after overnight breaks while occasionally exploring novel possibilities. We discuss how maintaining some level of route flexibility could allow traplining animals to cope with dynamic routing problems, analogous to the well-known traveling salesman problem. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973670 On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/**news/items/se/38864.htmlhttp://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.htmlhttp://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Prime Numbers
On 19 Sep 2012, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:39 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, Your remarks raise an interesting question: Could it be that both the object and the means to generate (or perceive) it are of equal importance ontologically? Yes. It comes from the embedding of the subject in the objects, that any monist theory has to do somehow. In computer science, the universal (in the sense of Turing) association i - phi_i, transforms N into an applicative algebra. The numbers are both perceivers and perceived according of their place x and y in the relation of phi_x(y). You can define the applicative operation by x # y = phi_x(y). The combinators are not far away from this, and provides intensional and extensional models. I remind you that phi_i represent the ith computable function in some effective universal enumeration of the partial computable functions. You can take LISP, or c++ to fix the things. Bruno Dear Bruno, You are highlighting of the key property of a number, that it can both represent itself and some other number. It is a key property of anything finite, not just number. Lists and strings do this even more easily and naturally. My question becomes, how does one track the difference between these representations? By quotations, like when using Gödel number, or quoted list in LISP. Those are computable operations. You speak of measures, but I have never seen how relative measures are discussed or defined in modal logic. ? A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability one. In Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds accessible from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world. This gives KD modal logics, with K: = [](p - q)-([]p - []q), and D: []p - p. Of course with [] for Gödel's beweisbar we don't have that D is a theorem, so we ensure the D property by defining a new box, Bp = []p t. It seems to me that if we have the possibility of a Godel numbering scheme on the integers, then we lose the ability to define a global index set on subsets of those integers ? unless we can somehow call upon something that is not a number and thus not directly representable by a number.. ? Not clear. We appeal to something non representable by adding the p in the definition of the modal box, but this is for the qualia and first person notion. The Dt (and variant like DDt, DDBDt, etc.) should give the first person plural, normally. many possibility remains, as the quantum p - []p appears in the three main material variants of: S4Grz1, Z1*, and X1*, for p arithmetic sigma_1 proposition (the arithmetical UD). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. Yes. And self-torture exists. It is called masochism. Is God a masochist? That would explain some things, but I am not sure It can qualify for that, as God, according to many religious theories, has no nameable attribute. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. The thing about religion is that we shouldn't believe it because it's FALSE, not because it's BAD. Something could be BAD but TRUE. I find it odd that both religious and anti-religious people often miss this point and talk about the good or bad effects (respectively) of religious belief. Well of course that is because almost all religions claim that their revelation defines what is good and bad, independent of mere human opinion. So if one shows that the revelation's definition of good or bad is preposterous (like an all loving God who tortures people for not worshipping Him) then at least that much of the theology is false. Yes, the hope for God is most of the time a hope for Good, and for ultimate justice. Of course once we do theology with the scientific method, we have to keep in mind not to fall in wishful thinking, even if it appears that wishful thinking might play a role in the building of realities (as this can't be excluded too). Of course I mean ideal science, as the human science is also influenced by wishes. Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants to, then how comes evil in the world?' --- Epicurus Good summary of a key theological problem. The platonist answer is that God is impotent, on this. Matter is the evil locus where God lose control, a bit like God cannot predict where you will feel after a self-duplication. In comp and Platonism (in the greek old sense, not in math), and perhaps in QM, evil and matter have a similar origin: indeterminacy. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing
BRUNO: I think that your metaphysics and reading of Leibniz makes sense for me, and comp, but I have to say I don't follow your methodology or teaching method on the religious field, as it contains authoritative arguments. ROGER: Everything I write should be prefaced with IMHO. BRUNO: My feeling is that authoritative argument is the symptom of those who lack faith. ROGER: That doesn't make sense, because faith= trust. And if you don't trust, nothing is authoritative. BRUNO: That error is multiplied in the transfinite when an authoritative argument is attributed to God. ROGER: Sorry, no comprehende. BRUNO: you answer the following question? How could anyone love a God, or a Goddess, threatening you of eternal torture in case you don't love He or She? That's bizarre. How could even just an atom of sincerity reside in that love, with such an explicit horrible threat? ROGER: That love and all love, comes from God, not from me. BRUNO: I hope you don't mind my frankness and the naivety of my questioning. Bruno ROGER: Not at all, as in my experience most agnosticism or atheism is is a product of ignorance, if you don't mind my saying that. :-) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 17:17:40 Subject: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing Ha ha: so not consciousness is the 'thing', but 'intelligence'? or is this one also a function (of the brain towards the self?) who is the self? how does the brain DO something ? (as a homunculus?) on its own? Any suggestions? John M??? On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO conscousness is not really anything in itself, it is what the brain makes of its contents that the self perceives. The self is intelligence, which is able to focus all pertinent brain activity to a unified point. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 23:43:08 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02:16 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craig Weinberg ?rote: I understand that, but it still assumes that there is a such thing as a set of functions which could be identified and reproduced that cause consciousness. I don't assume that, because consciousness isn't like anything else. It is the source of all functions and appearances, not the effect of them. Once you have consciousness in the universe, then it can be enhanced and altered in infinite ways, but none of them can replace the experience that is your own. No, the paper does *not* assume that there is a set of functions that if reproduced will will cause consciousness. It assumes that something like what you are saying is right. By assume I mean the implicit assumptions which are unstated in the paper. The thought experiment comes out of a paradox arising from assumptions about qualia and the brain which are both false in my view. I see the brain as the flattened qualia of human experience. This is the point of the thought experiment. The limitations of all forms of measurement and perception preclude all possibility of there ever being a such thing as an exhaustively complete set of third person behaviors of any system. What is it that you don't think I understand? What you don't understand is that an exhaustively complete set of behaviours is not required. Yes, it is. Not for prosthetic enhancements, or repairs to a nervous system, but to replace a nervous system without replacing the person who is using it, yes, there is no set of behaviors which can ever be exhaustive enough in theory to accomplish that. You might be able to do it biologically, but there is no reason to trust it unless and until someone can be walked off of their brain for a few weeks or months and then walked back on. The replacement components need only be within the engineering tolerance of the nervous system components. This is a difficult task but it is achievable in principle. You assume that consciousness can be replaced, but I understand exactly why it can't. You can believe that there is no difference between scooping out your brain stem and replacing it with a functional equivalent as long as it was well engineered, but to me it's a completely misguided notion. Consciousness doesn't exist on the outside of us. Engineering only deals with exteriors. If the universe were designed by engineers, there could be no consciousness. Yes, that is exactly what the paper assumes. Exactly that! It still is modeling the experience of
Re: Re: music on my mind
Hi Craig Weinberg My understanding of brain scans is that what they are seeing when one listens to music are electromagnegtic signals. These can be of some use, but how to interpret them as music is beyond me. Materialism can monitor the effects of experiences, which again can be of some use, but I for one would like to be able to somehow connect directly to the experience in some way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 11:43:08 Subject: Re: music on my mind On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:36:03 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: There are two ways of looking at a music signal. I think it's a mistake to look at it that way. There is no such thing as a music signal. There is no such thing as a signal. They are abstract generalizations. Conceptual equivalences with no concrete reality. What is a music signal? There is an experience of hearing music. There are experiences of remembering a song that is independent of the memory of the original circumstance of the listening event. There are experiences of feeling a speaker cone vibrate, or seeing neurological changes mapped with an electronic instrument, vibrating strings on a guitar or vocal chords, etc. These are all different concretely real experiences in the universe. Any continuity between them is inferred subjectively. All that a signal can actually be is an experience which is interpreted as having significance. One is to view it on an oscilloscope as a series of vibrations. This is what the brain does. Whatever the brain does is also what we do. If we look at the brain with eyeballs or an EEG, then we can only see a tiny fraction of what the brain does - a fraction which does not overlap with the rest of what the brain-self does and is. If we use an oscilloscope to look at the brain, then we will think that he brain does what an oscilloscope does. The other is to listen to it through earphones. This is what mind does. It decodes the voltages into sounds. The brain can't hear sounds, it only knows voltages. I don't think anything is being decoded. There is an experience of music which is accessed through the overlap between sub-personal and super-personal experienced, which facilitates an irreducibly personal experience. The public and impersonal dual aspect of this experience looks like the activity of a brain when we find it outside of ourselves. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 01:57:26 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:33:50 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:29:44 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Here is an example: Functional MRI scans have indicated that an area of the brain, called the?anterior cingulate cortex, processes pain information to determine how a person is affected.?Severing the link to this part of the brain has a curious effect on one's reaction to pain.?A condition known as?pain dissociation?s the result.?Along with brain surgery such as lobotomy or cingulotomy, the condition may also occur through the administration of certain drugs such as morphine.?Those with pain dissociation still perceive pain; they are aware of its location and intensity but pain is no longer unpleasant or distressing.?Paul Brand, a surgeon and author on the subject of pain recounted the case of a woman who had suffered with a severe and chronic pain for more than a decade: She agreed to a surgery that would separate the neural pathways between her frontal lobes and the rest of her brain.?The surgery was a success.?Brand visited the woman a year later, and inquired about her pain.?She said, ?h, yes, its still there.?I just don't worry about it anymore.??ith a smile she continued, ?n fact, it's still agonizing.?But I don't mind.? The conclusion: even seemingly simple qualia, like pain are far from simple. That is a conclusion, but I think the wrong one. Human qualia are not simple, but that does not at all mean that qualia re not simple. I agree with this. We are titanically enormous organisms made of other organisms. Our human experience is loaded with cognitive, emotional, and sensory qualia, corresponding to the evolution of life, our species, cultures, families, and individuals. Our pain is a Taj Mahal, and if you remove enough bricks, some towers fall and maybe one part of the palace no longer relates to another part. What you describe suggests exactly that - some part of us feels
Re: Re: music on my mind
Hi Craig Weinberg There are some descriptive theories of music but no prescriptive theories. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 13:56:06 Subject: Re: music on my mind On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:41:33 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I am not saying arithmetic = music; I have no idea about that, just that the two can't do without each other. I think that is true of any form of expression or communication, since the formations which are used to induce the experiences (of music, art, poetry, etc) in the audience are constructed from material manipulations in spacetime. Anytime something has to be expressed externally, it has to be packaged with arithmetically coherent protocols. That doesn't of course mean that music is those protocols, only that any production of music can be analyzed arithmetically. Without an experience of sound associated with the arithmetic, there is nothing but a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I1zgxPr1KwIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing
On 20 Sep 2012, at 11:45, Roger Clough wrote: BRUNO: I think that your metaphysics and reading of Leibniz makes sense for me, and comp, but I have to say I don't follow your methodology or teaching method on the religious field, as it contains authoritative arguments. ROGER: Everything I write should be prefaced with IMHO. BRUNO: My feeling is that authoritative argument is the symptom of those who lack faith. ROGER: That doesn't make sense, because faith= trust. And if you don't trust, nothing is authoritative. BRUNO: That error is multiplied in the transfinite when an authoritative argument is attributed to God. ROGER: Sorry, no comprehende. I can trust entities which provides explanations, not entities threatening with torture in case I do not love them. Humans have attributed to God authoritative arguments, with the result of justifying their own use of it. I can understand such argument in warfare, or when decision must be taken without the time to make a rational decision, but in the religious field, I think that authoritative argument have to fail, they only display the lack of faith of those who use them, or, more often, they display their special terrestrial interests. BRUNO: you answer the following question? How could anyone love a God, or a Goddess, threatening you of eternal torture in case you don't love He or She? That's bizarre. How could even just an atom of sincerity reside in that love, with such an explicit horrible threat? ROGER: That love and all love, comes from God, not from me. But then why God has to threaten his creature to get love from them? And again, how could that love be sincere? This does not make sense. Bruno BRUNO: I hope you don't mind my frankness and the naivety of my questioning. Bruno ROGER: Not at all, as in my experience most agnosticism or atheism is is a product of ignorance, if you don't mind my saying that. :-) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 17:17:40 Subject: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing Ha ha: so not consciousness is the 'thing', but 'intelligence'? or is this one also a function (of the brain towards the self?) who is the self? how does the brain DO something ? (as a homunculus?) on its own? Any suggestions? John M??? On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO conscousness is not really anything in itself, it is what the brain makes of its contents that the self perceives. The self is intelligence, which is able to focus all pertinent brain activity to a unified point. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 23:43:08 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02:16 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craig Weinberg ?rote: I understand that, but it still assumes that there is a such thing as a set of functions which could be identified and reproduced that cause consciousness. I don't assume that, because consciousness isn't like anything else. It is the source of all functions and appearances, not the effect of them. Once you have consciousness in the universe, then it can be enhanced and altered in infinite ways, but none of them can replace the experience that is your own. No, the paper does *not* assume that there is a set of functions that if reproduced will will cause consciousness. It assumes that something like what you are saying is right. By assume I mean the implicit assumptions which are unstated in the paper. The thought experiment comes out of a paradox arising from assumptions about qualia and the brain which are both false in my view. I see the brain as the flattened qualia of human experience. This is the point of the thought experiment. The limitations of all forms of measurement and perception preclude all possibility of there ever being a such thing as an exhaustively complete set of third person behaviors of any system. What is it that you don't think I understand? What you don't understand is that an exhaustively complete set of behaviours is not required. Yes, it is. Not for prosthetic enhancements, or repairs to a nervous system, but to replace a nervous system without replacing the person who is using it, yes, there is no set of behaviors which can ever be exhaustive enough in theory to accomplish that. You might be able to do it biologically, but there is no reason to trust it unless and until someone can be walked off of their brain for a few weeks or months and then walked back on. The replacement components need only be
From cacophony to a singular point of perception.
Hi Stathis Papaioannou The brain is dead meat unless something like vitalism or intelligence or consciousness is there to not only to provide life but to explain how the brain works. How is the brain able to focus its cacophony of electromagnetic signals into a perception ? For the brain is a complex bundle of nerves and electromagnetic signals that, without something to organize and focus its experiences, would only provide us with chaotic noise. The self does that. It provides us with a singular unifed point of experience, that is to say, the self provides us with perception. Do you have an alternate explanation ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 13:42:05 Subject: Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou OK, I'll bite. How does modern biology define life ? It's rarely defined unless someone asks for a definition. Problems arise with the definition when it comes to viruses and prions, which have some characteristics of other entities commonly considered alive but not others. We can imagine other cases of entities that grow, replicate and maintain homeostasis but may or may not be said to be alive based on some other arbitrary criterion, such as whether it uses organic chemistry. Thus a machine (electronic and mechanical) that maintains itself, seeks energy and spare parts from its environment and makes copies of itself may or may not be called alive depending on the whim of the definer. But the important point I wanted to make is that biologists reject vitalism. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Life requires autonomy
Hi meekerdb I would say that one necessary ability for life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off from its environment and thus to be able to make its own decisions without outside interference. In other words, to be autonomous. Materialism provides no such focussing tool. I would call that tool a self, primitive though it may be. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 15:05:52 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 9/19/2012 10:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou OK, I'll bite. How does modern biology define life ? It's rarely defined unless someone asks for a definition. Problems arise with the definition when it comes to viruses and prions, which have some characteristics of other entities commonly considered alive but not others. I think they illustrate the point that the ability to live is always relative to an environment. Brent We can imagine other cases of entities that grow, replicate and maintain homeostasis but may or may not be said to be alive based on some other arbitrary criterion, such as whether it uses organic chemistry. Thus a machine (electronic and mechanical) that maintains itself, seeks energy and spare parts from its environment and makes copies of itself may or may not be called alive depending on the whim of the definer. But the important point I wanted to make is that biologists reject vitalism. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Hi Bruno Marchal Everything that God does by definition is just. God is righteous and he is justice itself. Perhaps it is not the best, but the best possible action in this contingent world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:28:08 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. Yes. And self-torture exists. It is called masochism. Is God a masochist? That would explain some things, but I am not sure It can qualify for that, as God, according to many religious theories, has no nameable attribute. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Hi Bruno Marchal God is just but he has to apply his justice to a contingent, imperfect world-- although Leibniz suggests that it is the best posible world. The scientific method cannot tell the just from the unjust. Would you trust your fate to the scientific method ? I sure wouldn't. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:45:13 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. The thing about religion is that we shouldn't believe it because it's FALSE, not because it's BAD. Something could be BAD but TRUE. I find it odd that both religious and anti-religious people often miss this point and talk about the good or bad effects (respectively) of religious belief. Well of course that is because almost all religions claim that their revelation defines what is good and bad, independent of mere human opinion. So if one shows that the revelation's definition of good or bad is preposterous (like an all loving God who tortures people for not worshipping Him) then at least that much of the theology is false. Yes, the hope for God is most of the time a hope for Good, and for ultimate justice. Of course once we do theology with the scientific method, we have to keep in mind not to fall in wishful thinking, even if it appears that wishful thinking might play a role in the building of realities (as this can't be excluded too). Of course I mean ideal science, as the human science is also influenced by wishes. Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants to, then how comes evil in the world?' --- Epicurus Good summary of a key theological problem. The platonist answer is that God is impotent, on this. Matter is the evil locus where God lose control, a bit like God cannot predict where you will feel after a self-duplication. In comp and Platonism (in the greek old sense, not in math), and perhaps in QM, evil and matter have a similar origin: indeterminacy. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Hi Bruno Marchal The nazis did everything by the scientific method- using Darwin as a guide. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 05:45:13 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:01, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. The thing about religion is that we shouldn't believe it because it's FALSE, not because it's BAD. Something could be BAD but TRUE. I find it odd that both religious and anti-religious people often miss this point and talk about the good or bad effects (respectively) of religious belief. Well of course that is because almost all religions claim that their revelation defines what is good and bad, independent of mere human opinion. So if one shows that the revelation's definition of good or bad is preposterous (like an all loving God who tortures people for not worshipping Him) then at least that much of the theology is false. Yes, the hope for God is most of the time a hope for Good, and for ultimate justice. Of course once we do theology with the scientific method, we have to keep in mind not to fall in wishful thinking, even if it appears that wishful thinking might play a role in the building of realities (as this can't be excluded too). Of course I mean ideal science, as the human science is also influenced by wishes. Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants to, then how comes evil in the world?' --- Epicurus Good summary of a key theological problem. The platonist answer is that God is impotent, on this. Matter is the evil locus where God lose control, a bit like God cannot predict where you will feel after a self-duplication. In comp and Platonism (in the greek old sense, not in math), and perhaps in QM, evil and matter have a similar origin: indeterminacy. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing
Hi Bruno Marchal If you want to be the one who judges, who decides what is best or if it is logical or not, that's not trust, it's the way of the world. Secularism. The problem with secularism is that it cannot help you in a time of suffering or sorrow. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 06:06:06 Subject: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing On 20 Sep 2012, at 11:45, Roger Clough wrote: BRUNO: I think that your metaphysics and reading of Leibniz makes sense for me, and comp, but I have to say I don't follow your methodology or teaching method on the religious field, as it contains authoritative arguments. ROGER: Everything I write should be prefaced with IMHO. BRUNO: My feeling is that authoritative argument is the symptom of those who lack faith. ROGER: That doesn't make sense, because faith= trust. And if you don't trust, nothing is authoritative. BRUNO: That error is multiplied in the transfinite when an authoritative argument is attributed to God. ROGER: Sorry, no comprehende. I can trust entities which provides explanations, not entities threatening with torture in case I do not love them. Humans have attributed to God authoritative arguments, with the result of justifying their own use of it. I can understand such argument in warfare, or when decision must be taken without the time to make a rational decision, but in the religious field, I think that authoritative argument have to fail, they only display the lack of faith of those who use them, or, more often, they display their special terrestrial interests. BRUNO: you answer the following question? How could anyone love a God, or a Goddess, threatening you of eternal torture in case you don't love He or She? That's bizarre. How could even just an atom of sincerity reside in that love, with such an explicit horrible threat? ROGER: That love and all love, comes from God, not from me. But then why God has to threaten his creature to get love from them? And again, how could that love be sincere? This does not make sense. Bruno BRUNO: I hope you don't mind my frankness and the naivety of my questioning. Bruno ROGER: Not at all, as in my experience most agnosticism or atheism is is a product of ignorance, if you don't mind my saying that. :-) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 17:17:40 Subject: Re: IMHO conscousness is an activity not a thing Ha ha: so not consciousness is the 'thing', but 'intelligence'? or is this one also a function (of the brain towards the self?) who is the self? how does the brain DO something ? (as a homunculus?) on its own? Any suggestions? John M??? On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO conscousness is not really anything in itself, it is what the brain makes of its contents that the self perceives. The self is intelligence, which is able to focus all pertinent brain activity to a unified point. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 23:43:08 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Monday, September 17, 2012 11:02:16 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Craig Weinberg ?rote: I understand that, but it still assumes that there is a such thing as a set of functions which could be identified and reproduced that cause consciousness. I don't assume that, because consciousness isn't like anything else. It is the source of all functions and appearances, not the effect of them. Once you have consciousness in the universe, then it can be enhanced and altered in infinite ways, but none of them can replace the experience that is your own. No, the paper does *not* assume that there is a set of functions that if reproduced will will cause consciousness. It assumes that something like what you are saying is right. By assume I mean the implicit assumptions which are unstated in the paper. The thought experiment comes out of a paradox arising from assumptions about qualia and the brain which are both false in my view. I see the brain as the flattened qualia of human experience. This is the point of the thought experiment. The limitations of all forms of measurement and perception preclude all possibility of there ever being a such
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
Collective consciousness On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness requires an autonomous self. So does life itself. And intelligence. So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a problem with mereology, don't know. Also, have you seen Jan Smuts' Holism? Maybe he solved the problem. He was a lousy general but a good thinker otherwise. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Pragmatically speaking, the self has to be a singular, focussed point. I have trouble understanding how that can be done with a network of nerve signals. The semantic of all programs, like the so called denotational semantics, involves abstract points in abstract space. We don't need physical or geometrical points as consciousness is related to the abstract emulation. You should not reduce a person to the network of its nerves, as the person is an immaterial entity, only using its brain, like you are using a computer right now. It might help you to understand that weak materialism (the doctrine asserting the existence of primitive substance) is not compatible with computationalism, so your network of nerves is mainly a fictitious way to describe the brain as an object. You are using a physical supervenience thesis which simply can't work once we assume comp (and don't throw consciousness in the trash). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-19, 11:51:00 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Sep 19, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch My ionterpretation of the result of the brain splitting on pain perception is that her self is on one side and the feeling of pain is on the other. Thus she feels the pain, but cannot associate to her self (doesn't care). I would agree, but add that the self, in this case, is found in the connected parts of the majority of her brain. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-18, 14:14:31 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/18/2012 10:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: No it is absolutely necessary. If you had no knowledge regarding what you were seeing, no qualia at all, you would be blind and dysfunctional. You might cite blund sighr as a counter example, but actually i think it is evidence of modularity if mind. Those with blind sight appear to have a disconnect between the visual processing parts of their brain and others. For example, they may still have reflexes, like the ability to avoid obsticles or catch a thrown ball, but the language center of their brain is disconnected, and so the part of the brain that talks says it can't see. I agree. But it raises a question about the woman who feels pain but doesn't care. Who is it that doesn't care? Obviously the conscious person who tells you they don't care. But is there another, inarticulate person who feels the pain? or does care? Brent, Good question, and a scary thought. I think this might be likely in the case of a fully split brain, but correspondingly less likely the smaller the isolated (disconnected) part of the brain is. Unconsciousness under anesthesia results from brain regions becoming isolated from each other. Maybe they are still conscious but cut off from the memory, motion control, and speaking areas, so we have no evidence of the consciousness of the sub-regions. Jason Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message
Re: Life requires autonomy
On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I would say that one necessary ability for life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off from its environment and thus to be able to make its own decisions without outside interference. In other words, to be autonomous. Materialism provides no such focussing tool. I would call that tool a self, primitive though it may be. You really should study computer science, as the self is a solved problem. Bot the 3p-self, and the non nameable 1p-self. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 15:05:52 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 9/19/2012 10:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou OK, I'll bite. How does modern biology define life ? It's rarely defined unless someone asks for a definition. Problems arise with the definition when it comes to viruses and prions, which have some characteristics of other entities commonly considered alive but not others. I think they illustrate the point that the ability to live is always relative to an environment. Brent We can imagine other cases of entities that grow, replicate and maintain homeostasis but may or may not be said to be alive based on some other arbitrary criterion, such as whether it uses organic chemistry. Thus a machine (electronic and mechanical) that maintains itself, seeks energy and spare parts from its environment and makes copies of itself may or may not be called alive depending on the whim of the definer. But the important point I wanted to make is that biologists reject vitalism. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Faith, hope and love
Hi Craig Weinberg You can see from all of the flack I get here that being a believer, since you believe in something seemingly to be nonsense (especially to the scientific mind), those that think rightly have the obligation to try to save you from this insanity. No surprises there. It certainly sounds nutty. Without trying to compare myself with Jesus or the jews, or to make myself seem better than anybody, this is to be expected. That's called persecution, or sacrifice. It greatly pleases God. In return you will receive the gifts of the spirit, among which are faith, hope and love. Faith, hope and love all must come from God. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 22:09:32 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:48:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. But I'm curious; as a member of the EVERYTHING-list, don't you believe that there's a world where the Bible is essentially accurate (modulo direct contradictions)? I don't know about accurate, but there are certainly phenomenological states where the Bible can seem powerfully important, i.e. super-significant - for good or evil. But those are phenomenological states in this world, and apparently you think the qualifier seem means false in this world. I'm asking about all those infinitely many other worlds? The phenomenological states and the sense that they make of each other are the only worlds that there are. Seeming is not false, rather truth is nothing but mutually overlapping seeming among more and more worlds. Seeming to whom?...more and more Craigs? In this case, there seems to me to be much more overlapping seeming outside of the Bible than inside of it. So is this a purely personal seeming to you? Polls show it's a minority seeming in the U.S. Yes. It seems to me personally that the Bible refers primarily to figurative phenomenological experiences rather than literal public realism. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/byijBItDcHYJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Love and submission
Hi Jason Resch Love means to love somebody else, other than yourself. To do that, you must trust that person. You will partly submit your will to them, or at least not dominate them. You will want to give things to that person. So love, trusting, submission and giving are all tangled together somewhere deep in your psyche. You cannot feel one without the others. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-19, 20:41:03 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. But I'm curious; as a member of the EVERYTHING-list, don't you believe that there's a world where the Bible is essentially accurate (modulo direct contradictions)? Well no one can hold on to a soul forever, at all times there is a chance you will escape their grip and find yourself elsewhere. Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. Self contradictions aside, all religions are true with some relative probability. That is to say, in this world, some fractions of the explanations for it's existence is because a Christian god created it, in another fraction it is because brahma (a Hindu god) is dreaming it, and so on. Jason Brent Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast --- Mark Twain -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:28:05 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: oof, this is getting too long. truncation ahoy... the upgraded Google Groups keeps spontaneously disposing of my writings. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:10:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Yes and no. I think if we are being precise, we have to admit that there is something about the nature of subjective experience which makes the 'all together and at once' actually elide the differences between the 'bunch of independent aspects' so that they aren't experienced as independent aspects. That's the elliptical-algebraic-gestalt quality. I think they separate aspects represent a single state of high dimensionality. This concept is elaborated in a book, I think it is called universe of consciousness but I will have to verify this. I was right, it was this book: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Consciousness-Matter-Becomes-Imagination/dp/0465013775 Here is a video presentation by one of the authors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgQgfb-HkQk I think you might like him. Yes, I have seen him before. I think he is on the right track in that his model is panpsychist and that he sees the differences between assemblies and integrated wholes. Where he goes wrong, (as do most) is at the beginning where he assumes information states as a given rather than breaking that down to the capacity for afferent perception. Nothing can have an information state unless it can be informed. Once you have that capacity (sense), you already have consciousness of a primitive sort. Just as the camera can be divided, so too can the diode. He is arbitrarily considering the diode to be an integrated whole with two states, but it too as an assembly which we have manufactured. The whole line of reasoning that stems from the assumption that information is an independently real phenomenon is incompatible with shedding light on consciousness. Assuming information is great for controlling material processes and transmitting experiences, but there isn't anything there so it can't create experiences. You already need to be able to read the CD as music to play the information on the CD as music. No amount of sophisticated encoding on a CD can make you hear music if you are deaf. To us the diode seems like one thing with two functional states, but that's like saying that Tokyo has two states by averaging out the number of green traffic lights versus red traffic lights. Function is an interpretation, not an objective fact. Dimensionality sounds too discrete to me. I can go along with 'single state' but I think it's a distraction to see qualia as a plot within a dimensional space. It is not necessary to experience any dimensionality to have a feeling, rather it creates its own dimension. I can be hungry or ravenous, but there is no dimension of physiological potential qualities which hunger is predisposed to constellate within. The experience is primary and the dimensionality is secondary. I don't think they are necessary for consciousness, but they are necessary to be informed. For consciousness all that you need is an awareness of an awareness - which is a participatory experience of detection. Semiconductors have detection, but their detection has no detection. Ours do, because they are the detections of living sub-persons. You can create a supervisory process that is aware of an awarness, rather easily, in any programming language. The semiconductor is still only aware of charge comparisons. And you might as well say neurons are only aware of neurotransmitters. Why do you reduce programs to silicon, but you not reduce human thoughts to the squirted solutions of neurotransmitters? It seems there is an inherent bias in your reasoning and or arguments. Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity (not caused but correlates) and we know that computers not only show no sign of having a consciousness that resembles that of any biological organism, but I understand that the behavior of computers of any degree of sophistication plainly reveals the precise absence of any biological personality traits and the presence of non-cohering impersonality. The idea that something is supervising something is purely our projection, like saying that the capstone of a pyramid is supervising the base. All that is really going on is that we are able to read an aggregate sense into unconscious chains of causal logic. At some level of depth though, does it matter what happens on the smallest scales? Do your neurons care about what the quarks and gluons are doing inside the nucleus of an oxygen atom inside a water molecule, floating in the cytoplasm? I think they don't have to care because they embody what the quarks and gluons are doing. They are
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Hi meekerdb You can only find the truth of the Bible by reading it as a little child. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen --- - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 18:54:18 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. But I'm curious; as a member of the EVERYTHING-list, don't you believe that there's a world where the Bible is essentially accurate (modulo direct contradictions)? I don't know about accurate, but there are certainly phenomenological states where the Bible can seem powerfully important, i.e. super-significant - for good or evil. But those are phenomenological states in this world, and apparently you think the qualifier seem means false in this world. I'm asking about all those infinitely many other worlds? Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Hi meekerdb 1) That statement about Hell is hyperbole, an overstatement to get a point across. Jesus also said Nobody who does not hate his mother and father can follow me. 2) I would reply to Epicurus that if he thinks life ios bad as it is, he has no idea how much worse it would be without God's grace. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 02:01:14 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On 9/19/2012 10:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. The thing about religion is that we shouldn't believe it because it's FALSE, not because it's BAD. Something could be BAD but TRUE. I find it odd that both religious and anti-religious people often miss this point and talk about the good or bad effects (respectively) of religious belief. Well of course that is because almost all religions claim that their revelation defines what is good and bad, independent of mere human opinion. So if one shows that the revelation's definition of good or bad is preposterous (like an all loving God who tortures people for not worshipping Him) then at least that much of the theology is false. Brent Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants to, then how comes evil in the world?' --- Epicurus -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Bruno's Restaurant
Hi Bruno Marchal You could be right, but as I see it, organizing and focusing all of that complex network of nerves and their signals into a singular mental point would --to my mind at least-- be done by a singular intelligent agent. A self, in other words. And an intelligent self would act out of a center, which does the choosing, in ideal space or in real space. Call it a central processing unit if you prefer computer language. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 07:33:10 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch Pragmatically speaking, the self has to be a singular, focussed point. I have trouble understanding how that can be done with a network of nerve signals. The semantic of all programs, like the so called denotational semantics, involves abstract points in abstract space. We don't need physical or geometrical points as consciousness is related to the abstract emulation. You should not reduce a person to the network of its nerves, as the person is an immaterial entity, only using its brain, like you are using a computer right now. It might help you to understand that weak materialism (the doctrine asserting the existence of primitive substance) is not compatible with computationalism, so your network of nerves is mainly a fictitious way to describe the brain as an object. You are using a physical supervenience thesis which simply can't work once we assume comp (and don't throw consciousness in the trash). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-19, 11:51:00 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Sep 19, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch My ionterpretation of the result of the brain splitting on pain perception is that her self is on one side and the feeling of pain is on the other. Thus she feels the pain, but cannot associate to her self (doesn't care). I would agree, but add that the self, in this case, is found in the connected parts of the majority of her brain. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-18, 14:14:31 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Sep 18, 2012, at 12:53 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/18/2012 10:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: No it is absolutely necessary. If you had no knowledge regarding what you were seeing, no qualia at all, you would be blind and dysfunctional. You might cite blund sighr as a counter example, but actually i think it is evidence of modularity if mind. Those with blind sight appear to have a disconnect between the visual processing parts of their brain and others. For example, they may still have reflexes, like the ability to avoid obsticles or catch a thrown ball, but the language center of their brain is disconnected, and so the part of the brain that talks says it can't see. I agree. But it raises a question about the woman who feels pain but doesn't care. Who is it that doesn't care? Obviously the conscious person who tells you they don't care. But is there another, inarticulate person who feels the pain? or does care? Brent, Good question, and a scary thought. I think this might be likely in the case of a fully split brain, but correspondingly less likely the smaller the isolated (disconnected) part of the brain is. Unconsciousness under anesthesia results from brain regions becoming isolated from each other. Maybe they are still conscious but cut off from the memory, motion control, and speaking areas, so we have no evidence of the consciousness of the sub-regions. Jason Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at
the lost seven cities of gold.
Hi Craig Weinberg , Because consciousness at the most is not physical and at the least it is a verb rather than a noun, that fellow below, in his search for consciousness, is like the early spanish explorers searching for the lost seven cities of gold. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 08:27:01 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:28:05 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: oof, this is getting too long. truncation ahoy... the upgraded Google Groups keeps spontaneously disposing of my writings. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:10:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Yes and no. I think if we are being precise, we have to admit that there is something about the nature of subjective experience which makes the 'all together and at once' actually elide the differences between the 'bunch of independent aspects' so that they aren't experienced as independent aspects. That's the elliptical-algebraic-gestalt quality. I think they separate aspects represent a single state of high dimensionality. This concept is elaborated in a book, I think it is called universe of consciousness but I will have to verify this. I was right, it was this book: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Consciousness-Matter-Becomes-Imagination/dp/0465013775 Here is a video presentation by one of the authors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgQgfb-HkQk I think you might like him. Yes, I have seen him before. I think he is on the right track in that his model is panpsychist and that he sees the differences between assemblies and integrated wholes. Where he goes wrong, (as do most) is at the beginning where he assumes information states as a given rather than breaking that down to the capacity for afferent perception. Nothing can have an information state unless it can be informed. Once you have that capacity (sense), you already have consciousness of a primitive sort. Just as the camera can be divided, so too can the diode. He is arbitrarily considering the diode to be an integrated whole with two states, but it too as an assembly which we have manufactured. The whole line of reasoning that stems from the assumption that information is an independently real phenomenon is incompatible with shedding light on consciousness. Assuming information is great for controlling material processes and transmitting experiences, but there isn't anything there so it can't create experiences. You already need to be able to read the CD as music to play the information on the CD as music. No amount of sophisticated encoding on a CD can make you hear music if you are deaf. To us the diode seems like one thing with two functional states, but that's like saying that Tokyo has two states by averaging out the number of green traffic lights versus red traffic lights. Function is an interpretation, not an objective fact. Dimensionality sounds too discrete to me. I can go along with 'single state' but I think it's a distraction to see qualia as a plot within a dimensional space. It is not necessary to experience any dimensionality to have a feeling, rather it creates its own dimension. I can be hungry or ravenous, but there is no dimension of physiological potential qualities which hunger is predisposed to constellate within. The experience is primary and the dimensionality is secondary. I don't think they are necessary for consciousness, but they are necessary to be informed. For consciousness all that you need is an awareness of an awareness - which is a participatory experience of detection. Semiconductors have detection, but their detection has no detection. Ours do, because they are the detections of living sub-persons. You can create a supervisory process that is aware of an awarness, rather easily, in any programming language. The semiconductor is still only aware of charge comparisons. And you might as well say neurons are only aware of neurotransmitters. Why do you reduce programs to silicon, but you not reduce human thoughts to the squirted solutions of neurotransmitters? It seems there is an inherent bias in your reasoning and or arguments. Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity (not caused but correlates) and we know that computers not only show no sign of having a consciousness that resembles that of any biological organism, but I understand that the behavior of computers of any degree of sophistication plainly reveals the precise absence of any biological personality traits and the presence of non-cohering impersonality. The idea that something is supervising something is purely our projection, like saying that the capstone of a pyramid is supervising
Re: music on my mind
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:41:33 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I am not saying arithmetic = music; I have no idea about that, just that the two can't do without each other. I think that is true of any form of expression or communication, since the formations which are used to induce the experiences (of music, art, poetry, etc) in the audience are constructed from material manipulations in spacetime. Anytime something has to be expressed externally, it has to be packaged with arithmetically coherent protocols. That doesn't of course mean that music is those protocols, only that any production of music can be analyzed arithmetically. Without an experience of sound associated with the arithmetic, there is nothing but a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. Craig I'm not so sure about there is nothing but a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. Recently, I stumbled on the similarity between how we're taught functions in school, like some input x goes through some process/steps of operation in a black box to turn into y, and how with set theory, the mapping is instantly total, implying no process. Composing is similar. A score exists as complete set of assignments, outside of time, even though its strings have to be executed in order, for the totality to be made clear/communicable on sensory level. Take Bach's well known fugues: as a beginning composition student, I marveled at the counterpoint techniques, the flexibility, inversions, complexity, and the craft. Today, I perceive the fugues to be timeless entities of arithmetic relations. They are just out there or in there. And similar to induction proof: you're trying to get from a basis of induction (a set of notes, or assignments of frequency relation, meaning your bet from listening to inner voice generating instead of reproducing, reproducing like when you hum/whistle a tune you know) through some hypothesis I bet I can build a triple fugue from this set of notes to a valid proof of your subject/set of notes. With some familiarity and my horrible student fugues behind me, I realize, it's the basis of induction that is so much harder to find than the actual operations of craft. Once understood, the operations are just a formality: This is subject or set of subjects, so episodes could be like such, so development like so is possible... so diminution... so augmentation... so inversion and other subjects etc. it follows that and so on until either, your basis of induction has fallen to pieces (most often the case with yours truly) or it proves itself. I marvel thus not at Bach's craft, but at how he formulated or remembered so many precise induction hypotheses that bore fruits. The Goldberg Variations are all based on the same ground bass movement, iterating itself with different surface perfumes but always the same fundamental movement in Bass. That's a fractal in sound, if you want. 30 completely different zooms into the same foundation set. The statement merely a conceptual structure of abstraction ignores that once the key to a precise problem formulation or hypothesis, in our case a set of notes and rhythm, is remembered or discovered/found in its totality; its procedural expression in time, as physically perceived sound, is mere formality: a good hypothesis can be clothed to different appearances infinitely, I believe. This does not work the other way around unless you win the lottery. The precise dream of the totality of a musical song gives birth to the procedure/process to execute. Therefore good sonic architecture is to me the ability to dream deeply and freely. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/19/2012 10:41 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Still, most musicians talk about experiences and inspirations... but this is marketing. When you're working in/with an orchestra on a tight schedule with multiple stakeholders, you see all the romantic fluff evaporating in favor of getting the technique of musical ecstasy as mathematically precise as possible. Even if many musicians won't admit this, because of marketing and aura of music. And doesn't this imply that one could write a computer program to compose music to certain emotive specifications? Brent Yes, and these programs exist as software synthesizers, software samplers, virtual mixing desks. But linguistic emotive specifications are lack precision. Often different composers program different patch names for sounds and the most intuitive thing is to use some corresponding quale, for example: I pulled out glacier melting winds for an ambient track out of my database yesterday; I know at some point, that I programed the virtual synth to output that particular sound... but can't remember if this was a sound based on some water drops sample recording I transfigured, whether I got some FM synth to produce its staple crystaly-bell
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. Bruno I would agree that it would be only a theory that brain changes 'produce' consciousness, but I would say that we can say with confidence that changes in our awareness are more tightly synchronized with changes in brain activity than with those of the liver, or any other thing in the universe that we can observe. When we stimulate the brain magnetically, that event correlates directly with subjective experience. I don't think that there is anything else we could stimulate which would cause that. Craig http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TofyxHpAp0MJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Numbers in Space
Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0tmx4Q3p9G4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 20 Sep 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. Bruno I would agree that it would be only a theory that brain changes 'produce' consciousness, but I would say that we can say with confidence that changes in our awareness are more tightly synchronized with changes in brain activity than with those of the liver, or any other thing in the universe that we can observe. I agree, and it is close to my working *hypothesis*, although dispensable by choosing a lower level. The problem is in the choice of the theory used for making sense of a correlation between changes in our awareness and changes in brain activity. When we stimulate the brain magnetically, that event correlates directly with subjective experience. I don't think that there is anything else we could stimulate which would cause that. It follows from your hypothesis. With comp this would be relatively occurring (in some sense, as it really occurs out of time in arithmetical platonia) when you stimulate any relatively concrete universal machine emulating the magnetic stimulation of the brain (where emulating means simulating at the correct subst level, or below). It looks to me like a don't ask theory. It takes Matter ( PRIMITIVE matter) for granted, it takes consciousness for granted, and it relates the two by some sort of magical trick or, with all my respect, pompous word. It is coherent, as PRIMITIVE Matter is consistent with non-comp, but it looks like making both matter and mind incomprehensible at the start, and then it introduces puppets in the picture. Bruno Craig http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TofyxHpAp0MJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: music on my mind
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:46:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I'm not so sure about there is nothing but a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. What would music be if there was no such thing as sound? What would you call it if it could not be expressed through a medium of sensation? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jbeXIR3f3xUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. Bruno I would agree that it would be only a theory that brain changes 'produce' consciousness, but I would say that we can say with confidence that changes in our awareness are more tightly synchronized with changes in brain activity than with those of the liver, or any other thing in the universe that we can observe. I agree, and it is close to my working *hypothesis*, although dispensable by choosing a lower level. The problem is in the choice of the theory used for making sense of a correlation between changes in our awareness and changes in brain activity. When we stimulate the brain magnetically, that event correlates directly with subjective experience. I don't think that there is anything else we could stimulate which would cause that. It follows from your hypothesis. With comp this would be relatively occurring (in some sense, as it really occurs out of time in arithmetical platonia) when you stimulate any relatively concrete universal machine emulating the magnetic stimulation of the brain (where emulating means simulating at the correct subst level, or below). It looks to me like a don't ask theory. It takes Matter ( PRIMITIVE matter) for granted, it takes consciousness for granted, and it relates the two by some sort of magical trick or, with all my respect, pompous word. It is coherent, as PRIMITIVE Matter is consistent with non-comp, but it looks like making both matter and mind incomprehensible at the start, and then it introduces puppets in the picture. Mind has to be incomprehensible from the start because comprehension is an experience which supervenes on mind. Matter isn't primitive, but rather a second order representation of sense. There is no magic trick that relates mind and matter, it is the neutral monism of sense which presents itself to itself as mind and presents its non-self to its (self presented as self) as matter. Computation arises as a third order meta-representation of relation between the presented and the re-presented. Craig Bruno Craig http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/TofyxHpAp0MJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BhXWKawYnxwJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now? so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2cTxWQ1j_V0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Prime Numbers
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability one. In Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds accessible from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world. What does 'accessible' mean? Generally speaking a different world is defined as not accessible. If you can go there, it's part of your same world. Brent This gives KD modal logics, with K: = [](p - q)-([]p - []q), and D: []p - p. Of course with [] for Gödel's beweisbar we don't have that D is a theorem, so we ensure the D property by defining a new box, Bp = []p t. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. Yes. And self-torture exists. It is called masochism. Is God a masochist? That would explain some things, but I am not sure It can qualify for that, as God, according to many religious theories, has no nameable attribute. Then he would have no attributes at all. Do they not attribute existence to their God? Creator Immortality... Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:29:18 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The devil could not write the Bible for it asks us to love God and our neighbor. That's like thinking that if a person does drugs with you they can't be a cop. Either the devil has free will, in which case I would think him very likely to throw in just such messages to deceive us, or he has no free will in which case he is purely the agent of God, and God is the deceiver pretending not to also be the devil. Most people who have psychotic episodes that end in some horrific act like drowning their children are acting on the insistence of what claims to be God. If the devil wrote a book that said 'Ahh I'm the devil, read this book and hate God and you will be rewarded' do you think that it would be very effective? Who is better to corrupt, some degenerate in prison or a priest who is trusted to be alone with children? My own take on Jesus' death is that the devil attacks everything he hates: beauty, goodness, youth, ... . These will either go to heaven or hell. God's justice, being all-pervasive, has to be to make up in the next world the sorrows of this one. It's all so silly. Wouldn't the devil get tired of hating the things that by definition are lovely? How does God get off the hook for creating this monster? It's beyond absurd. It's fine as a metaphor, because yes, there are these phenomenological appetites and counter-appetities which we are obliged to participate in, and which have supra-personal significance, but really all of these interpretations are cartoons loosely based on parts of the Bible, which in itself is a huge mess of disputed versions and questionable translations. It's like a 'Best Of' album for Bronze Age philosophy and folk history. Now the Bible says that whoever is least on earth will be the highest in Heaven. So Jesus had to die the most horrible ignominious death, I don't even get that part. Millions of people die more horrible and ignominious deaths than Jesus. Jesus died the most celebrated and historic death in all of history (if he even existed historically). He died in physical pain, sure, so what? He died with the certainty that he is immortal and the Son of God. He died being able to forgive his torturers. That is a beautiful death compared to being torn apart after decades in some rape dungeon somewhere. Wasting away for years with chronic suffering... What is objectively so special about being unjustly crucified? What way could he have died that would have been more heroic? Peacefully in his sleep at the age of 20,000? I'm only continuing with this because you seem up for it. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just expressing why it doesn't make any sense to me. that even being the death of God's only son, in order to be highest in heaven. This happened with his resurrection. It's a nice story that appeals to our moral logic of justice, but there is really no difference between that and a hundred other mythologies. That's how myths work - something had to happen because it appeals to the sense of balance and reciprocation. All of the world's mythology is like one big cautionary tale of quid pro quo. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 17:11:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/esBo9tkPHAQJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Love and submission
Hi Roger, Is this post related the the e-mail thread? If so I am missing how. Could you clarify? Thanks, Jason On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Love means to love somebody else, other than yourself. To do that, you must trust that person. You will partly submit your will to them, or at least not dominate them. You will want to give things to that person. So love, trusting, submission and giving are all tangled together somewhere deep in your psyche. You cannot feel one without the others. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-19, 20:41:03 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On Sep 19, 2012, at 4:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. But I'm curious; as a member of the EVERYTHING-list, don't you believe that there's a world where the Bible is essentially accurate (modulo direct contradictions)? Well no one can hold on to a soul forever, at all times there is a chance you will escape their grip and find yourself elsewhere. Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. Self contradictions aside, all religions are true with some relative probability. That is to say, in this world, some fractions of the explanations for it's existence is because a Christian god created it, in another fraction it is because brahma (a Hindu god) is dreaming it, and so on. Jason Brent Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast --- Mark Twain -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 9/20/2012 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. But correlates with isn't a theory - it's closer to a fact; the sort of thing we use to find that a theory is false. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness requires an autonomous self. Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not necessarily true that consciousness requires a 'self'. It makes more sense to say that an autonomous self and consciousness both require awareness. So does life itself. And intelligence. We don't really know that. We can only speak for our own life and our own intelligence. I wouldn't presume a self, especially on low levels of awareness like molecular groupings. So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a problem with mereology, don't know. Why is it a problem. Mereology is the public presentation of life, and the private presentation is the opposite: non-mereology. Also, have you seen Jan Smuts' Holism? Maybe he solved the problem. He was a lousy general but a good thinker otherwise. Nope. I'm familiar with holistic concepts though. Craig Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5sc1WXZubGEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 9/20/2012 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:29:18 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg The devil could not write the Bible for it asks us to love God and our neighbor. That's like thinking that if a person does drugs with you they can't be a cop. Either the devil has free will, in which case I would think him very likely to throw in just such messages to deceive us, or he has no free will in which case he is purely the agent of God, and God is the deceiver pretending not to also be the devil. Satan was just a rationalist who got in God's way. --- R. J. Welsh -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. So you are saying yes to the space doctor? The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical because I wouldn't change places with them for any reason. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/BUBSbCUjtbgJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: music on my mind
Reflected eternal song(s) dressed in the illusion of time. As far as I can see: proportions, relationships, ratios. Time makes them appear to chat and sing; but in some sense every song has already been sung, even if they've never been voiced or heard. Beethoven was almost completely deaf while he composed/dreamed the 9th. Mahler wrote/dreamed his later symphonies in a hut by a lake in Austria. No Piano, no reference pitches. He never even heard physically his 9th. Some are amazed by this. I am not. You're probably gonna state that they needed experience hearing in the first place, which leaves me unconvinced as I have read the scores: whatever is being coded there is not dead information but entities, portals into dreamworlds. Note how in festival culture from woodstock to burning man: music functions as portal, a kind of carrier wave, to other loci of being and perception = physical sound strings point towards some dream, mind of the festival goers do the introspective traveling. Their use of similar adjectives, hyperbole and superlatives to describe their experience points towards kind of eternal universality of music, when removed enough from consumer of music, User of music through the usual list of consciousness altering practices, substances, and plants. On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:46:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: I'm not so sure about there is nothing but a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. What would music be if there was no such thing as sound? What would you call it if it could not be expressed through a medium of sensation? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jbeXIR3f3xUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Prime Numbers
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability one. In Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds accessible from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world. What does 'accessible' mean? In modal logic semantic, it is a technical world for any element in set + a binary relation on it. When applied to probability, the idea is to interpret the worlds by the realization of some random experience, like throwing a coin would lead to two worlds accessible, one with head, the other with tail. In that modal (tail or head) is a certainty as (tail or head) is realized everywhere in the accessible worlds. Generally speaking a different world is defined as not accessible. If you can go there, it's part of your same world. Yes. OK. Sorry. Logician used the term world in a technical sense, and the worlds can be anything, depending of which modal logic is used, for what purpose, etc. Kripke semantic main used is in showing the independence of formula in different systems. Bruno Brent This gives KD modal logics, with K: = [](p - q)-([]p - []q), and D: []p - p. Of course with [] for Gödel's beweisbar we don't have that D is a theorem, so we ensure the D property by defining a new box, Bp = []p t. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 20 Sep 2012, at 18:17, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. Yes. And self-torture exists. It is called masochism. Is God a masochist? That would explain some things, but I am not sure It can qualify for that, as God, according to many religious theories, has no nameable attribute. Then he would have no attributes at all. Do they not attribute existence to their God? Creator Immortality... Not the neoplatonist, with their negative theology, nor really the mystics, with their silence. Nor comp, with the G/G* distinction. The others are using a bad entheogen, I am afraid, which makes them talk too much, perhaps. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On experiences and the self
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Brain experiments by I forget who were performed by touching the brain at various points with a probe. With each point, the patient reported a different experience was being recalled. On the other hand, others report that experiences are scattered all over the brain, presumably over some sorts of networks. The only way I can reconcile these two points of view is that experiences are stored in networks such that connecting at a single point will recall the whole. I think there is a lot of redundancy in the brain, memories are stored in many places. Ray Kurzweil makes a good analogy I think, in that the memories in a brain are like a hologram. You can cut a hologram in half and the same image remains, albeit at a reduced resolution. Check out this video, it is fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8OEiTe8_Dc Jason Perhaps the self is such a point of contact. Or the network, on the other hand, may be able as a whole to simply will an experience by self-focussing. Some here have shown that experiences are somehow focused by the nerves in the brain simply by willing them to do so. This appears to be true due to the fact that a new computerized brain device can actually allow people to move paralyzed limbs by simply willing the limb to do so. Like in this video: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57436475-76/paralyzed-woman-moves-robotic-arm-using-thought-alone/ Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On experiences and the self
On 9/20/2012 11:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Brain experiments by I forget who were performed by touching the brain at various points with a probe. With each point, the patient reported a different experience was being recalled. On the other hand, others report that experiences are scattered all over the brain, presumably over some sorts of networks. The only way I can reconcile these two points of view is that experiences are stored in networks such that connecting at a single point will recall the whole. I think there is a lot of redundancy in the brain, memories are stored in many places. Ray Kurzweil makes a good analogy I think, in that the memories in a brain are like a hologram. You can cut a hologram in half and the same image remains, albeit at a reduced resolution. A pleasant thought, but a very small localized stroke can cause one to lose memory of words or people. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: music on my mind
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:25:48 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Reflected eternal song(s) dressed in the illusion of time. As far as I can see: proportions, relationships, ratios. That's what I mean by a conceptual sculpture of abstraction. It's not real though. Proportion of what? Relations between what? When we think of these things we can conceive of them abstractly as-if-they-were-real, but only because we are borrowing the concrete reality of our own neurology to do that. Just because we can imagine how a song would look as a graphic representation doesn't mean that there is an independently real mathematical spirit which is clothed in different forms. It is the math which is derived through experiences of form, not the other way around. We are informed by experiencing forms, not by composing in silence and then hoping to discover sound. Time makes them appear to chat and sing; but in some sense every song has already been sung, even if they've never been voiced or heard. I almost agree, but I think that in the same sense that every song has already been sung, it has also already been voiced and heard, only not in the 'small now' of ordinary waking human consciousness. When I heard the song Street Spirit for the first time, I immediately knew that it was the song that I had heard in my mind often as a child. Not the exact Radiohead recording, but the tone and mood of the song, foreshadowings of the notes. They had found what I found and recorded it. What I heard as a child had nothing to do with ratios and pitch - it was pure aural psyche. A melancholic science fiction embodied as music. Music is a feeling that turns math when you play it or compose it...when we touch things with our fingers (actual or mental), they become as fingers: digital, distant, objects to be controlled. Beethoven was almost completely deaf while he composed/dreamed the 9th. Mahler wrote/dreamed his later symphonies in a hut by a lake in Austria. No Piano, no reference pitches. He never even heard physically his 9th. Some are amazed by this. I am not. I would be amazed if they were born deaf though. Once you have heard music it is not too surprising that you could still compose or perform. Remarkable, but not surprising. Even if someone was technically deaf, they still might be able to feel the vibrations and rhythms. I think there is a famously deaf drummer I heard about. But to truly have no way to experience music at all, there would be no point to composing it. As a mathematical curiosity it would be pretty boring - simple repetitions for the most part. You're probably gonna state that they needed experience hearing in the first place, which leaves me unconvinced as I have read the scores: whatever is being coded there is not dead information but entities, portals into dreamworlds. I agree with portals into dreamworlds, but I see that as psyche, as sense, not as math. What does math care for mood or timbre? If you don't need experience first, then why not compose music-equivalents in a sensory mode that doesn't exist yet? Note how in festival culture from woodstock to burning man: music functions as portal, a kind of carrier wave, to other loci of being and perception = physical sound strings point towards some dream, mind of the festival goers do the introspective traveling. No question of that. I don't know that the dirt and blankets have a similar experience though. Seems like a human journey to phenomenological places. Figurative spacetime, not literal. You can't play a song from the 1920s and learn who was vice president by osmosis. Their use of similar adjectives, hyperbole and superlatives to describe their experience points towards kind of eternal universality of music, when removed enough from consumer of music, User of music through the usual list of consciousness altering practices, substances, and plants. I think that music gives humans access to a kind of human universality - to point the antenna of the psyche to different places that it wouldn't be able to point on its own perhaps. Dogs and cats don't seem to care too much about it though. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FELLNMcQEq0J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: music on my mind
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Could you imagine sound doing this? http://www.ideaconnection.com/innovation-videos/396-levitating-liquid-with-sound.html?ref=nl091912 Thanks for that, it is really cool. I like the top YouTube comment's post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669AcEBpdsYfeature=player_embedded God will fix this in the next patch. Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life requires autonomy
On 9/20/2012 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I would say that one necessary ability for life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off from its environment and thus to be able to make its own decisions without outside interference. In other words, to be autonomous. Materialism provides no such focussing tool. I would call that tool a self, primitive though it may be. You really should study computer science, as the self is a solved problem. Bot the 3p-self, and the non nameable 1p-self. Bruno Dear Bruno, Did you mean both the 3p-self and the non-nameable 1p-self? How does the 1p-self name itself? Can the the non-nameable 1p-self be approximately named with an integration of an uncountable set of names? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life requires autonomy
On 9/20/2012 6:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I would say that one necessary ability for life is for an organism to be able to separate itself off from its environment and thus to be able to make its own decisions without outside interference. In other words, to be autonomous. Materialism provides no such focussing tool. I would call that tool a self, primitive though it may be. Roger Clough,rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen Dear Roger, What are the necessary requirements for a Self? What defines autonomy? I think that it is closure of some kind. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 7:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Collective consciousness Interesting. What links the bees together such that a collective is possible? On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the lost seven cities of gold.
On 9/20/2012 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg , Because consciousness at the most is not physical and at the least it is a verb rather than a noun, that fellow below, in his search for consciousness, is like the early spanish explorers searching for the lost seven cities of gold. Hi Roger, I disagree. He has found a piece of the map. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-20, 08:27:01 Subject: Re: Bruno's Restaurant On Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:28:05 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: oof, this is getting too long. truncation ahoy... the upgraded Google Groups keeps spontaneously disposing of my writings. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:10:10 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Yes and no. I think if we are being precise, we have to admit that there is something about the nature of subjective experience which makes the 'all together and at once' actually elide the differences between the 'bunch of independent aspects' so that they aren't experienced as independent aspects. That's the elliptical-algebraic-gestalt quality. I think they separate aspects represent a single state of high dimensionality. This concept is elaborated in a book, I think it is called universe of consciousness but I will have to verify this. I was right, it was this book: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Consciousness-Matter-Becomes-Imagination/dp/0465013775 Here is a video presentation by one of the authors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgQgfb-HkQk I think you might like him. Yes, I have seen him before. I think he is on the right track in that his model is panpsychist and that he sees the differences between assemblies and integrated wholes. Where he goes wrong, (as do most) is at the beginning where he assumes information states as a given rather than breaking that down to the capacity for afferent perception. Nothing can have an information state unless it can be informed. Once you have that capacity (sense), you already have consciousness of a primitive sort. Just as the camera can be divided, so too can the diode. He is arbitrarily considering the diode to be an integrated whole with two states, but it too as an assembly which we have manufactured. The whole line of reasoning that stems from the assumption that information is an independently real phenomenon is incompatible with shedding light on consciousness. Assuming information is great for controlling material processes and transmitting experiences, but there isn't anything there so it can't create experiences. You already need to be able to read the CD as music to play the information on the CD as music. No amount of sophisticated encoding on a CD can make you hear music if you are deaf. To us the diode seems like one thing with two functional states, but that's like saying that Tokyo has two states by averaging out the number of green traffic lights versus red traffic lights. Function is an interpretation, not an objective fact. Dimensionality sounds too discrete to me. I can go along with 'single state' but I think it's a distraction to see qualia as a plot within a dimensional space. It is not necessary to experience any dimensionality to have a feeling, rather it creates its own dimension. I can be hungry or ravenous, but there is no dimension of physiological potential qualities which hunger is predisposed to constellate within. The experience is primary and the dimensionality is secondary. I don't think they are necessary for consciousness, but they are necessary to be informed. For consciousness all that you need is an awareness of an awareness - which is a participatory experience of detection. Semiconductors have detection, but their detection has no detection. Ours do, because they are the detections of living sub-persons. You can create a supervisory process that is aware of an awarness, rather easily, in any programming language. The semiconductor is still only aware of charge comparisons. And you might as well say neurons are only aware of neurotransmitters. Why do you reduce programs to silicon, but you not reduce human thoughts to the squirted solutions of neurotransmitters? It seems there is an inherent bias in your reasoning and or arguments. Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity (not caused but correlates) and we know that computers not only show no sign of having a consciousness that resembles that of any biological organism, but I understand that the behavior of computers of any degree of sophistication plainly reveals the precise absence of any biological personality traits and the presence of non-cohering impersonality. The idea that something is supervising something is purely
Re: Re: the nothing but fallacy.
Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Everything that God does by definition is just. So much for religion giving morality a rock solid foundation, all it means is that God wants it. We should do good and avoid evil for one and only one reason, a loving God will torture us for eternity if we do not. Morality is pragmatism. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Faith, hope and love
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:55:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg You can see from all of the flack I get here that being a believer, since you believe in something seemingly to be nonsense (especially to the scientific mind), those that think rightly have the obligation to try to save you from this insanity. No surprises there. It certainly sounds nutty. I don't feel like I'm giving anyone flack for being a believer, I am just trying to figure out what you are seeing in it that I don't. Without trying to compare myself with Jesus or the jews, or to make myself seem better than anybody, this is to be expected. That's called persecution, or sacrifice. It greatly pleases God. He sounds like a warden or mafia boss. In return you will receive the gifts of the spirit, among which are faith, hope and love. Faith, hope and love all must come from God. What if I just want him to stop torturing everyone? Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 9/20/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 22:09:32 Subject: Re: the nothing but fallacy. On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:48:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. What kind of a sacrifice is that? I'm going to do you the biggest favor you can imagine, but if you don't believe in it, then my favor is worthless and makes anything good that you have ever done in your life a complete waste of time. If I were Satan, I would write the Bible exactly as it is, full of horrific promises and threats that can be interpreted in many ways. It's pretty much like dropping candy colored hand grenades onto a school playground. The grenades would say if anyone tries to take this away from you, then they deserve whatever happens to them. But I'm curious; as a member of the EVERYTHING-list, don't you believe that there's a world where the Bible is essentially accurate (modulo direct contradictions)? I don't know about accurate, but there are certainly phenomenological states where the Bible can seem powerfully important, i.e. super-significant - for good or evil. But those are phenomenological states in this world, and apparently you think the qualifier seem means false in this world. I'm asking about all those infinitely many other worlds? The phenomenological states and the sense that they make of each other are the only worlds that there are. Seeming is not false, rather truth is nothing but mutually overlapping seeming among more and more worlds. Seeming to whom?...more and more Craigs? In this case, there seems to me to be much more overlapping seeming outside of the Bible than inside of it. So is this a purely personal seeming to you? Polls show it's a minority seeming in the U.S. Yes. It seems to me personally that the Bible refers primarily to figurative phenomenological experiences rather than literal public realism. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/byijBItDcHYJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1XrUESyyw6YJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig Hey Craig, What do you think physical computers actually are? universal machines using only empty space. But Nature hates a vacuum... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 9/20/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:55:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:14:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Because we know for a fact that our consciousness correlates with neural activity ... We don't know that. It is a theory, a belief, an assumption, ... Some people have believed that consciousness correlates to the state of the liver. We never know if a theory is true. We can only know when a theory is false. Bruno I would agree that it would be only a theory that brain changes 'produce' consciousness, but I would say that we can say with confidence that changes in our awareness are more tightly synchronized with changes in brain activity than with those of the liver, or any other thing in the universe that we can observe. I agree, and it is close to my working *hypothesis*, although dispensable by choosing a lower level. The problem is in the choice of the theory used for making sense of a correlation between changes in our awareness and changes in brain activity. When we stimulate the brain magnetically, that event correlates directly with subjective experience. I don't think that there is anything else we could stimulate which would cause that. It follows from your hypothesis. With comp this would be relatively occurring (in some sense, as it really occurs out of time in arithmetical platonia) when you stimulate any relatively concrete universal machine emulating the magnetic stimulation of the brain (where emulating means simulating at the correct subst level, or below). It looks to me like a don't ask theory. It takes Matter (PRIMITIVE matter) for granted, it takes consciousness for granted, and it relates the two by some sort of magical trick or, with all my respect, pompous word. It is coherent, as PRIMITIVE Matter is consistent with non-comp, but it looks like making both matter and mind incomprehensible at the start, and then it introduces puppets in the picture. Mind has to be incomprehensible from the start because comprehension is an experience which supervenes on mind. Matter isn't primitive, but rather a second order representation of sense. There is no magic trick that relates mind and matter, it is the neutral monism of sense which presents itself to itself as mind and presents its non-self to its (self presented as self) as matter. Computation arises as a third order meta-representation of relation between the presented and the re-presented. Craig Hi Craig, You need to show how we can get some kind of closure in the map for this to work... Otherwise its a regress... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 11:48:15 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. Why do you say this is the case? We aren't storing memories in space. When we lose our memory capacity it isn't because the universe is running out of space. We access experience through what we are, not through nothingness. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, Why is being 'slow' a problem? What's the rush? What time is it in Platonia? Why aren't we in Platonia now? Hi Craig, We are! We just don't feel it... so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. Why would speed and accuracy matter, objectively? What is speed? What is the speed of light? Same question! It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. The problem is doing anything in the first place. Computations don't do anything at all. The reason that we do things is that we are not computations. We use computations. We can program things, but we can't thing programs without something to thing them with. This is a fatal flaw. If Platonia exists, it makes no sense for anything other than Platonia to exist. It would be redundant to go through the formality of executing any function is already executed non-locally. Why 'do' anything? Bruno can 't answer that question. He is afraid that it will corrupt Olympia. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the nothing but fallacy.
On 9/20/2012 12:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote: On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would be torturing themselves. That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical contradiction. Yes. And self-torture exists. It is called masochism. Is God a masochist? That would explain some things, but I am not sure It can qualify for that, as God, according to many religious theories, has no nameable attribute. Then he would have no attributes at all. Do they not attribute existence to their God? Creator Immortality... Brent -- Hi Brent, Mere necessity. God has no name and no particular attributes. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 12:26 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). Dear Bruno, I agree 100% with you. That the quantum vacuum is TU, is obvious to me. I think that Svozil has something written on this.. maybe or 't Hoft. Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Only because we are trying to do things the classical way... Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I am not sure if that is possible because it seems to me that that requires the specification of an uncountable infinity. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. But the numbers build an arithmetic body and then populate a space with multiple copies of it... so that they can implement the UD. Their dreaming is this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamlands The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I disagree. We can only formalize the mind, never the body, if we wish to never be inconsistent. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. Maybe it is because they are really not people at all! They are algorithms hiding in a puppet. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:50:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Craig Hey Craig, What do you think physical computers actually are? universal machines using only empty space. But Nature hates a vacuum... Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/22EYmnKtf7UJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness requires an autonomous self. Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not necessarily true that consciousness requires a 'self'. It makes more sense to say that an autonomous self and consciousness both require awareness. What if awareness is what happens when autonomous self and consciousness mirror each other? So does life itself. And intelligence. We don't really know that. We can only speak for our own life and our own intelligence. I wouldn't presume a self, especially on low levels of awareness like molecular groupings. So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a problem with mereology, don't know. Why is it a problem. Mereology is the public presentation of life, and the private presentation is the opposite: non-mereology. Huh? non-mereology. What is that? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? I didn't miss the obvious way to find out, which was to read the paper. They just tried different routes (which in computerese is called 'exhaustive search'). Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:10:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. Exactly, and I was trying to show why. Without that resource cost, there is no reason for anything to have a cost and no reason to leave Platonia. Castles in the clouds ahoy! Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3hD7s6xamHoJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 1:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:26:07 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? You are quite quick here, but have a good insight, as comp makes space non clonable, indeterministic in the details, and plausibly Turing universal, as QM confirms. The 0-body problem (the quantum vacuum) is already Turing universal (I think). For classical physics you need three bodies at least). What about an ideal vacuum? Just lengths multiplying and adding enumerated bundles of lengths. No quantum. Hey! Do you mean like a measure with nothing to rule on? Or a nothing without a measure? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Who we? In the universe nearby it costs a lot of energy/money/time to handle matter already gigantic compared to the Planck length. Or are you suggesting we are already simulated by the quantum vacuum. Very plausible, but comp asks for justifying this in arithmetic. I'm saying that whatever program we access when we choose what we think about should be able to run just as easily in space as it does through the brain. I should be able to pick an area of my house and leave a bunch of memories there and then come back to them later just be occupying the same space. That's if we define space as relative to my house and not the rotating planet, revolving sun, etc. So it sounds like you are not opposed to this idea of computation with no resources whatsoever besides space, provided that it could be justified arithmetically (which I don't understand why it wouldn't be. how does comp know if it's running on matter or space?) Space is the only resource needed. Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. ? I mean if I could stand completely still then the planet would fly off from under my feet and I would be left standing exactly where I was with the Earth revolving past me at 107,000 km/hr. I would occupy the same space while the Earth, Sun, and galaxy sweep away from me. If instead of me, it was memories I had stashed away in space, then my body would be soon separated from the absolute position that I had placed them. It shouldn't matter though, since by the same method of thinking numbers into space, I should be able to retrieve them too, regardless of the distance between my body and the numbers. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? Empty space, in any turing universal theory, is equivalent with universal dovetailing. It is a trivial theory, as when we assume comp, the space and belief in spaces have to be justified through number dreams statistics. So you are saying yes to the space doctor? YES! I do! Over and over and over and over! The advantage of comp is that we can use math and more easily reason clearly. We can formulate key parts of the mind body problem mathematically. I don't question that, and I think that it may ultimately be the only way of engineering mind body solutions - but I still think that if we really want to know the truth about mind body, we can only find that in the un-numbered, un-named meta-juxtapostions of experienced sense. And computationalists are cool as they don't think twice before giving the restaurant menu to the puppet who asks politely. They don't judge people from their religion, skin color, clothes, or if made of wood, or metal or flesh, as long as they behave respectfully of course. I can behave respectfully to a puppet too, but I feel hypocritical because I wouldn't change places with them for any reason. How would you know that it happened? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:49:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness requires an autonomous self. Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not necessarily true that consciousness requires a 'self'. It makes more sense to say that an autonomous self and consciousness both require awareness. What if awareness is what happens when autonomous self and consciousness mirror each other? There can't be an autonomous self without awareness as an ontological given to begin with, at least as an inevitable potential. What would a self be or do without awareness? You can have awareness without a self being presented within that awareness though. I've had dreams where there is no I there are just scenes that are taking place. So does life itself. And intelligence. We don't really know that. We can only speak for our own life and our own intelligence. I wouldn't presume a self, especially on low levels of awareness like molecular groupings. So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a problem with mereology, don't know. Why is it a problem. Mereology is the public presentation of life, and the private presentation is the opposite: non-mereology. Huh? non-mereology. What is that? I call it a-mereology also. That's the subjective conjugate to topology. In public realism there is the Stone Duality ( topologies ┴ logical algebras) while the private phenomenology duality is orthogonal to the Stone (a-mereology ┴ transrational gestalt-algebra). I posted about it a bit yesterday: Our feeling of hurting is a (whole) experience of human reality, so that it is not composed of sub-personal experiences in a part-whole mereological relation but rather the relation is just the opposite. It is non-mereological or a-mereological. It is the primordial semi-unity/hyper-unity from which part-whole distinctions are extracted and projected outward as classical realism of an exterior world. I know that sounds dense and crazy, but I don’t know of a clearer way to describe it. Subjective experience is augmented along an axis of quality rather than quantity. Experiences of hurting capitulate sub personal experiences of emotional loss and disappointment, anger, and fear, with tactile sensations of throbbing, stabbing, burning, and cognitive feedback loops of worry, impatience, exaggerating and replaying the injury or illness, memories of associated experiences, etc. But we can just say ‘hurting’ and we all know generally what that means. No more particular description adds much to it. That is completely unlike exterior realism, where all we can see of a machine hurting would be that more processing power would seem to be devoted to some particular set of computations. They don’t run ‘all together and at once’, unless there is a living being who is there to interpret it that way - as we do when we look at a screen full of individual pixels and see images through the pixels rather than the changing pixels themselves. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/R2dVP-ATA_oJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
Did no one actually read the abstract of the article I sent? There were only 4 locations and the bees did not even use the optimum paths all the time. Jason On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Faith, hope and love
On 9/20/2012 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:55:10 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg You can see from all of the flack I get here that being a believer, since you believe in something seemingly to be nonsense (especially to the scientific mind), those that think rightly have the obligation to try to save you from this insanity. No surprises there. It certainly sounds nutty. I don't feel like I'm giving anyone flack for being a believer, I am just trying to figure out what you are seeing in it that I don't. Without trying to compare myself with Jesus or the jews, or to make myself seem better than anybody, this is to be expected. That's called persecution, or sacrifice. It greatly pleases God. He sounds like a warden or mafia boss. In return you will receive the gifts of the spirit, among which are faith, hope and love. Faith, hope and love all must come from God. What if I just want him to stop torturing everyone? Craig there is one way to guarantee the torture will stop. Either kill him or all his potential victims. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bruno's Restaurant
On 9/20/2012 9:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:23:08 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: snip Hi Craig, You need to show how we can get some kind of closure in the map for this to work... Otherwise its a regress... Hi Stephen, If sense is truly primordial, then it is beyond both closure and regress. Craig Fundamentally, yes I agree with you, but let's not disallow for a pull-back... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On 9/20/2012 9:49 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Physical computers are assembled substances which exhibit exceptionally normative, controllable, and observable behaviors. Craig To understand a thing is to control a thing. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 9:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? I didn't miss the obvious way to find out, which was to read the paper. They just tried different routes (which in computerese is called 'exhaustive search'). Brent All of them? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 9/20/2012 10:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:49:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:19:30 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Consciousness requires an autonomous self. Human consciousness requires an autonomous human self, but it is not necessarily true that consciousness requires a 'self'. It makes more sense to say that an autonomous self and consciousness both require awareness. What if awareness is what happens when autonomous self and consciousness mirror each other? There can't be an autonomous self without awareness as an ontological given to begin with, at least as an inevitable potential. I take that as a good starting point, but I am just sticking my head into a stream. That is God, btw. ;-) What would a self be or do without awareness? Not a thing! You can have awareness without a self being presented within that awareness though. I've had dreams where there is no I there are just scenes that are taking place. And those scenes go without meaning... Reminds me of a scene from Macbeth... So does life itself. And intelligence. We don't really know that. We can only speak for our own life and our own intelligence. I wouldn't presume a self, especially on low levels of awareness like molecular groupings. So, I hagte to say this, but perhaps consciousness and life may be a problem with mereology, don't know. Why is it a problem. Mereology is the public presentation of life, and the private presentation is the opposite: non-mereology. Huh? non-mereology. What is that? I call it a-mereology also. That's the subjective conjugate to topology. In public realism there is the Stone Duality ( topologies┴ logical algebras) while the private phenomenology duality is orthogonal to the Stone (a-mereology ┴ transrational gestalt-algebra). Mereology is the study of relations between wholes and parts I posted about it a bit yesterday: Our feeling of hurting is a (whole) experience of human reality, so that it is not composed of sub-personal experiences in a part-whole mereological relation but rather the relation is just the opposite. It is non-mereological or a-mereological. It is the primordial semi-unity/hyper-unity from which part-whole distinctions are extracted and projected outward as classical realism of an exterior world. I know that sounds dense and crazy, but I don’t know of a clearer way to describe it. Subjective experience is augmented along an axis of quality rather than quantity. Experiences of hurting capitulate sub personal experiences of emotional loss and disappointment, anger, and fear, with tactile sensations of throbbing, stabbing, burning, and cognitive feedback loops of worry, impatience, exaggerating and replaying the injury or illness, memories of associated experiences, etc. But we can just say ‘hurting’ and we all know generally what that means. No more particular description adds much to it. That is completely unlike exterior realism, where all we can see of a machine hurting would be that more processing power would seem to be devoted to some particular set of computations. They don’t run ‘all together and at once’, unless there is a living being who is there to interpret it that way - as we do when we look at a screen full of individual pixels and see images through the pixels rather than the changing pixels themselves. Craig um -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 8:17 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 9:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? I didn't miss the obvious way to find out, which was to read the paper. They just tried different routes (which in computerese is called 'exhaustive search'). Brent All of them? Yes, all of them. There were only four flowers to go to. And as Jason pointed out the bees didn't 'solve' the problem in the sense of always taking the shortest route - they only did so 40% of the time. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Bees solve NP-Hard problems! How?
On 9/20/2012 11:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 8:17 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 9:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Any one up to explaining this: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a computation scales. For the number of places bees visit it may be very easy to solve, even though the number of steps grows faster than polynomially with the number of places to visit. Brent -- Gee Brent, Leave it to you to miss the obvious. How did the computation occur for the bees? What the researches showed is that bees can figure out the solution and navigate it as they go from flower to flower. How does this happen? I didn't miss the obvious way to find out, which was to read the paper. They just tried different routes (which in computerese is called 'exhaustive search'). Brent All of them? Yes, all of them. There were only four flowers to go to. And as Jason pointed out the bees didn't 'solve' the problem in the sense of always taking the shortest route - they only did so 40% of the time. Brent WELL! I was unable to read the abstract. So, the title of the article is a lie! -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Numbers in Space
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/20/2012 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Here's another reductio ad absurdum illustration of comp. If the version of comp we are discussing here is independent of physics, then shouldn't it be possible for us to program universal machines using only empty space? Length can be quantified, so why can't we just use millimeters or Planck lengths as the basis for our enumeration, addition, and multiplication and directly program from our mind to space? Of course, it would be hard to know where it was because we would be constantly flying away from a space that was anchored to an absolute position independent of Earth, the solar system, Milky Way, etc, but that shouldn't matter anyhow since whatever method we use to directly program in empty space with our minds should also give us access to the results of the computations. Right this is already the case. That we can use our minds to access the results. What do you think? Just as wafers of silicon glass could in theory be functionally identical to a living brain, wouldn't it be equally prejudiced to say that empty space isn't good enough to host the computations of silicon? We don't even need empty space, we can use thought alone to figure out the future evolution of computers that already exist in Platonia and then get the result of any computation. The problem is we are slow at doing this, so we build machines that can tell us what these platonic machines do with greater speed and accuracy than we ever could. It's not doing the computations that is hard, the computations are already there. The problem is learning their results. Jason It takes the consumption of resources to learn the results. This is what I have been yelling at Bruno about the entire time since I first read his beautiful papers. Understanding is never free. For us (in this universe) to learn the results of a platonic computation may take resources, but if you happen to be that very platonic computation in question, then you don't need to do anything extra to get the result. You are the result. Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
