Leibniz's pre-established harmony is just thermodynamics (or quantum entanglement)
I think that Leibniz's pre-established harmony is simply an early version of thermodyanmics, and/or possibly quantum nonlocality. A discussion of Leibniz's theory of causation is given on http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-causation/ He states that there are basically only three theories of causation: physical influx, occasionalism, and the pre- established harmony (PEH). Physical in-flux is that of newtonian physics. If a moving ball strikes another, something called momentum is transferred from the first to the second ball, which then moves on. Leibniz rejects this because Leibniz wants to rule out any kind of causation in which one substance passes something on to the other substance: “The way of influence is that of the common philosophy. But since it is impossible to conceive of material particles or of species or immaterial qualities which can pass from one of these substances into the other, the view must be rejected” (GP iv, 498f). Leibniz also rejects occasionalism, the theory that God intervenes in each action to assure the correct result. The problem with this and physical in-flux is that it ignores secondary reactions and so forth, which should extend globally to all bodies. Instead of these theories of purely localized interactions, Leibniz poffers his theory of pre-established harmony (PEH), in which God has globally specified the paths of moving bodies so that there are no collisions, etc. It appears to me that the PEH is nothing more than the principles of thermodynamics, which assures that large groups of particles act such as to fulfill the basic laws of thermodynamics. Thus the local interactions are fulfilled globally. Quantum nonlocaty might be a second explanation of this. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 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: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
Hi Bruno Marchal There seems to be some sort of prejudice given to proof or theory . As a scientist, all I have to do is to weigh myself and report that to you. Data, in my book at least, always rules over theory and assumptions. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:59:56 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 16 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I probably agree, but what is the primitive physical universe ? Any conception of the physical universe in case you assume its existence in the TOE (explicitly or implicity). A non primitive physical universe is a physical universe whose existence, or appearance, is explained in a theory which does not assume it. My (logical) point is that if we assume the CTM, then the physical universe cannot be primitive, but emerge or supervene on the numbers dreams (computation seen from the 1p view). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 04:40:19 Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:51:28 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. 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
Re: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
Hi Craig Weinberg If I believe in arithmetic and you don't, should I compromise with you ? Here is the dilemma: In the long run, liberals will create a better world, but in the long run, liberals will bring us to bankruptcy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 00:58:00 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:52:53 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Why do they always seem to stagnate into polarization? Because people stop talking to each other honestly and frankly. Is that what typically happens? Yes, so long as one side or both accept that the people that do not agree with them are wrong or evil or _insert your favorite derogatory adjective here_ and cannot be reasoned with and must be dealt with. What can be said about people in power who oppose compromise with the other side? Can we say that it is the uncompromising obstructionists who are causing problems and replace them with people who will not necessarily vote with their party? Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/r0d5jkTJGwsJ. 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.
Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Craig Weinberg Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, and respect is a mixture of love and fear. That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can you answer my question? Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant culture. Hi Craig, Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that identifies them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you? Lakoff seems to be on to something when he says that conservatives represent the view of the strict father oriented family. Which gibes with the whole 'pathology rooted in fear and aggression' diagnosis in that study I quoted. The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it easy' or 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a white male in the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever lived, and I recognize the problems that might pose to others outside of my group and how important it is to address those problems and participate with those others as equals to the extent that I can.' OK, being born into a class automatically places a burden on one's life or otherwise coerces a person to act in a certain way? Really? Is this an absolute fact? Care for a minority report on that? It's not about how a person acts, it's about where the person is allowed to act. What country clubs they have access to. How long they have to tour Europe after college before they get come home and apply for six figure jobs. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/QYV1w-m-5E8J. 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 9:59 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/16/2012 8:57 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Richard, I believe in the one god of CTM and its (X Z) logically derived string theory that is omnipotent (contains and carries out the laws of physics), When people claim that an entity is omnipotent, they are generally implying intentionality on the part of the entity. omniscient (instantly senses the entire universe), Same thing. It is implied that someone is doing the sensing. and omnipresent (is distributed throughout the universe), Proponents of classical physics could have claimed the same thing. but not necessarily omnibenevolent, that sustains one physical universe while knowing (computing) all possible universes. What label do I deserve? Atheist. You don't seem to believe in deities. If he believes in a omnipotent, or even just very powerful, creator/person who doesn't meddle in the universe (sort 'the great programmer') and doesn't care what humans do, then he's a deist. Brent Interesting. Therefore deists do not believe in deities. Sure they. They believe in some person/intelligence is responsible for ordering the world. I'm not sure whether you think of 'the one god of CTM' as being a person or not. If not, I guess you're just a computationalist. Brent By person I guess that you mean something like a human being. I certainly do not believe in that although the one god certainly has consciousness along with a wide variety of natural and supernatural beings that have consciousness and they may all share the same consciousness. I think that being a computationalist is the best label for me that anyone has come up with. I have a stronger believe in the existence of a supernatural world that will some day support my afterlife than I do in an intervening god that judges and punishes, although I do believe that the one god intervenes to manifest one physical world, rather than many, something that Bruno admits that CTM can predict along with an infinity of other possibilities inherent in the universal wave function. Therefore if we do live in a single physical world, it can be understood as being anthropic. CTM suffers from a much bigger landscape than the string landscape (characterized by 10^500 possibilities). Bruno has suggested a CTM landscape on the order of 1024^1600 possibilities. That seems about right. Richard -- 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.
For the video watchers: Quantum Information Lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=Q4xBlSi_fOs -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
Hi Stephen P. King My dialectic from of mind comes from my studying Hegel long ago. And my simplifications come from analyzing the metaphors of the I Ching. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 16:01:15 Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God On 12/11/2012 9:33 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Dear Roger, It's called an attempt at humor. I apologize if it didn't meet your standards: I am a learner in comedy, not a knower. A point here which puts my attempt at humor directly on topic: I ask myself whether everybody is a TOE? And is the ability to share that some measure for quality? By whose standards? Everybody breaks down the world into some set of primitives and looks at it through that lens + there is some truth to knowledge gleamed here, which can be shared and some that cannot. Monads, numbers, sense, quarks, humans, a great watch from descartes, the back of a turtle, and the plethora of new age perspectives and primitives: they might not obey the debatable laws of what constitutes an ontological, philosophical, or scientific argument... but if the bet is laid open and reasoning somewhat sincere, then I'll listen to a mystic over some dull philosopher or scientist and their linguistic labyrinths any day. I don't mind if they can express it formally or not. I raise the bar for TOE: not only must it address problems and be formally precise etc: It has to also be cool and have the gonads to laugh about itself. If we can't laugh at our own gods, then they are tyrants or rather grumpy. I make fun of my idiocy of seeing the world musically all the time. Roger, why would I want to attack what you hold dear? My reason for joking is much simpler than oedipal stuff: My Inbox reads Monads, Monads this, Monads that, but actually Monads this and so I joke about gonads and Leibniz biscuits in X-mas time that are everywhere in Germany. But if you need to make a Freudian oedipal diagnosis, then tell me at least what I have to gain by attacking the previous generation on an internet list? The answer is easier than attack: laughing is nice, so I try. Cowboy Hear Hear! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
On 12/17/2012 8:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If I believe in arithmetic and you don't, should I compromise with you ? Here is the dilemma: In the long run, liberals will create a better world, but in the long run, liberals will bring us to bankruptcy. Is this not a contradiction? Liberals simply do not understand the economics of the real world. The can easily imagine the economic equivalent of perpetual motion machines and see no problem with them. Conservatives fail to see the importance of evolution and so seek to suppress it. Both will cause chaos if left unchecked, IMHO. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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.
What is truth ? Take your pick.
Hi Stephen P. King There are many definitions of truth (see below): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher[citation needed], said: There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil. The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. Contents 1 Nomenclature, orthography, and etymology 2 Major theories of truth 2.1 Substantive theories 2.1.1 Correspondence theory 2.1.2 Coherence theory 2.1.3 Constructivist theory 2.1.4 Consensus theory 2.1.5 Pragmatic theory 2.2 Minimalist (deflationary) theories 2.2.1 Performative theory of truth 2.2.2 Redundancy and related theories 2.3 Pluralist theories 2.4 Most believed theories 3 Formal theories 3.1 Truth in logic 3.2 Truth in mathematics 3.3 Semantic theory of truth 3.4 Kripke's theory of truth 4 Notable views 4.1 Ancient history 4.2 Medieval age 4.2.1 Avicenna 4.2.2 Aquinas 4.3 Modern age 4.3.1 Kant 4.3.2 Hegel 4.3.3 Schopenhauer 4.3.4 Kierkegaard 4.3.5 Nietzsche 4.3.6 Whitehead 4.3.7 Nishida 4.3.8 Fromm 4.3.9 Foucault 4.3.10 Baudrillard 5 In medicine and psychiatry 6 In religion: omniscience 7 See also 7.1 Major theorists 8 Notes 9 References 10 External links [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 16:21:16 Subject: Re: the truth of science and the truth of religion On 12/13/2012 2:48 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/13/2012 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I have no conflicts with science as long as I keep in mind what kind of truth is referred to. There is one truth. Let us search it. There are many true propositions, but I don't think they can be collected in a coherent 'one truth'. Perhaps the one truth is that there are many possible inconsistent truths, but only one set of consistent truths for each of us, or for each universe, whatever.(;) Dear Richard, I agree! How these truths are woven together is of considerable interest, as such is that ToE's attempt. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
To your last point of presenting a narative, rather then the truth as one can best identify, then Stone, as in his past films engages in propaganda. To your previous concept that the US terrorizes innocent third world countries to establish itself as the last empire I would instead train your awareness on how, for example, the Chinese behave when, for example, they have taken over Tibet. Tibet is a land which historically has little connections to China. If you'd care to consider how China behaves in regards to Vietnam, Phillipines, and Japan, in the current tiff over various islands and territories, and regions, you might reconsider your statement on America being the last empire. Your anti-war stance, it seems is not really anti-war, but simply American use of violence in particular. Calling myself a nice guy, doesn't axiomatically make me one. -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:54 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: The assumption here is that Oliver Stone is presenting verifiable history, rather then his own, Neo-marxist Theory of history. That the Third World (an invented word of the Left) is deserving of deep respect, and is presumed blameless in all things, as well. I notice the avoidance of blaming Islamists for jihad actions in the world, or do you feel we should have sued the Afghan government in the Hague, rather then invade? Secondly, in Afghanistan, should we have allowed the Soviets to remain unchallenged during their involvement there? Another element of the neo-Marxist is to avoid speaking to Soviet actions in the world that was. It just depends what we want to do. If we want to try to be the last empire on Earth, then we should continue lying, cheating, and bombing the most territories that we can into submission and hold on to it as long as we can. If we do that, the current trend of degradation and corruption will likely be amplified and we will go the way of all failed civilizations. If we took another route and rolled back the empire, then we would have a lot of intense social dislocation and readjustment but ultimately maybe have a chance of joining the rest of the world as an equal partner nation. If you know of anything that Stone is presenting that is false I would be interested in hearing what that is. While he is obviously presenting his narrative of what happened, he makes no secret of it. I don't think that any of the events he depicts are in dispute. I will say that he de-emphasizes the transgressions which do not support his narrative, but it is ridiculous to say that these Neolithic-hut dwelling people did something to deserve being invaded and destabilized by American black ops. Craig -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:47:54 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 10:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I guess preventing women from learning to read is good in Afghanistan, even though it's bad here. So it's rational when you agree with the conclusion and rationalization when you don't. Brent No, it is not! Where are people in power in the US preventing women from learning to read in the US? What Power is needs to be precisely defined. Arguments from unreal hypotheticals are always fallacious. What hypothetical?? Women ARE prevented from learning to read in Afghanistan and we DO think it would be a bad thing to keep women from learning to read here. Brent -- Is the average US citizen the cause of the actions of the average Teleban member in Afghanistan? What is the relation between some activity in Afghanistan and in somewhere we are. This is an equivocation, thus a rubbish argument. Eh, there is a direct relation. After WW.II, The US and other world powers have been playing Chess with the Third World. Toppling democracies, installing puppet regimes. That's pretty much the CIAs function. The actual history is interesting.. the Oliver Stone series on Showtime right now is pretty informative. Why were we messing with the governments if Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Afghanistan? Why did the average citizens of those countries pose a threat to the oil companies and agribusiness? Craig -- nward! Stephen -- 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/-/LAjAocngmYgJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:53:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 12:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Why can't people read? Education institutions that don't really educate. We agree on that, and the lack of money allocated for it isn't the only problem. Education in the US should be torn down to the bricks and redone completely in a way that is nearly the opposite of what we have now. Vouchers could work in theory, but without some kind of unifying curriculum and social experience to counterbalance, that will likely produce lots of brainwashed fanatics of every stripe. Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. *It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing.* For sure, I'm talking in general principle here. ok Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Them too. Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them Rehabilitating them to be sub-human entities rather than super-human would be a good start. A corporation is mainly a way for wealthy people to cheat capitalism. Sure, and make lots of nice stuff cheaply too. ;-) Or make lots of cheap stuff seem nice to people who are too exhausted to know the difference. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/H_UvVCn-ncsJ. 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: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 *Subject:* Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can you answer my question? Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant culture. Hi Craig, Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that identifies them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you? Lakoff seems to be on to something when he says that conservatives represent the view of the strict father oriented family. Which gibes with the whole 'pathology rooted in fear and aggression' diagnosis in that study I quoted. The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it easy' or 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a white male in the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever lived, and I recognize the problems that might pose to others outside of my group and how important it is to address those problems and participate with those others as equals to the extent that I can.' OK, being born into a class automatically places a burden on one's life or otherwise coerces a person to act in a certain way? Really? Is this an absolute fact? Care for a minority report on that? It's not about how a person acts, it's about where the person is allowed to act. What country clubs they have access to. How long they have to tour Europe after college before they get come home and apply for six figure jobs. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/QYV1w-m-5E8J. 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: Austerity
Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, as the sole world superpower (by virtue of it's military stranglehold and commercial leverage), the end game being pursued here is that there are no longer any rules for us. Nobody can stop us from owing as much as we want. China needs our debt to grow their economy and so far they seem to be going along with the plan to be our factory farm. It makes sense on one level - what else do you do with a global empire but try to hang on and squeeeze? On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:32:18 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Personally, I believe the new politics will be between those for demolishing the debt and those against it. That's what's happened to europe, except that one faction thinks the austerity hurts the economy, the other that it is necessary. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-16, 09:49:12 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives indeed generally resist most (but not all) change because the changes are emotionally based rather than logically based, and so often do more harm than good. And waste money. You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings? We will have to wait to see if I am right or not, but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare will be at least a financial catastrophe. It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side. In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important. The problem with old democracies, is that the politicians get to know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high, you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests. Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the word politics can have any sensible meaning. A working political systems necessitate some investment in education. Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that the democrats can be more republicans than the republicans. We will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term, but my hope are not so high about that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Yes, I agree. My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. 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/-/QVg-uKnAr4kJ. 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/-/z3jd6fzpSh0J. 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 12/17/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There are many definitions of truth (see below): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher^[/citation needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed/] , said: /*There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil.*/ The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truthare deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. Hi Roger, I am a massively huge fan of A.N. Whitehead. ;-) You might make sense of my fight with Bruno given this alternative, non-Platonic, way of thinking of Truth. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On corporations and capitalism, do we include all corporations, or just one's that do not contribute to neo-Marxist causes, and and institutions? Do we realize how many of the rich contribute, and support, the Left infrastructure? The billionaires who contribute to each other's charities? Is, say, a Warren Buffett, or a George Soros, more palatable then the Koch brothers? If so, why would someone declaim corporations but avoid noticing how much they support the politics of the Left? I suppose a little 'baksheesh' goes a long way. -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 9:09 am Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:53:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 12:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Why can't people read? Education institutions that don't really educate. We agree on that, and the lack of money allocated for it isn't the only problem. Education in the US should be torn down to the bricks and redone completely in a way that is nearly the opposite of what we have now. Vouchers could work in theory, but without some kind of unifying curriculum and social experience to counterbalance, that will likely produce lots of brainwashed fanatics of every stripe. Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing. For sure, I'm talking in general principle here. ok Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Them too. Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them Rehabilitating them to be sub-human entities rather than super-human would be a good start. A corporation is mainly a way for wealthy people to cheat capitalism. Sure, and make lots of nice stuff cheaply too. ;-) Or make lots of cheap stuff seem nice to people who are too exhausted to know the difference. Craig -- nward! Stephen -- 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/-/H_UvVCn-ncsJ. 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:12:39 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. Yes. Fear within the family is unquestionably pathological. People who have lived with fear I think are compelled to rationalize it by equating it with Fright - which is a natural state of exhilaration and vigilance in the presence of a potential sudden threat. Fear serves nothing but tyranny, vanity, and perversion. Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Admiration is the healthy basis for a natural family hierarchy. Unconditional love means that you know that your parents and you are nearly the same people and that it will always be their good pleasure to support you in anything that you truly want to be or do. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's the thing, proponents of tough love don't ever seem to dare to look for falsification. I was just debating this on Quora last week with a guy telling me how his parents punished him and they were the greatest parents, but then said he had committed 50 felonies including armed robbery by the time he was 17. Uhh, ok. Stockholm syndrome much? Craig That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 *Subject:* Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can you answer my question? Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant culture. Hi Craig, Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that identifies them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you? Lakoff seems to be on to something when he says that conservatives represent the view of the strict father oriented family. Which gibes with the whole 'pathology rooted in fear and aggression' diagnosis in that study I quoted. The perspective is always - 'people who aren't like me have it easy' or 'inequality isn't important'. It's never 'yes, of course as a white male in the US, I am among the most privileged people who has ever
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:17:34 AM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: On corporations and capitalism, do we include all corporations, or just one's that do not contribute to neo-Marxist causes, There are no neo-Marxists. Right wingers are the only people who talk about Marx in this century. and and institutions? Do we realize how many of the rich contribute, and support, the Left infrastructure? The billionaires who contribute to each other's charities? Is, say, a Warren Buffett, or a George Soros, more palatable then the Koch brothers? To Progressives, yes, of course they are more palatable. Buffett is vocal about the rich not being taxed enough. Not sure about Soros but I imagine he supports that also. If so, why would someone declaim corporations but avoid noticing how much they support the politics of the Left? I suppose a little 'baksheesh' goes a long way. If we reinstates the Anti-trust laws that worked before, and took them further, then they wouldn't have as much influence in politics for Left or Right, yes? So why does only the Left support something like that? Craig -Original Message- From: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 9:09 am Subject: Re: Progressives and social darwinism On Monday, December 17, 2012 12:53:03 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 12:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:36:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 7:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:44:11 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: OH, I get it! The fact that I am born in the US makes me guilty of a crime for which I must pay restitution. Nice! What a nice con. Get people to believe that they owe you money and then sit back and collect checks. Sweet! Just because the American empire runs like other empires doesn't make us guilty of a crime, but it makes us legitimate targets in the eyes of those who are being oppressed in the name of our interests. How could it not? I don't know what kind of money con you are talking about. Like Progressive politics is a big money maker? hahaha Hi! It is a weaponizing and monitizing of guilt, used to control people. Control them to do what? Build libraries instead of liquidating them to add a number in some billionaire's bank account? Libraries full of books that no one can read? Why can't people read? Education institutions that don't really educate. We agree on that, and the lack of money allocated for it isn't the only problem. Education in the US should be torn down to the bricks and redone completely in a way that is nearly the opposite of what we have now. Vouchers could work in theory, but without some kind of unifying curriculum and social experience to counterbalance, that will likely produce lots of brainwashed fanatics of every stripe. Nice idea! There is a saying that applies here. *It is not possible to fix a real problem by just changing one thing.* For sure, I'm talking in general principle here. ok Witness the numbers of people in the world that are completely reliant on a handout for survive! You mean the Defense contractors and beneficiaries of huge industrial and agricultural subsidies? Sure! but wait, not banks and insurance companies? Them too. Why not ban all corporations? No, wait, we might need them Rehabilitating them to be sub-human entities rather than super-human would be a good start. A corporation is mainly a way for wealthy people to cheat capitalism. Sure, and make lots of nice stuff cheaply too. ;-) Or make lots of cheap stuff seem nice to people who are too exhausted to know the difference. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/H_UvVCn-ncsJ. 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/-/GxjK8yrQ-HcJ. 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.
Truth and Politics
What is truth ? There are many definitions of truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher[citation needed], said: There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil. The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. For example, half of the truth is that liberalism will surely create a better world. The other half is: But the liberals will drive us to bankruptcy. -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: There are no neo-Marxists. Right wingers are the only people who talk about Marx in this century. Craig, Really!? man under rock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Olin_Wright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse Are these examples not good enough for you? One can change the name of a concept/theory... What has gotten into you? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. inline: do_you_live_under_a_rock.jpg
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Buffett is vocal about the rich not being taxed enough. He is a massive hypocrite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html BTW, this HuffPo article is full of rubbish like it's not only rich corporations that are legally able to avoid paying taxes either as if corporations where people in the singular sense and had minds of their own, etc., but the point is that Mr. Buffet has every opportunity to pay the maximum tax he could calculate to the state, so his bemoaning of the false dichotomy between investment taxes and income taxation is at best merely a ploy to ingratiate himself with the low information voters. Geee, he cares about me! Meanwhile he is the biggest crony capitalist on the planet. Pfft, this entire debate makes me need to take a shower in Lysol! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p.
Hi Telmo Menezes I think that is a misleading article. If it's fMRI, you don't see the riginal video clip as an eye would see it, you see an image of brain activity. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 11:04:13 Subject: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. My memory is the identity of my 1p and is what my 1p sees. This is perhaps the most serioous problem of comp. Frankly I can understand people not convinced that a computer can have a quale associated to the memory, but memory and personal memory does not pose any problem in computers. Then I have explained why they have a quale too. This is not even theoretical anymore. Here's a rather compelling example of visual information in human brains being uploaded into a computer: http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity? -- 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: Re: Re: life is teleological
Hi Telmo Menezes purpose /Noun The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Verb Have as one's intention or objective: God has allowed suffering, even purposed it. That seems reasonably straightforward, or at least it's not completely arbitrary. In Leibniz this is the basis of the principle of sufficient reason. Things must be the way they are for some reason. That quest is the activity of science. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 06:16:47 Subject: Re: Re: Re: life is teleological Hi Roger, Man has no purpose (wise or foolish, it doesn't matter) in life ? He has evolved, hasn't he ? So man is at least one example of purpose driving or enhancing evolution. Purpose is a human construct. DNA encodes the developmental process (or algorithm) for our brain. This developmental process then takes place in an environment inhabited by other humans and a lot of other stuff. The directives encoded in DNA allow the brain to adapt to this environment. So the brain is encoded with a preference to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The way that experiences are classified as painful or pleasurable is fine-tuned by aeons of evolution. The homo sapiens occupies a very specialised evolutionary niche, in which it relies in the superior pattern-matching and future state-predicting capabilities of its gigantic brain. So in a way, the homo sapiens niche is that of being capable of adapting faster and better to new situations. This requires a level of neural sophistication that is unmatched by any other species we've seen so far. This sophistication includes complex constructs like purpose. You're right in that, in a way, we have now transcended evolution. We developed medical technology that allows us to keep members of our species alive when otherwise they would have died (I would have been dead at 1 month old, killed by a closed stomach valve). We developed artificial insemination, allowing for reproduction where it would have been impossible. Our super-complex society keeps altering the mate selection process. Changes in sexual morality across time and space continuously affect the evolutionary process. We are now in the process of becoming full-blown designers, by way of genetic engineering and nano-tech. All this came as a by-product of the evolutionary drift towards our niche: gigantic brains and their complexities. Avoid pain and seek pleasure - now with super-super-super computers. Why do we avoid pain and seek pleasure? Why do we have gigantic brains? Because this configuration passed the evolutionary filter. It turns out that it's stable enough to persist for some time. Now back to evolution itself: it does not have any preference for niches. That's an anthropomorphizing mistake. We persist doing our thing, e-coli persist doing theirs. So finally my main point: evolution does not have a purpose, but it is capable of generating systems sufficiently complex to feel a sense of purpose. Have a great Sunday, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-13, 11:30:40 Subject: Re: Re: life is teleological Hi Roger, To be purposeful you need a self or center of consciousness to desire that goal or purpose. The key word is desire. Stones don't desire. Ok, but what I'm saying is that purposefulness is not present in evolutionary processes. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/13/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 14:21:04 Subject: Re: life is teleological Hi Roger, Anything goal-oriented is teleological, which is what the word means. And the goal of life is to survive. So evolution is teleological. Sorry but I don't agree that life or evolution have a goal. That would be a bit like saying that the goal of gravity is to attract chunks of matter to each other. You could instead see life as a process and evolution as a filter: some stuff continues to exist, other stuff doesn't. We can develop narratives on why that is: successful replication, good adaption to a biological niche and so on. But these narratives are all in our minds, we ourselves looking at it from inside of the process, if you will. From the outside, we are just experiencing the stuff that persists or, in other words, that went through the evolutionary filter at this point in time. In other words, life is intelligent. Suppose I postulate that the goal of
Re: Re: Austerity
Hi Craig Weinberg A strong militrary strengthens the dollar. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:14:49 Subject: Re: Austerity Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, as the sole world superpower (by virtue of it's military stranglehold and commercial leverage), the end game being pursued here is that there are no longer any rules for us. Nobody can stop us from owing as much as we want. China needs our debt to grow their economy and so far they seem to be going along with the plan to be our factory farm. It makes sense on one level - what else do you do with a global empire but try to hang on and squeeeze? On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:32:18 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Personally, I believe the new politics will be between those for demolishing the debt and those against it. That's what's happened to europe, except that one faction thinks the austerity hurts the economy, the other that it is necessary. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 09:49:12 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives indeed generally resist most (but not all) change because the changes are emotionally based rather than logically based, and so often do more harm than good. And waste money. You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings? We will have to wait to see if I am right or not, but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare will be at least a financial catastrophe. It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side. In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important. The problem with old democracies, is that the politicians get to know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high, you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests. Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the word politics can have any sensible meaning. A working political systems necessitate some investment in education. Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that the democrats can be more republicans than the republicans. We will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term, but my hope are not so high about that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Yes, I agree. My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. 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/-/QVg-uKnAr4kJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/z3jd6fzpSh0J. 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: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Craig Weinberg Actually the fourth commandment is to HONOR your parents. You don't have to love them, just respect them for what they've given you. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:23:15 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:12:39 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. Yes. Fear within the family is unquestionably pathological. People who have lived with fear I think are compelled to rationalize it by equating it with Fright - which is a natural state of exhilaration and vigilance in the presence of a potential sudden threat. Fear serves nothing but tyranny, vanity, and perversion. Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Admiration is the healthy basis for a natural family hierarchy. Unconditional love means that you know that your parents and you are nearly the same people and that it will always be their good pleasure to support you in anything that you truly want to be or do. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's the thing, proponents of tough love don't ever seem to dare to look for falsification. I was just debating this on Quora last week with a guy telling me how his parents punished him and they were the greatest parents, but then said he had committed 50 felonies including armed robbery by the time he was 17. Uhh, ok. Stockholm syndrome much? Craig That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Can you answer my question? Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant culture. Hi Craig, Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that identifies them? Does the particular nature of the culture matter for you? Lakoff seems to be on to something when he says that conservatives represent the view of the
Re: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 12/17/2012 10:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Whitehead is a devil then because then the half-truth rule can be no exception to his whole truth rule. It is therefore a one quarter truth. No! Wait! It is a 1/8th truth. Sh*t! It just transformed into a 1/16th truth... Cowboy does this for one countable infinity. That's pretty cruel of Whitehead. He made me lose an infinity! WTF? That's more time lost than sifting over our ideological, soapbox posts in this list. C'mon guys, really? You really mean REALLY? I have no problem with devils; that is if they are seriously too weird. But will leave them to pay the drink if they are weirdly too serious :) Same rule for aliens, angels, elks, gods, people, especially philosophers (the most unbelievable fantasy creature imho) because this cowboy weirdness rule works in any universe. Caveat: only works for people who are weird enough. My point: So get rigorously weird. Cowboy Hi Cowboy! Mathematicians like to think of a zoo, where we can have all kinds of very nasty creatures, securely locked up for us to study. We Philosophers like to go into the wild and track down the beasts in their natural habitats. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On 12/17/2012 10:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Actually the fourth commandment is to HONOR your parents. You don't have to love them, just respect them for what they've given you. I think that Thou shalt not steal covers theft from future generations of people, which is what deficit spending actually is! But who cares about those old dusty and hide bound rules. We can live free from contraints of reality, so long as we can figure out rational reasons to do so. It seems that we are doomed to learn lessons the hard way. Damn, that stove burned my hand. I had better not touch it w/o a insulating device... [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:23:15 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:12:39 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. Yes. Fear within the family is unquestionably pathological. People who have lived with fear I think are compelled to rationalize it by equating it with Fright - which is a natural state of exhilaration and vigilance in the presence of a potential sudden threat. Fear serves nothing but tyranny, vanity, and perversion. Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Admiration is the healthy basis for a natural family hierarchy. Unconditional love means that you know that your parents and you are nearly the same people and that it will always be their good pleasure to support you in anything that you truly want to be or do. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's the thing, proponents of tough love don't ever seem to dare to look for falsification. I was just debating this on Quora last week with a guy telling me how his parents punished him and they were the greatest parents, but then said he had committed 50 felonies including armed robbery by the time he was 17. Uhh, ok. Stockholm syndrome much? Craig That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 01:02:40 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen
Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p.
Hi again Roger, It's a bit better than that. A machine learning algorithm is trained to decode neural activation signals. The training is performed by showing the subject known images, and letting the algorithm learn how their neural activity maps to these images. The real magic happens when you show them new stuff, that the algorithm wasn't trained for. To me, the most impressive stuff here is when it fails. If you pay attention to the videos, you will see the algorithm decoding different (but similar images) from what the one being shown to the subject. For example, when faces are shown, different faces are decoded and then start correcting. My speculation is that we are actually seing visual memories conjured by the brain in its pattern matching attempts. My favorite is the ink blot exploding, where you can see the brain anticipating the explosion, so you get to see a visual of the subject imagining a likely future state. On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes I think that is a misleading article. If it's fMRI, you don't see the riginal video clip as an eye would see it, you see an image of brain activity. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 11:04:13 Subject: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. My memory is the identity of my 1p and is what my 1p sees. This is perhaps the most serioous problem of comp. Frankly I can understand people not convinced that a computer can have a quale associated to the memory, but memory and personal memory does not pose any problem in computers. Then I have explained why they have a quale too. This is not even theoretical anymore. Here's a rather compelling example of visual information in human brains being uploaded into a computer: http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity ? -- 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: Re: Are monads tokens ?
Hi Stephen P. King I don't see why not. Donaldson was certainly aware of all of that stuff. I have gotten myself into deep waters, need to study this stuff more. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 14:25:48 Subject: Re: Are monads tokens ? On 12/16/2012 8:36 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ? Are monads tokens ?? I'm going to say yes, because each monad refers to a corporeal body as a whole (so it is nonreductive at the physical end) even though each monad, being specific about what it refers to, identifies the type of object it refers to. Dear Roger, ?? Does the type-token duality apply? ? Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen ? - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 08:17:27 Subject: Davidson on truth Donald Davidson on truth ? I don't think you can do any better on understanding truth than studying Donald Davidson. ? As I understand him, in ? 1) he justifies?omp (the use of tokens, because they are nonreductive) as long as we allow for (a) mental causation of physical events; (b) that there is a strict exceptionless relation? (iff)? between the events; (c) that we?se tokens and not types to relate mental? to physical events? ? 2) He narrows down what form of language can be used. Not sure but this seems to allow only?inite, learnable context-free expressions only ? 3) He clarifies the meaning and use of 1p vs 3p. Observed that Hume accepted only 1p knowledege, the logical positivists accepted only 3p knowledge, where 1p is knowledge by acquaintance and 3p is knowledge by description.? I might add that IMHO 1p is Kierkegaard's view that truth is subjective, so K is close to Hume. ? ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_%28philosopher%29#Mental_events 1. Token Mental events ( A justification of token physicalism: these being comp and purely token functionalism) In Mental Events (1970) Davidson advanced a form of token identity theory about the mind: token mental events are identical to token physical events. One previous difficulty with such a view was that it did not seem feasible to provide laws relating mental states?or example, believing that the sky is blue, or wanting a hamburger?o physical states, such as patterns of neural activity in the brain. Davidson argued that such a reduction would not be necessary to a token identity thesis: it is possible that each individual mental event just is the corresponding physical event, without there being laws relating types (as opposed to tokens) of mental events to types of physical events. But, Davidson argued, the fact that we could not have such a reduction does not entail that the mind is anything more than the brain. Hence, Davidson called his position anomalous monism: monism, because it claims that only one thing is at issue in questions of mental and physical events; anomalous (from a-, not, and omalos, regular) because mental and physical event types could not be connected by strict laws (laws without exceptions). Davidson argued that anomalous monism follows from three plausible theses. First, he assumes the denial of epiphenomenalism?hat is, the denial of the view that mental events do not cause physical events. Second, he assumes a nomological view of causation, according to which one event causes another if (and only if) there is a strict, exceptionless law governing the relation between the events. Third, he assumes the principle of the anomalism of the mental, according to which there are no strict laws that govern the relationship between mental event types and physical event types. By these three theses, Davidson argued, it follows that the causal relations between the mental and the physical hold only between mental event tokens, but that mental events as types are anomalous. This ultimately secures token physicalism and a supervenience relation between the mental and the physical, while respecting the autonomy of the mental (Malpas, 2005, ?2). 2. Truth and meaning (A justification of the use of certain types of language--- I think this might mean context-free (finite) language) In 1967 Davidson published Truth and Meaning, in which he argued that any learnable language must be statable in a finite form, even if it is capable of a theoretically infinite number of expressions?s we may assume that natural human languages are, at least in principle. If it could not be stated in a finite way then it could not be learned through a finite, empirical method such as the way humans learn their languages. It follows that it must be possible to give a theoretical semantics for any natural language which could give the meanings of an infinite number of
Re: Re: What is truth ? Take your pick.
Hi Stephen P. King An interesting insight. Hmmm. I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:16:03 Subject: Re: What is truth ? Take your pick. On 12/17/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King There are many definitions of truth (see below): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher[citation needed], said: There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil. The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. Hi Roger, I am a massively huge fan of A.N. Whitehead. ;-) You might make sense of my fight with Bruno given this alternative, non-Platonic, way of thinking of Truth. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Craig Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And it also damps down crime, cruelty and murder. We should not only fear (and love) God, but fear Satan. Because as that mass murder of children over the weekend shows, evil is real. That's the simplest explanation, which you liberals can't accept and so go around searching for some complex psychological reason for why that creep murdered those children. That may be the only thing you can be sure about in this life, that evil is real. It isn't just words. It's real. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:41:13 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I look at it this way : No matter how you slice it, it's still salami. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 10:40:52 Subject: Re: What is truth ? Take your pick. Hi guys, On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? There are many definitions of truth (see below): ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ? I like Whitehead's, which describes contemporary politics: ? Whitehead Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher[citation needed], said: There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil. The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion. Hi Roger, ?? I am a massively huge fan of A.N. Whitehead. ;-) You might make sense of my fight with Bruno given this alternative, non-Platonic, way of thinking of Truth. Whitehead is a devil then because then the half-truth rule can be no exception to his whole truth rule. It is therefore a one quarter truth. No! Wait! It is a 1/8th truth. Sh*t! It just transformed into a 1/16th truth... Cowboy does this for one countable infinity. That's pretty cruel of Whitehead. He made me lose an infinity! WTF? That's more time lost than sifting over our ideological, soapbox posts in this list. C'mon guys, really? You really mean REALLY? I have no problem with devils; that is if they are seriously too weird. But will leave them to pay the drink if they are weirdly too serious :) Same rule for aliens, angels, elks, gods, people, especially philosophers (the most unbelievable fantasy creature imho) because this cowboy weirdness rule works in any universe. Caveat: only works for people who are weird enough. My point: So get rigorously weird.? Cowboy ? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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.
a biological definition of good and evil.
Hi Stephen P. King I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 14:31:22 Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On 12/16/2012 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. Hi Craig, To me it boils down to a willingness to be objective. If one defines a standard of measure of good and bad, then one must apply it consistently. Otherwise there is no such thing as good' or 'bad. Tribalism comes with a shiftable measure of good and bad (stealing from non-members of the tribe is OK, stealing from tribe members is bad, for example), this makes tribalism bad, IMHO, not matter what kind of tribalism it is! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with them. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: a biological definition of good and evil.
On 12/17/2012 11:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Hi Roger, That is a good example of contextualizing. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:41:13 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. Then we should promote a crippling fear of fast food and a stressful, sedentary lifestyle. It is important to be able to pay attention to what is dangerous and to be able to act responsibly toward it, but there's no reason to ornament it with any sentiment or patriotism. I have no problem avoiding things that can kill me without nurturing fears about them. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/BkUwC4NnjGgJ. 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On 12/17/2012 11:59 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:41:13 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. Then we should promote a crippling fear of fast food and a stressful, sedentary lifestyle. Craig, What is with the constant weaponizing of fear? Is there nothing nice and wonderful point in the world that we can just stop and love the fact that we are alive? We are here, IMHO, to experience the fullness of Sense. Damping it down into safe bites is nothing more than trying to do the job of thermodynamics faster. We are, after all, identical to each other in the last of days. System at max entropy, time stop. end video. __ It is important to be able to pay attention to what is dangerous and to be able to act responsibly toward it, but there's no reason to ornament it with any sentiment or patriotism. I have no problem avoiding things that can kill me without nurturing fears about them. Flail away, but your just missing out. You have any kids yet? Relax man, here, have a bowl! (while you can!) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:47:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: There are no neo-Marxists. Right wingers are the only people who talk about Marx in this century. Craig, Really!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Olin_Wright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse Are these examples not good enough for you? One can change the name of a concept/theory... What has gotten into you? Why do you think something has 'gotten into me'? Of those three on your list I have heard of one of them - Marcuse, but *only* because my Right Wing history professor at UCSB made the entire chapter on the 60s about him. Otherwise I would have never in my life have known of his work - especially since he died 35 years ago. As for being under a rock, that's exactly my point. For myself and every other person I have heard or read express Progressive views, I do not see that they take their cues from these academics, which they are usually unaware of. By contrast, many is the time that I will debate with a Right-Libertarian and it is only a matter of time until Von Mises is brought up (talk about idolatry). Progressives are people whose parents didn't beat them and intimidate them, so they aren't afraid to think for themselves, and they aren't afraid of letting go of that kind of patriarchal model of control. Everything that you all have been saying here is only making me more and more clear on the lack of real substance or ideas behind Conservativism. It's 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!' writ large. The more Conservative ideas are understood, the more Progressives there will be. What happened to the part where I listed how the Regressive position has been dead wrong at every important turn in the 20th century? Wrong on Women's Sufferage, Wrong on Civil Rights, Wrong on Labor reforms, Wrong on McCarthyism, Wrong on the Cold War, Wrong on Vietnam, Wrong on the Drug War, Wrong on Trickle Down... what about all of that? Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/1dTIFvbJx1IJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
I don't doubt it. He cut off one of his family for talking to Jamie Johnson in that Rich Kids documentary too. On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:55:15 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Buffett is vocal about the rich not being taxed enough. He is a massive hypocrite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html BTW, this HuffPo article is full of rubbish like it's not only rich corporations that are legally able to avoid paying taxes either as if corporations where people in the singular sense and had minds of their own, etc., but the point is that Mr. Buffet has every opportunity to pay the maximum tax he could calculate to the state, so his bemoaning of the false dichotomy between investment taxes and income taxation is at best merely a ploy to ingratiate himself with the low information voters. Geee, he cares about me! Meanwhile he is the biggest crony capitalist on the planet. Pfft, this entire debate makes me need to take a shower in Lysol! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/H6BH_iaZDhUJ. 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 Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
You have it backwards Roger. the most unequal society will be one in which a single person receives 100% of the total income and the remaining people receive none (*G* = 1); and the most equal society will be one in which every person receives the same income (*G* = 0). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality Namibia = 70.7 China = 61.0 Haiti = 59.2 Rwanda = 46.8 *United States = 45.0* Japan = 37.6 Switzerland = 33.7 Canada = 32.1 South Korea = 31.0 Germany 27.0 Norway = 25.0 Sweden = 23.0 Of course, Gini isn't the end-all be-all, but it helps if you are looking at it right side up. We are sliding closer to Rwanda than to the wealthy, civilized, and unsurprisingly more Progressive economies. Craig On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:14:19 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: I don't know about social mobility, but the gini coefficient, which one might call a fairness index, represents the inequality in income in a country. When g=1, there's no difference between the wealth of the rich and poor, when g= 0, the inequality is greatest. Contrary to complaints by the liberals, the gini coeffcient has steadly grown in the USA st few decades. Source of data, US Census Bureau. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=enclient=firefoxhs=9Bysa=Xtbo=drls=com.yahoo:en-US:officialbiw=1920bih=900tbm=ischtbnid=8pTBpdKelwJ3rM:imgrefurl=http://oneutah.org/national-politics/the-gini-index/docid=suRDiXjQ4hdqqMimgurl=http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gini_index.jpgw=440h=320ei=wDPPUIT0E8aB0AHp3ID4BQzoom=1iact=hcvpx=12vpy=441dur=598hovh=159hovw=218tx=150ty=106sig=115931554181685460496page=1tbnh=141tbnw=194start=0ndsp=49ved=1t:429,r:19,s:0,i:147 Worldwide, we are about average:(0.40), and for you lovers of socialism, compare that to the coefficient of 0.25-0.35 in socialist europe. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=enclient=firefoxhs=9Bysa=Xtbo=drls=com.yahoo:en-US:officialbiw=1920bih=900tbm=ischtbnid=pJxfnX9KyDVNfM:imgrefurl=http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/ over_measure1.htmdocid=z7VYAgL76Kh85Mimgurl= http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/gini.gifw=336h=275ei=wDPPUIT0E8aB0AHp3ID4BQzoom=1iact=hcvpx=12vpy=125dur=442hovh=130hovw= 158tx=71ty=88sig=115931554181685460496page=1tbnh=128tbnw=156start=0ndsp=48ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:90 A similar map is at wikipedia under income inequality or gini not sure. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/17/2012 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/-/PQGEdDO8kWsJ. 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: Austerity
On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:51:26 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg A strong militrary strengthens the dollar. Ah, then the dollar should be stronger than then next ten currencies put together. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/76993865824def4a4d61875fdfb45e42.png Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-17, 09:14:49 *Subject:* Re: Austerity Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, as the sole world superpower (by virtue of it's military stranglehold and commercial leverage), the end game being pursued here is that there are no longer any rules for us. Nobody can stop us from owing as much as we want. China needs our debt to grow their economy and so far they seem to be going along with the plan to be our factory farm. It makes sense on one level - what else do you do with a global empire but try to hang on and squeeeze? On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:32:18 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Personally, I believe the new politics will be between those for demolishing the debt and those against it. That's what's happened to europe, except that one faction thinks the austerity hurts the economy, the other that it is necessary. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-12-16, 09:49:12 *Subject:* Re: Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional,brainstudyshows On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote: On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Conservatives indeed generally resist most (but not all) change because the changes are emotionally based rather than logically based, and so often do more harm than good. And waste money. You mean like abolishing slavery, universal education, giving women the vote, putting up lightning rods, vaccination,... all those 'emotionally based' changes that conservatives opposed in the name of God, the bible, and the divine right of kings? We will have to wait to see if I am right or not, but all of the indications suggest that Obamacare will be at least a financial catastrophe. It may well be, since conservatives prevented European style national health care, which costs only half as much per capita. The Dems had to compromise by mandating private insurance in order to get the insurance company lobbyist on their side. In a working democracy, both the left and the right are important. You can vote on the left when the country go to far on the right, and on the right when he go to far on the left. That is what is important. The problem with old democracies, is that the politicians get to know each other and eventually, if the corruption level is too high, you can no more make difference, as they defend only special interests. Personally as long as the lies on drugs continue, I really doubt the word politics can have any sensible meaning. A working political systems necessitate some investment in education. Obama was very promising at the start, but he has quickly shown that the democrats can be more republicans than the republicans. We will see, as he might have more degree of freedom in his second term, but my hope are not so high about that. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Yes, I agree. My standard comment is that the Democrats will say that they are going to do good things and not do them while Republicans will do bad things and then say that they are good. 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/-/QVg-uKnAr4kJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/z3jd6fzpSh0J. 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
Re: Re: Men don't get no respect these days
On Monday, December 17, 2012 10:55:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Actually the fourth commandment is to HONOR your parents. You don't have to love them, just respect them for what they've given you. It is a parents job to give their kids what they can. If a person is respectable, then they deserve respect. If a person is loving or lovable, then they should be loved. I agree parents should be honored - i.e., I return their phone calls in a timely manner. I call them a couple times a month. I maintain pleasant communications with them. Other than that - my bondage to parenthood is paid in full. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:23:15 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:12:39 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. Yes. Fear within the family is unquestionably pathological. People who have lived with fear I think are compelled to rationalize it by equating it with Fright - which is a natural state of exhilaration and vigilance in the presence of a potential sudden threat. Fear serves nothing but tyranny, vanity, and perversion. Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Admiration is the healthy basis for a natural family hierarchy. Unconditional love means that you know that your parents and you are nearly the same people and that it will always be their good pleasure to support you in anything that you truly want to be or do. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's the thing, proponents of tough love don't ever seem to dare to look for falsification. I was just debating this on Quora last week with a guy telling me how his parents punished him and they were the greatest parents, but then said he had committed 50 felonies including armed robbery by the time he was 17. Uhh, ok. Stockholm syndrome much? Craig That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent crime is the lowest ever. Mainstream media blows things out of proportion, that's all. Best, Telmo. [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg
Re: Men don't get no respect these days
On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:02:07 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 10:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Actually the fourth commandment is to HONOR your parents. You don't have to love them, just respect them for what they've given you. I think that Thou shalt not steal covers theft from future generations of people, which is what deficit spending actually is! But who cares about those old dusty and hide bound rules. We can live free from contraints of reality, so long as we can figure out rational reasons to do so. You know that the Republican administrations have been the worst deficit spenders though. It seems that we are doomed to learn lessons the hard way. Damn, that stove burned my hand. I had better not touch it w/o a insulating device... [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net javascript:] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:23:15 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:12:39 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Roger, Lakoff is correct about conservatism and the father. It is not a pathology, however, to respect your parents, Agreed. and respect is a mixture of love and fear. For me respect is a mixture of love and admiration, which are things that have to be earned. I loved and admired my father. I never feared him. To fear him I would have to believe that he was willing to harm me, and that would probably interfere with the love/admiration part. Yes. Fear within the family is unquestionably pathological. People who have lived with fear I think are compelled to rationalize it by equating it with Fright - which is a natural state of exhilaration and vigilance in the presence of a potential sudden threat. Fear serves nothing but tyranny, vanity, and perversion. Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Admiration is the healthy basis for a natural family hierarchy. Unconditional love means that you know that your parents and you are nearly the same people and that it will always be their good pleasure to support you in anything that you truly want to be or do. My mother is a catholic and my father was agnostic. He agreed to put me through religious school and remain neutral on the entire thing. Up to one day when I was a little kid and couldn't sleep because I was afraid of going to hell. He told me: don't worry, that god they are telling you about doesn't exist. It was the biggest relief in my life. Religion tried to instill fear into me, when I was a little kid and psychologically vulnerable. My father taught me how to be a decent human being, no strings attached. Guess who I still love these days? That's the thing, proponents of tough love don't ever seem to dare to look for falsification. I was just debating this on Quora last week with a guy telling me how his parents punished him and they were the greatest parents, but then said he had committed 50 felonies including armed robbery by the time he was 17. Uhh, ok. Stockholm syndrome much? Craig That's one of the ten commandments. And if people feared God more, incidents like the mass murders in CT would be much fewer. God should be returned to the classroom. It doesn't have to be the Christian God. Let's not even discuss the mountain of atrocities that were committed in God's name. A recent one: 9/11. The USA (a country I greatly admire for its many achievements, including its constitution) is currently the least secular country in the western world. Yet it's the only place where this stuff is happening. How come? Here in godless Europe we have the lowest levels of church attendance ever, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, decriminalised drugs and it's ok to show female breasts on TV. Yet none of that stuff is happening here. The only similar event we had was perpetrated by a god fearing hard-core conservative. The Women's Movement has unfortunately killed the father in their understable desire for wage equality etc. I had a great father. Many of my childhood friends did too, and then became fathers themselves, and they seem to be doing well. What do you mean exactly? I challenge you to find one ad on TV or radio that does not feature a man as other than a fool. And the death of the father has turned progressives into anarchists. The death of the father is the deathy of morality. It's the main problem with society today. By objective metrics measuring violence, society nowadays is the best it ever was. The likelihood of you being the victim of a violent
Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics particularly when spin is involved and it's easy to see why. The real numbers are commutative but there are things in the physical world that are not, so to have a mathematical theory about them you need something, like quaternions, that are non-commutative just like the real world is. Sometimes the order in which something happens makes no difference, 2+4 =4 +2, but in physics sometimes the order is important, for example, turning a book 90 degrees around a vertical axis then 90 degrees around a horizontal axis produces a different result than turning it 90 degrees around a horizontal axis and then 90 degrees around a vertical axis. 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: Re: Men don't get no respect these days
On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:38:12 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And it also damps down crime, cruelty and murder. We should not only fear (and love) God, but fear Satan. No, we should grow up and understand reality as it is, not as we have been told it is. Because as that mass murder of children over the weekend shows, evil is real. The belief in evil is exactly what attracts some people to do horrible acts. People murder their own kids because God told them to do it also. Super-signifying agents should be understood, not loved or feared. That's the simplest explanation, which you liberals can't accept and so go around searching for some complex psychological reason for why that creep murdered those children. There's all kinds of reasons for the increasing incidents of white-males in mass shootings, but with the arsenal his mother had, we can safely assume that she was not a Progressive, permissive parent. Not that it matters though. Whatever the reason, I think that we can't afford not to have some large areas of the country (cities, counties, or states) where guns are banned. That may be the only thing you can be sure about in this life, that evil is real. It isn't just words. It's real. Evil is more than real and less than real. Evil is the a personal orientation toward motivation by love and understanding or fear and hatred. Evil is when natural appetites are suppressed out of fear until they find another way to be heard. Evil is when a society is so sick with greed and sterilized by mechanism that it turns its offices and schools into prisons. As far as I'm concerned, these killers should be turned over to the families of the victims who should do whatever they want to them if possible. It's not about fighting Evil, it's about giving justice where possible. Fighting Evil is like fighting bacteria with antibiotics - there is just going to be more resistance the more we invest in fear of it. Craig [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript: 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-12-17, 09:41:13 *Subject:* Re: Men don't get no respect these days On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.javascript: To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsub...@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/-/8GRcU3ErYBYJ. 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Quantum theory must be based on complex variables and not real numbers or quaternions for example. Quaternions are used in Quantum Mechanics particularly when spin is involved and it's easy to see why. The real numbers are commutative but there are things in the physical world that are not, so to have a mathematical theory about them you need something, like quaternions, that are non-commutative just like the real world is. Sometimes the order in which something happens makes no difference, 2+4 =4 +2, but in physics sometimes the order is important, for example, turning a book 90 degrees around a vertical axis then 90 degrees around a horizontal axis produces a different result than turning it 90 degrees around a horizontal axis and then 90 degrees around a vertical axis. John K Clark I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. -- 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. 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: Austerity
On Monday, December 17, 2012 1:08:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. I agree. I suspect though that this is exactly why the US leadership intends to keep pushing that into a greater and greater bubble forever. I could be wrong, I'm not really educated on the particulars, it's just a hunch. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. That sounds more realistic than my hunch. 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/-/mw0eitQUgvYJ. 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: Austerity
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. Brent In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. -- 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
Dear Roger and Stephen, Cowboy epistemology on truth are underestimated. Much simpler than all this heavy stuff. From a fellow guitar cowboy that many will know: When the sun came up this morning I took the time to watch it rise. As its beauty struck the darkness from the skies. I thought how small and unimportant all my troubles seem to be, and how lucky another day belongs to me. And as the sleepy world around me woke up to greet the day, and all its silent beauty seemed to say: So what, my friend, if all your dreams you haven't realized. Look around, you got a whole new day to try. Today is mine, today is mine, to do with what I will. Today is mine. My own special cup to fill. To die a little that I might learn to live. And take from life that I might learn to give. With all men I curse the present that seems void of peace of mind, and race my thoughts beyond tomorrow and vision there more peace of mind. But when I view the day around me I can see the fool I've been. For today is the only garden we can tend. --- I don't need superpositions of Nothing and Everything, there is no salami in the wild, no bounded context either, I may be indeterminate, but just give me another day to try :) Cowboy On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with them. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. 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: Re: Men don't get no respect these days
Hi Craig Weinberg I had been talking about fear of God, but fear of the law (meaning fear of diobeying the law) helps keep our streets safer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:59:08 Subject: Re: Men don't get no respect these days On Monday, December 17, 2012 9:41:13 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 9:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Stamping out fear of every kind in the world is a worthy cause. Wrong! Fear of those things that will kill you is healthy. This is why pain exists. Then we should promote a crippling fear of fast food and a stressful, sedentary lifestyle. It is important to be able to pay attention to what is dangerous and to be able to act responsibly toward it, but there's no reason to ornament it with any sentiment or patriotism. I have no problem avoiding things that can kill me without nurturing fears about them. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/BkUwC4NnjGgJ. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Are these examples not good enough for you? One can change the name of a concept/theory... What has gotten into you? Why do you think something has 'gotten into me'? Of those three on your list I have heard of one of them - Marcuse, but *only* because my Right Wing history professor at UCSB made the entire chapter on the 60s about him. Otherwise I would have never in my life have known of his work - especially since he died 35 years ago. As for being under a rock, that's exactly my point. For myself and every other person I have heard or read express Progressive views, I do not see that they take their cues from these academics, which they are usually unaware of. By contrast, many is the time that I will debate with a Right-Libertarian and it is only a matter of time until Von Mises is brought up (talk about idolatry). Progressives are people whose parents didn't beat them and intimidate them, so they aren't afraid to think for themselves, and they aren't afraid of letting go of that kind of patriarchal model of control. Everything that you all have been saying here is only making me more and more clear on the lack of real substance or ideas behind Conservativism. It's 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!' writ large. The more Conservative ideas are understood, the more Progressives there will be. Hey! Try this example of modern neo-marxists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVWCYAchd7E Try listening to Rush Limbaugh for 1 hour and think of him as Racheal Maddow's Twin brother. http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/entercom/player/?id=WORD To be truly balanced, one must practice balance. Consider all views as if they are a p.o.v. of God. The trick is to understand that all points of view do not need to be finitely mutually consistent! Love thy Neighbor as thyself. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
Hi Stephen P. King Good point about necessary and known , but if you follow donaldson, context should be torn out of the heart of any true proposition. Context-sensitive is almost a definition of contingency. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:50:05 Subject: Re: What is truth ? Take your pick. On 12/17/2012 11:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I may have to disagree with you, possibly because no one arithmetic statement is the whole truth. And comp needs a whole set of equations, no one of which is the whole truth. But I think that EVERYTHING comes from the One, even untruth. Necessary truth is just a subset I think. So is contingent truth. Dear Roger, I see the ONE as a superposition of Nothing and Everything... The Many is the classical case. /evil grin Necessary truths are the only kind that can be known, they are conditional to context. Absence the specifiably of context even properties vanish and truths with them. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge
Hi Stephen P. King If the conservatives are capitalist, then they espouse evolution, for capitalism is pure Darwinism. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 09:02:43 Subject: Re: Wisdom from Calvin Cooldge On 12/17/2012 8:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If I believe in arithmetic and you don't, should I compromise with you ? Here is the dilemma: In the long run, liberals will create a better world, but in the long run, liberals will bring us to bankruptcy. Is this not a contradiction? Liberals simply do not understand the economics of the real world. The can easily imagine the economic equivalent of perpetual motion machines and see no problem with them. Conservatives fail to see the importance of evolution and so seek to suppress it. Both will cause chaos if left unchecked, IMHO. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Are monads tokens ?
Hi Craig Weinberg No, the monads are (inextended) tokens of corporeal (extended) bodies of one part. But in comp, tokens are simple (nonreductive), ie contain no parts, while types such as are used in Functionalism, has parts on both ends. So comp. which uses tokens, is not functionalist. A monad contains a many-parts (functionalistic) description of a corporeal body of one part, which is therefore nonreductive. So it is like a type on one end and a token on the other. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 10:38:14 Subject: Re: Are monads tokens ? On Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:36:55 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Are monads tokens ? I'm going to say yes, because each monad refers to a corporeal body as a whole (so it is nonreductive at the physical end) even though each monad, being specific about what it refers to, identifies the type of object it refers to. Monads are self-tokenizing tokenizers but not actually tokens (tokens of what? other Monads?). Tokens don't 'exist', they are figures of computation, which is semiosis, a sensory-motive experience within the cognitive symbolic ranges of awareness. Craig Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] 12/16/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-16, 08:17:27 Subject: Davidson on truth Donald Davidson on truth I don't think you can do any better on understanding truth than studying Donald Davidson. As I understand him, in 1) he justifies comp (the use of tokens, because they are nonreductive) as long as we allow for (a) mental causation of physical events; (b) that there is a strict exceptionless relation (iff) between the events; (c) that we use tokens and not types to relate mental to physical events 2) He narrows down what form of language can be used. Not sure but this seems to allow only finite, learnable context-free expressions only 3) He clarifies the meaning and use of 1p vs 3p. Observed that Hume accepted only 1p knowledege, the logical positivists accepted only 3p knowledge, where 1p is knowledge by acquaintance and 3p is knowledge by description. I might add that IMHO 1p is Kierkegaard's view that truth is subjective, so K is close to Hume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Davidson_%28philosopher%29#Mental_events 1. Token Mental events ( A justification of token physicalism: these being comp and purely token functionalism) In Mental Events (1970) Davidson advanced a form of token identity theory about the mind: token mental events are identical to token physical events. One previous difficulty with such a view was that it did not seem feasible to provide laws relating mental states?for example, believing that the sky is blue, or wanting a hamburger?to physical states, such as patterns of neural activity in the brain. Davidson argued that such a reduction would not be necessary to a token identity thesis: it is possible that each individual mental event just is the corresponding physical event, without there being laws relating types (as opposed to tokens) of mental events to types of physical events. But, Davidson argued, the fact that we could not have such a reduction does not entail that the mind is anything more than the brain. Hence, Davidson called his position anomalous monism: monism, because it claims that only one thing is at issue in questions of mental and physical events; anomalous (from a-, not, and omalos, regular) because mental and physical event types could not be connected by strict laws (laws without exceptions). Davidson argued that anomalous monism follows from three plausible theses. First, he assumes the denial of epiphenomenalism?that is, the denial of the view that mental events do not cause physical events. Second, he assumes a nomological view of causation, according to which one event causes another if (and only if) there is a strict, exceptionless law governing the relation between the events. Third, he assumes the principle of the anomalism of the mental, according to which there are no strict laws that govern the relationship between mental event types and physical event types. By these three theses, Davidson argued, it follows that the causal relations between the mental and the physical hold only between mental event tokens, but that mental events as types are anomalous. This ultimately secures token physicalism and a supervenience relation between the mental and the physical, while respecting the autonomy of the mental (Malpas, 2005, ?2). 2. Truth and meaning (A justification of the use of certain types of language--- I think this might mean context-free (finite) language) In 1967 Davidson published Truth and Meaning, in
Re: Re: a biological definition of good and evil.
Hi Stephen P. King ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:55:21 Subject: Re: a biological definition of good and evil. On 12/17/2012 11:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I define good as that which enhances life and evil as that which diminishes it. Hi Roger, That is a good example of contextualizing. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p.
Hi Telmo Menezes It would be good if they showed a video clip. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 11:12:16 Subject: Re: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. Hi again Roger, It's a bit better than that. A machine learning algorithm is trained to decode neural activation signals. The training is performed by showing the subject known images, and letting the algorithm learn how their neural activity maps to these images. The real magic happens when you show them new stuff, that the algorithm wasn't trained for. To me, the most impressive stuff here is when it fails. If you pay attention to the videos, you will see the algorithm decoding different (but similar images) from what the one being shown to the subject. For example, when faces are shown, different faces are decoded and then start correcting. My speculation is that we are actually seing visual memories conjured by the brain in its pattern matching attempts. My favorite is the ink blot exploding, where you can see the brain anticipating the explosion, so you get to see a visual of the subject imagining a likely future state. On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes I think that is a misleading article. If it's fMRI, you don't see the riginal video clip as an eye would see it, you see an image of brain activity. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-11, 11:04:13 Subject: Re: I am my memory, which is provided by my 1p. My memory is the identity of my 1p and is what my 1p sees. This is perhaps the most serioous problem of comp. Frankly I can understand people not convinced that a computer can have a quale associated to the memory, but memory and personal memory does not pose any problem in computers. Then I have explained why they have a quale too. This is not even theoretical anymore. Here's a rather compelling example of visual information in human brains being uploaded into a computer: http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity? -- 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.
Re: Re: Austerity
Hi meekerdb If simply raising taxes could kill a national debt, why does Europe still have debt problems ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 13:08:33 Subject: Re: Austerity On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. 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.
WHOOPS! e: Re: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
Whoops ! Big mistake. I had the gini index backwards. 1 means total inequality, not equality of income. So things are getting worse in america instead of better. And there's more equality of income in europe than here. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 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: On the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/16/2012 4:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 18:58, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1p is not left out. Eventually comp singles out eight person points of view. If you think comp left out the person, you miss the meaning of the comp hope, or the comp fear. Bruno Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: Dear Bruno, p 1 Bp 2 Bp p 3 Bp Dt 4 Bp Dt p 5 I count 5. Where are 6, 7 and 8? Still sleeping near the heat system in the classrom :) 1 is divine 2 splits into G and G*. Thay split into a terrestrial person and a divine person. 3 is both terrestrial and divine (the soul does not split) 4 splits, 5 splits (there are really four material hypostases, but the quantum appears apparently only on the divine part of the person, which is normal with the infinite origin of matter, by the 1p- indeterminacy). See sane04 for more detail. Bp is the arithmetical formula beweisbar of Göel 1931, p is an arbitrary Sigma_1 sentences. OK, is it correct that there are countably many Sigma_1 sentences? Yes. In fact it is 4 + 4*infinity, as you have also all B^n p + D^m t with n m. This gives a graded set of quantum logics. I wish you could discuss the meaning of these two sentences. At times. And they all have different color for different machines, that is, the logic of those points of view are the same for all correct machines, but their explicit content can be completely different. Bruno How many colors are there and what acts to distinguish them from each other? Aleph_zero, and personal judgement. They appear in 2^aleph_zero, though. (a priori), and that can play a role for the qualia color, not the color used in the metaphorical sense above. 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/16/2012 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [BM] Everett already show that such relative probabilities does not depend on the choice of the basis, nor on my place in the multiverse. [SPK] I strongly disagree with this statement! Everett showed the exact opposite; that relative probabilities completely depend of the choice of basis and framing. Prove? This is contrary to what Everett said, and I have try to contradict him on this, eventually he is right. Deustch tought like you but has eventually change its mind. There are no prefer basis, and with the CTM there are not even a prefer ontological theory. Dear Bruno, Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the realtive probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). 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 the need for perspective and relations in modelling the mind
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Why just 8? I would have expected every possible person points pf view consistent with MWI. Richard There is 8 main types of points of view given by: Dear Bruno, p 1 Bp 2 Bp p 3 Bp Dt 4 Bp Dt p 5 I count 5. Where are 6, 7 and 8? Still sleeping near the heat system in the classrom :) 1 is divine 2 splits into G and G*. Thay split into a terrestrial person and a divine person. 3 is both terrestrial and divine (the soul does not split) 4 splits, 5 splits (there are really four material hypostases, but the quantum appears apparently only on the divine part of the person, which is normal with the infinite origin of matter, by the 1p-indeterminacy). Bruno, This sounds much more like a mind/body or a natural/supernatural or a terrestrial/divine two-world characterization than MWI. You recommended reading SD (salvia divinorum) case studies. I have not read all 1575 case studies available or all of Andrews book, but so far they all also seem to reinforce a two-world reality. Could you relate these 8 incarnations to a MWI multiverse for us/me? Richard -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On 12/17/2012 12:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You know that the Republican administrations have been the worst deficit spenders though. Obama must be a Republican! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 10:14 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. It's not against the law. It's exactly the opposite. The law as set up in 1934 requires that any SS surplus be invested in Treasury Bonds, i.e. loaned to the U.S. government. This was very sensibly set up so that the SS would not be influencing the stock market by investing (picking winners and losers). The SS trust fund is always held as Treasury Bonds. That has no effect on the debt. If the government weren't loaned that money it would just have to borrow from somewhere else. And it doesn't mean SS is broke. SS built up a surplus in anticipation of the baby-boomers retiring. Now it's paying out the surplus and the Treasury will have to borrow from elsewhere or tax to meet it's bond obligations (to SS and every other bond holder). 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: Against Mechanism
On 16 Dec 2012, at 19:53, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: it's true that after the duplication there will be 2 first person Bruno Marchal points of view, but the problem is that before the duplication there is only one first person point of view at it is here the question is asked about the future state of you and demands are made for one and only one answer. Of course, as the guy is duplicated, and the question is about a future first person points of view, That is incorrect and I'm surprised at such a elementary error in logic. This is rhetoric. The question is about a PRESENT first person point of view about what that person guesses a FUTURE first person point of view will be. That is not necessary. On the contrary, given the 3p meta-definition of 1p (content of the diary taken with in the annihilation box), the guess, and its solution (P = 1/2) makes sense at the 3p level. which is single With the stipulation that there can be one and only one correct answer, and that is also a error. Well, if you have a better answer. Keep in mind that you have to convince the majority of your copies, by the definition, and the protocol. You last answer (W M) was refuted by all copies. P(M) = 1 and P(W) = 1 are refuted for all copies except 2. Etc. John Clark has been complaining about the unfettered use of personal pronouns in a world with duplicating chambers for a long time now, and yet those who disagree with John Clark continue to use those pronouns as frequently as ever, it seems that those people just cannot help themselves. If you read the post you can see that I have no more use pronouns for a whole. I use H-man, W-man, M-man, The few times that was attempted it did not work because Bruno Marchal does not know who the Helsinki Man is. So if I use pronoun, you don't get it, and if I use H-man, etc. you don't get it, when all what counts in the reasoning is the 1-3 distinction. About half the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man the same way John Clark does, as anybody who remembers being the Helsinki Man; in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future is 100%. This is just obviously wrong. It is correct in the 3p picture, but the question was about the 1p picture. By definition, you must anticipate that the copy in Moscow, will keep P(W) = 1 in his memory, and when comparing to the result of the experience (opening the box), will say I (me, the H-man, or the HM-man) remember P(W) = 1, yet I am not in W, so I was wrong to have bet on W when I was in Helsinki. You keep describing the 3p view, and not the future 1p view, which you know exisrs, by the comp assumption, and is an experience of being unique and entire in ONE city, as you did already agree. But the other half of the time Bruno Marchal implicitly defines the Helsinki Man as someone who is currently experiencing Helsinki; Not at all. It is the same man. in which case the probability of the Helsinki Man seeing Washington in the future (or anything else for that matter) is 0% because in the future nobody will be experiencing Helsinki anymore. ? These definitions and not congruent, and if that wasn't bad enough under neither definition is the probability 50%. And Bruno Marchal never explains which of those two first person points of view you should put feet into Wong. I told you: all of them. Good, then the probability Bruno Marchal will see Washington is 100% and the probability Bruno Marchal will see Moscow is 100%. The proba is on the 1p, not on where the 1p will be. W and M refers to the 1-p experience itself, not on their localisation. As such, as you have already agree, W and M are exclusive incompatible experience. So you have P(W)+P(M) = 1, in this protocol. But with your theory P(W) +P(M) = 2. Bruno You get stuck in the easy part of the derivation. If that was the part of the proof that was the clearest and most obviously true then I'm very glad I didn't try to read more. 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 . 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 10:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb If simply raising taxes could kill a national debt, why does Europe still have debt problems ? I said the U.S. was undertaxed and could pay off it's debts by raising taxes. Not all of Europe has debt problems. Greece for example has a problem because everybody evades taxes there - anyone who pays their taxes is thought a fool. Germany, which has high taxes is doing fine. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 12/17/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-12-17, 13:08:33 *Subject:* Re: Austerity On 12/17/2012 6:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Bankruptcy is the condition of owing more than you own. I think that in the position the US is in, Not even close. The reason other nations keep buying U.S. bonds at rates so low they are essentially below inflation is that they see that the U.S. has plenty of assets and by OECD measures is under taxed. They're not worried about the U.S. not paying off on those bonds because they see that the U.S. could easily raise taxes to pay for them. The 'debt crisis' is just an consequence of Reagonomics and 'trickle down'. When the very rich, and particularly those in the financial industry, are much happier when the government borrows money from them instead of taking it as taxes. So by lowering top tax rates and those on capital gains and estates and exempting carryovers, and at the same time ramping up government spending on Medicare and wars, revenue was shifted from taxes to borrowing. Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5965 - Release Date: 12/16/12 -- 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/17/2012 1:28 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was the product of two quaternions that is non-commutative Yes, multiplication is non-commutative for quaternions and that its primary feature is handling rotations in 3d space. I don't know what you mean by primary feature but quaternions can be used for handling rotations in 3d space. John K Clark Hi, Try 2-spinors, they are much more elegant. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Men don't get no respect these days
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 12:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You know that the Republican administrations have been the worst deficit spenders though. Obama must be a Republican! Same goes for FDR. The circumstances are extenuating. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 1:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 15:00, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking about L's metaphysics. 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is. 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe acts as if there's no God. I have trouble with this view in speaking of mental space, but I suppose you can consider mental states to exist as if they are real. L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol world (the physical world you see and that of science), but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is not real, only its monadic representation is real. I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2). Atheism is a variant of christinanism. The atheists believe in the god MATTER (primitive physical universe), and seems to make sense only of the most naive conception of the Christian God, even if it is to deny it. I am personally not an atheists at all as I do not believe in primitive matter. I am agnostic, but I can prove that the CTM is incompatible with that belief. I do believe in the God of Plato (Truth). But you don't believe in the god of theism, the omnipotent, ominibenevolent, omnibeneficent person who judges, punishes, and rewards. So I'd say your an atheist - if I were so bold as to say what other people mean when they designate their beliefs. I am truly agnostic on many things, but some things makes more sense than others. I am certainly a sort of atheist as I have lost my faith in Matter, but to be franc I have never really believe in it. And I do think, that the abramanic religions have borrowed the greek ONE, but get the problems due to given it a name, as it has no name. The main problem is not in God but in imposing a notion of God to others. The comp God is a private matter between God, you and your shaman (priest, doctor, etc.). 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 Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On 12/17/2012 1:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: My complaint is that conservatives just lie, and assume we're all as gullible as Rush Limbaugh's audience. When g=1 all the wealth is owned by one person. When g=0 every person has the same wealth. Which is why it is a problem that it keeps increasing in the U.S. But the gini is usually calculated for income, not wealth, because wealth is much harder to assess. The after-tax gini on income in the U.S. (not wealth) has gone from 0.316 in the 70's to 0.378 in 2000. For comparison Belgium's gini is 0.259. Check this to see which country you'd rather live in: Brent Hey Bret, In a mass grave, the gini is exactly 0. You are missing the point completely. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: What is truth ? Take your pick.
On 12/17/2012 1:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Good point about necessary and known , but if you follow donaldson, context should be torn out of the heart of any true proposition. Context-sensitive is almost a definition of contingency. Hi Roger, Please post a link to this Donaldson fellow. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth- about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? That just consistent. True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. 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: Austerity
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 10:14 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. It's not against the law. It's exactly the opposite. The law as set up in 1934 requires that any SS surplus be invested in Treasury Bonds, i.e. loaned to the U.S. government. This was very sensibly set up so that the SS would not be influencing the stock market by investing (picking winners and losers). The SS trust fund is always held as Treasury Bonds. That has no effect on the debt. If the government weren't loaned that money it would just have to borrow from somewhere else. And it doesn't mean SS is broke. SS built up a surplus in anticipation of the baby-boomers retiring. Now it's paying out the surplus and the Treasury will have to borrow from elsewhere or tax to meet it's bond obligations (to SS and every other bond holder). Brent You are right about the law. My first article read on the Trust Fund was incorrect in that regard. But the Trust Fund is off-budget, sorta like funding of the Iraq war was off-budget. Also wiki claims that However, due to interest (earned at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021. and Wiki expects the Trust Fund to be entirely depleted by 2033 at which time benefits will drop by 25%. It seems unfair if retirees have to take such a cut now to balance the budget. Richard -- 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: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On Monday, December 17, 2012 2:40:26 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:33 PM, meekerdb wrote: My complaint is that conservatives just lie, and assume we're all as gullible as Rush Limbaugh's audience. When g=1 all the wealth is owned by one person. When g=0 every person has the same wealth. Which is why it is a problem that it keeps increasing in the U.S. But the gini is usually calculated for income, not wealth, because wealth is much harder to assess. The after-tax gini on income in the U.S. (not wealth) has gone from 0.316 in the 70's to 0.378 in 2000. For comparison Belgium's gini is 0.259. Check this to see which country you'd rather live in: Brent Hey Bret, In a mass grave, the gini is exactly 0. You are missing the point completely. Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/JLX0Rz4h6m4J. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
2012/12/17 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/17/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 12/16/2012 2:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No. With the CTM the ultimate truth is arithmetical truth, and we cannot really define it (with the CTM). We can approximate it in less obvious ontologies, like second order logic, set theory, etc. But with CTM this does not really define it. Don't confuse truth, and the words pointing to it. Truth is always beyond words, even the ultimate 3p truth. What would it mean to 'define truth'? We can define 'true' as a property of sentence that indicates a fact. That's the best definition of some useful local truth. But when doing metaphysics, you have to replace facts by facts in some model/reality. OK. But then it's True relative to the model. and it's not necessarily The Truth. But I'm not sure how to conceive of defining mathematical 'true'. It is the object of model theory. You always need to add more axiom in a theory to handle its model. You cannot define the notion of truth-about-set in ZF, but you can define truth-about-set in ZF in the theory ZF +kappa (existence of inaccessible cardinals). PA can define all the notion of truth for the formula with a bounded restriction of the quantification. So what is that definition? Does it just mean consistent with a set of axioms, No. That means only having a model. true in some reality. But for arithmetic true means satisfied by the usual structure (N, +, *). i.e. not provably false? How is not provably false different from 'satisfied by the usual structure'? Can you give an example? That just consistent. I would think it was incompleteness. Consistency means not being able to prove every proposition. But in a consistent system there can be propositions that are neither provable nor disprovable. Are those true? Brent ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. Quentin True entails consistency, but consistency does not entail truth. Bruno -- 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 11:53 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/17/2012 10:14 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. It's not against the law. It's exactly the opposite. The law as set up in 1934 requires that any SS surplus be invested in Treasury Bonds, i.e. loaned to the U.S. government. This was very sensibly set up so that the SS would not be influencing the stock market by investing (picking winners and losers). The SS trust fund is always held as Treasury Bonds. That has no effect on the debt. If the government weren't loaned that money it would just have to borrow from somewhere else. And it doesn't mean SS is broke. SS built up a surplus in anticipation of the baby-boomers retiring. Now it's paying out the surplus and the Treasury will have to borrow from elsewhere or tax to meet it's bond obligations (to SS and every other bond holder). Brent You are right about the law. My first article read on the Trust Fund was incorrect in that regard. But the Trust Fund is off-budget, sorta like funding of the Iraq war was off-budget. Also wiki claims that However, due to interest (earned at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021. and Wiki expects the Trust Fund to be entirely depleted by 2033 at which time benefits will drop by 25%. It seems unfair if retirees have to take such a cut now to balance the budget. The problem is easily fixed by raising the FICA ceiling. It was set at 106K$ the last time the FICA was adjusted in the 80's. It should have been indexed to inflation at that 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: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. 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: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/17/2012 2:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is it possible to define a relative probability in the case where it is not possible to count or otherwise partition the members of the ensemble? Yes. relative probability is not necessarily a constructive notion. Dear Bruno, Is this not a confession that there is something fundamentally non-computable in the notion of a relative measure? I know about this from my study of the problem of the axiom of choice, but I would like to see your opinion on this. Not that I know of! If you know how, please explain this to me! Normally if you follow the UDA you might understand intuitively why the relative probability are a priori not constructive. So you can't use them in practice, but you still can use them to derive physics, notably because the case P = 1 can be handled at the proposition level through the logic of self-references (Bp Dt, p sigma_1). Was it not Penrose that was roundly criticized to claiming that there had to be something non-computable in physics? It seems that you might have proven his case! I go much further (faster!) and claim that this non-constructable aspect is the main reason why there cannot exist a pre-established harmony in the Laplacean sense of the universe. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:41:32 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient, namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing, I find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so let's see what effect that will have. Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has grown linearly with time in the USA, : The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially: (Real means inflation-adjusted) : By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased over the range of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 .. The gini coefficient only increased from .4 to .47 or is about 1.17 times larger, or is essentially constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So I would say that everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy-- is getting appreciably richer, even though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. No. It means the opposite. Even if the Gini doesn't increase at all it is still so high that any increase in GDP means that it will disproportionately benefit the rich - which is exactly what we have seen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/in-2010-93-percent-of-income-gains-went-to-the-top-1-percent/2011/08/25/gIQA0qxhsR_blog.html The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then the debate on taxation ends there. But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. No. Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. We all get poorer by letting the richest turn the entire country into indentured servants. Actually, a lot poorer. The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in the gini coefficient. So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good. So first you were going to use the Gini as evidence that things are improving for the average person - now that you see it means just the opposite you try to claim that inflation actually makes the inequality somehow better. The most prosperous times in US history correlate directly with the highest taxes on the rich. Your analysis is complete fiction. Maybe you're super rich, in which case I can understand why you would want to believe these fairy tales, and why you would want others to believe them also, but anyone who believes this and is not a multimillionaire is being played by highly paid propagandists. 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/-/3Itob5VZ3QEJ. 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 10:14 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. It's not against the law. It's exactly the opposite. The law as set up in 1934 requires that any SS surplus be invested in Treasury Bonds, i.e. loaned to the U.S. government. This was very sensibly set up so that the SS would not be influencing the stock market by investing (picking winners and losers). The SS trust fund is always held as Treasury Bonds. That has no effect on the debt. If the government weren't loaned that money it would just have to borrow from somewhere else. And it doesn't mean SS is broke. SS built up a surplus in anticipation of the baby-boomers retiring. Now it's paying out the surplus and the Treasury will have to borrow from elsewhere or tax to meet it's bond obligations (to SS and every other bond holder). Brent -- Right, money what we owe to ourselves is not debt. LOL! You sir, simply have no idea how real world economics works. Value that is tied up in debt is value that cannot be invested, reducing the available monetary resources available for an economic system. Debt is exactly like negative mass. With a little of it you can make worm holes and jet around as Master of the Universe, but eventually it will destroy your universe. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
How about this: Everyone gets their taxes cut in half, and then double that half is collected in addition but only by those whose total incomes increased and to the proportion that they increased from the previous year. Seems fair to me. On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:41:32 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient, namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing, I find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so let's see what effect that will have. Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has grown linearly with time in the USA, : The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially: (Real means inflation-adjusted) : By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased over the range of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 .. The gini coefficient only increased from .4 to .47 or is about 1.17 times larger, or is essentially constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So I would say that everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy-- is getting appreciably richer, even though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then the debate on taxation ends there. But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. Actually, a lot poorer. The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in the gini coefficient. So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good. -- 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/-/wxRfpcCbd2AJ. 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: promoting REASON
On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Dear Craig, At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like. Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli scary or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: WHOOPS! e: Re: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Whoops ! Big mistake. I had the gini index backwards. 1 means total inequality, not equality of income. So things are getting worse in america instead of better. And there's more equality of income in europe than here. Good to see people admitting when they make a mistake. The next step would be admitting that one has been out-argued, but I can't recall this ever happening in an online forum. -- 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.
Re: WHOOPS! e: Re: On Income Fairness (income equality) in the USA and the world
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Whoops ! Big mistake. I had the gini index backwards. 1 means total inequality, not equality of income. So things are getting worse in america instead of better. And there's more equality of income in europe than here. Good to see people admitting when they make a mistake. The next step would be admitting that one has been out-argued, but I can't recall this ever happening in an online forum. As a further point, I'm not sure the recent political discussion is in keeping with the purpose of this list. -- 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.
Re: Progressives and social darwinism
On 12/17/2012 3:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Hey! Try this example of modern neo-marxists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVWCYAchd7E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVWCYAchd7E Boycotting a restaurant is Marxist? I would think that using free speech to influence others not to spend their money at Chick-Fil-A would be a perfectly Libertarian pastime? Hi Craig, Yes, it is Marxist. Acting to disallow the means to make a profit is marxist. It certainly isn't capitalism. And all of that nonsense was over the words that a fellow said in some interview. Amazing. PETA is another example of modern marxism on parade. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh for 1 hour and think of him as Racheal Maddow's Twin brother. http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/entercom/player/?id=WORD http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/entercom/player/?id=WORD To be truly balanced, one must practice balance. Consider all views as if they are a p.o.v. of God. The trick is to understand that all points of view do not need to be finitely mutually consistent! Love thy Neighbor as thyself. I've listened to Rush several times. Not sure I have been able to stand it for a whole hour at a time, but I have listened before. Maddow definitely exaggerates but it pales in comparison to the outrageous stream of lies from Limbaugh and Beck. http://www.politifact.com/subjects/pundits/ I trust my mind to be a semi-reliable source or error correction. I find myself arguing constantly against Maddow and only sometimes with Limbaugh. At least Rush makes me laugh. Maddow makes me want to try out some QS experiments! Just look at the Right compared to Left in there. Should I go through and add them up or can you see how much more the Right relies on inflammatory fiction? Again, I am not making apologetic here. I am trying to get you to cut through the bogus arguments on both sides and rise about the tribalism of Us v. Them. We face a global problem of resource scarcity. Why don't we figure out some solutions that actually work without harming people and implement them? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: promoting REASON
On Monday, December 17, 2012 5:57:40 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 3:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Now that I know that Conservatism is based on preserving the value of fear, it makes sense that the arguments tend to jump unexplainably from hey, why is that one guy hogging all of the money? to The only alternative is 'everyone will die'. If we weren't afraid of dying in mass graves, what would be a more sensible way of governing a prosperous state? Dear Craig, At some point I hope that you will understand that I am not promoting a brand of politics. I am promoting REASON, that with makes us Sapient, not that which makes us D. or R. or L. or G. or whatever other brand of politic one might happen to like. I don't doubt that, and in theory I welcome Conservative views, except that in reality I'm not able to see the reasonable part of them. Preserving the value of fear. Well, umm, yes. Being able to track what is truly scary (will kill you if given a chance) and being able to ignore the not-so-scary (might kill you if you bother it), seems to give a evolutionary advantage. Consider an evolutionary toy ecosystem. If we introduce a mutation that makes all stimuli scary or makes stimuli scary by some random amount, what happens to average survival? Predictability of actions would be degraded, this implies a detrimental effect on survival. How will you find food in a randomly or super scary world? But the position the US is in now, of being the only global superpower with a larger military than at least the next ten put together puts fear at the bottom of the list of important considerations. We should be looking at how making the US quality of life the envy of the world, not making into a prison. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/_wNgkrj-t90J. 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: Progressives and social darwinism
On Monday, December 17, 2012 6:05:22 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 3:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Hey! Try this example of modern neo-marxists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVWCYAchd7E Boycotting a restaurant is Marxist? I would think that using free speech to influence others not to spend their money at Chick-Fil-A would be a perfectly Libertarian pastime? Hi Craig, Yes, it is Marxist. Acting to disallow the means to make a profit is marxist. It certainly isn't capitalism. Of course it's capitalism. If I made a company which packaged a Flash mob demonstration service for Burger King to take market share from Chick Fil-A in the exact same way, what would be the difference between that and an ad campaign? It sounds like you are saying that because it is regular people doing it without a profit motive instead of a corporation doing it for a profit that it isn't covered by Liberty. And all of that nonsense was over the words that a fellow said in some interview. Amazing. PETA is another example of modern marxism on parade. I can't relate to that at all. Without protest, there would be no United States. What if McDonalds started bankrolling The Frankfurt School? Would you call it Marxist to boycott McDonalds? The double standard is surprising Stephen. Try listening to Rush Limbaugh for 1 hour and think of him as Racheal Maddow's Twin brother. http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/entercom/player/?id=WORD To be truly balanced, one must practice balance. Consider all views as if they are a p.o.v. of God. The trick is to understand that all points of view do not need to be finitely mutually consistent! Love thy Neighbor as thyself. I've listened to Rush several times. Not sure I have been able to stand it for a whole hour at a time, but I have listened before. Maddow definitely exaggerates but it pales in comparison to the outrageous stream of lies from Limbaugh and Beck. http://www.politifact.com/subjects/pundits/ I trust my mind to be a semi-reliable source or error correction. Huh? You can tell by the smell if someone makes an error, but when someone researches the facts impartially and publishes the result, you think I should ignore it? I find myself arguing constantly against Maddow and only sometimes with Limbaugh. At least Rush makes me laugh. Maddow makes me want to try out some QS experiments! I don't listen to either one very often. Politics is a waste of time in this country. Just look at the Right compared to Left in there. Should I go through and add them up or can you see how much more the Right relies on inflammatory fiction? Again, I am not making apologetic here. I am trying to get you to cut through the bogus arguments on both sides and rise about the tribalism of Us v. Them. We face a global problem of resource scarcity. Why don't we figure out some solutions that actually work without harming people and implement them? The solutions begin by slowing down the machine. Give people more time off. Stop producing and reproducing so much. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- 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/-/MNf3DEruJCEJ. 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 only truth we can understand is a man-made object
On 12/17/2012 4:31 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 1:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: ISTM that consistency is the fact that you can't have contradiction. In some logics you're allowed to have contradictions, but the rules of inference don't permit you to prove everything from a contradiction. I think they are then called 'para-consistent'. Incompletness that you can't prove every proposition. No, incompleteness is you can't prove every true proposition. Which implies there is some measure of 'true' other than 'provable'. Brent Is there a logic that does not recognize a proposition to be true or false unless there is an accessible proof for it? Accessible is hard for me to define canonically, but one could think of it as being able to build a model (via constructive or none constructive means) of the proposition with a theory (or some extension thereof) that includes the proposition. I am trying to see if we can use the way that towers of theories are allowed by the incompleteness theorems... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to proportionally benefit from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate benefit? I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: We all get poorer by letting the richest turn the entire country into indentured servants. So, the people that are actually paying taxes are not the indentured servants of those that are not actually paying taxes? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So first you were going to use the Gini as evidence that things are improving for the average person - now that you see it means just the opposite you try to claim that inflation actually makes the inequality somehow better. Wrong. Inflation was factored for by using 2000 dollars in the graph. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: How about this: Everyone gets their taxes cut in half, and then double that half is collected in addition but only by those whose total incomes increased and to the proportion that they increased from the previous year. Seems fair to me. How about this: We go back in history and look at all public policy and pick out the ones that can be proven to increase both the pool of available jobs and tax revenue to implement. Can we stop tinkering blindly with peoples lives? Look at what worked for cities and states and what failed. Have you seen Detroit lately! Don't do that kinda shit! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 1:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. A Reaganomics myth. It wasn't true in the 1950's and it isn't true now. Where's your data. 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: Austerity
On 12/17/2012 2:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/17/2012 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/17/2012 10:14 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: In addition the United States has been borrowing from what we own. Our indebtedness to ourselves from borrowing from the Social Security Fund that was set up in Reagan's Administration is double our indebtedness to China for example. My perspective is that the fund is a Republican means to limit the effectiveness of Social Security. It's against the law to borrow from it but that has not stopped the borrowing. It's not against the law. It's exactly the opposite. The law as set up in 1934 requires that any SS surplus be invested in Treasury Bonds, i.e. loaned to the U.S. government. This was very sensibly set up so that the SS would not be influencing the stock market by investing (picking winners and losers). The SS trust fund is always held as Treasury Bonds. That has no effect on the debt. If the government weren't loaned that money it would just have to borrow from somewhere else. And it doesn't mean SS is broke. SS built up a surplus in anticipation of the baby-boomers retiring. Now it's paying out the surplus and the Treasury will have to borrow from elsewhere or tax to meet it's bond obligations (to SS and every other bond holder). Brent -- Right, money what we owe to ourselves is not debt. Pay attention. I didn't say there was no debt. I said the SS trust fund was not in debt. It's a creditor. The Treasury, from whom SS bought bonds, is the debtor. LOL! You sir, simply have no idea how real world economics works. Value that is tied up in debt is value that cannot be invested, reducing the available monetary resources available for an economic system. Debt is exactly like negative mass. With a little of it you can make worm holes and jet around as Master of the Universe, but eventually it will destroy your universe. I know enough economics to see that you haven't a clue. The debt represents money that was spent and not replaced by taxes. When it was spent it may have been invested - as in loaning money to the auto industry, or in conquering some oil-rich mideast country, or paying for my friends artificial knee. Whether it was spent wisely or not, it was spent/invested; the government certainly didn't just sit on it. And because it was spent it had to come from either borrowing or taxation. 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: Theory of Nothing
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 5:54 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: - Forwarded message from Russell Standish hpco...@hpcoders.com.au - Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:18:59 +1000 From: Russell Standish hpco...@hpcoders.com.au To: Ricardo Aler a...@inf.uc3m.es Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing In-Reply-To: 43ed4f2b0705220253h7ee40345s14b375f5c5608...@mail.gmail.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:53:53AM +0200, Ricardo Aler wrote: Hi Russell, Yes. However, you are trying to derive QM from first principles, so it's a little unfair to use experimental results as well :). Also, No - first principles would say complex measure is more likely than a real measure. All the experimental results say is that there is no need to go looking for an extra principle to impose a real measure. when counting the number of observers, it seems more natural to use a real measure. Not much of a reason... But it would be wonderful if it could be shown that the existence of life requires complex measures (which is very likely true). Its the other way around - the existence of life does not require a real measure. Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. If it is true, it seems to me that would provide an anthropic reason for ruling out real measure. 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: Theory of Nothing
On 12/17/2012 10:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. Pauli exclusion principle - not interference. 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: Theory of Nothing
On 12/18/2012 1:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. If it is true, it seems to me that would provide an anthropic reason for ruling out real measure. Hi Jason, I thought that it is the existence of a minimum energy ground state that prevents the atom's collapse. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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: Theory of Nothing
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:30:51AM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/18/2012 1:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. If it is true, it seems to me that would provide an anthropic reason for ruling out real measure. Hi Jason, I thought that it is the existence of a minimum energy ground state that prevents the atom's collapse. -- This is closer to the answer than Brent's. If it were due to the Pauli exclusion principle (which prevents two fermions from sharing the same state), hydrogen atoms would collapse (suffer the ultraviolet catastrophe), as there is only one electron involved. My answer would be to refer to the uncertainty principle, which comes from the Fourier transform relationship between position and momentum operators. This entails that the only way an electron can be found exactly at the origin, is if its momentum were infinite. But I actually quite like David Deutsch's explanation in terms of fungible variation (I think he calls it something like that), which can be found in BoI. It works for the s suborbital, which has a Gaussian distribution about the origin, but fails, or at least is incomplete for other suborbitals, such as the p suborbital. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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.
