From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. See http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventually diehttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck.* -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. That's not charity, it's protecting your genes. So my motive makes a difference in the result? No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions. So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect. Which is what Bruno said in the first place. I can't talk for Bruno of course, but he said charity and distribution of wealth. The example you give is neither. When people say distribution of wealth they don't usually have one's progeny in mind. Full disclosure: I agree with the left on civil liberties and with the right on free market capitalism. I agree with what they say, not what they do, which are two different things. Civil liberties are very limited and the brand of capitalism we have these days is crony capitalism. The left and the right have been synergistic in creating this state of affairs. I guess this makes me a libertarian, although I'm suspicious of people with such ideologies who are then willing to affiliate with a political organisations. I'm also aware that I might be wrong. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re:
Hi Roger, Hi Telmo Menezes Thanks. But can such biomolecular structures develop into a living cell ? Current mainstream Biology believes that's the case. There isn't a complete model yet, but many pieces of the puzzle are already known. The current developmental theory is based on self-organisation processes. A cartoonish view of it would be that proteins are building blocks with highly specific affinities, so you can throw a bunch of them into the air and they will self-assembly into something more complex. This model is not just theoretical. Many cellular processes are known, and they all follow this principle. Effective drugs based on this model have been created. Modelling and entire cell has not been achieved yet, as far as I know. I know of people who are trying. The main problem seems to be that it's terribly complex. We seem to be getting closer as available computing power increases. Unlike generic artificial intelligence, where no amount of computing power can make up for the fact that we don't fully understand the first principles. If you don't mind a book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Order-Adaptation-Builds-Complexity/dp/0201442302/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8qid=1357476298sr=8-4keywords=hidden+order This is one of the books that changed the way I see the world. It's a bit dated but I love it. I think you might like it too, because it's essentially applied philosophy. Sheldrake's morphisms all pertain to living entities. I listed to a few of the videos and I can't help but like the guy. I just think that he's wrong in claiming that we cannot explain morphogenesis without his field. That doesn't mean that he hasn't come across phenomena that challenge our current understandings of reality. But we have to keep a cool mind. Monads do also, except that for Leibniz, the whole universe is alive. I have no problem with that idea. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-04, 16:57:26 *Subject:* Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific macro-structures. Here's a simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330 There's a field of biology dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. � [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough 爓rote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs ? ? or field. Ok. ? What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. ? If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dm8-OpO9oQ [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/3/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are
Life and death in a world of good and evil
Life and death in a world of good and evil Although God is all-powerful in Heaven, where there is no death, down here, where death is ever present, God must try to pilot us through sometimes rough waters, in which his options are more limited. Down here, good and evil -- life and death--are inextricably mixed together: a) Men have been given free will so that they can be truly moral, but that also allows them to sometimes do evil to you. b) In this universe, according to Nature's plan, nature usually allows good things to happen, like the spring rains, but it can also allow bad things to happen, like your getting cancer or there being a tsunamio. Roger Clough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: The best of all possible Worlds.
Hi meekerdb I'm sorry that Christ does not measure up to your liberal standards. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 15:32:05 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/5/2013 6:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb You say, It's that cartoon known as the Christian Bible. Brent For Christians, it's far more important to believe in a god than to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. That's why they had only two significant publications, and the most recent one is 2000 years old. --- Ludwig Krippahl, biologist Those are baseless insults, typical of liberalspeak. If they have a basis,let's hear it. Otherwise you're just spouting baseless prejudices. Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. ... 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; Brent The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites. --- Thomas Jefferson -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial. 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.
Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the ?tate took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.? So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New
Re: Question: Robotic truth
Your robot do not have time to know the true truth. He would not speculate on the nature of his programmer, or why he is here. At least until the problems of survival are solved by means of a stable collaboration. Even so, he never could have the opportunity to know the programmer. He don´t know the nature of other robots except that they need the same things. He must choose the truth to know and how deep need to know it to have collaboration. He as to focus on obtaining collaboration. In game experiments, collaboration appear spontaneously when the actors remember the other's actions individually. Le me give my starting assumptions: The first truth algoritm in this context, (in the absence of comunication), if this actor collaborated with me in the past, he is faithful and will collaborate with me in the future. if we confront automata with different programs playing the prisoner dilemma, The outcome of this game was discovered by Axelrod: the tit-for-that was the simplest sucessful collaborator that was not depredated by others. TFT collaborate with these who collaborate and defect with these that don´t. But in the presence of noise or imperfect information, if a TFT don´t collaborate for whatever reason one single time, he is abandoned by the rest. For this reason a forgetting TFT that don't take into account random non collaboration becomes more sucessful. With time, if ia form of variation and selection is incorporated in the game, more sophisticated evaluations of others appear. Still the truths to be know for the actor are the relevant for his survival: that is the truths about either if their fellow actors will collaborate or not. My question is , *in presence of communication,* where the actors can lie or tell the truth, how the game is modified and how the algoritms that obtain data for action change?. Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I will say my conclussions: Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it as faitful. therefore I will believe in what it says. If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of non collaboration. Therefore this will influence my next collaboration with him. he will know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time if not for a good reason, or , else, he will loose the valuable collaboration of my robot. But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is the moment where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would say for example that there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of my pieces, so may steal them. I can returm and revenge, producing in it a damage such that further actions of this type would be non profitable for him. The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle term, but at the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both will be in a situation much worse than at the beginning. What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid such lies, revenges, misunderstandings etc?. To aleviate the cost of punishing individually non collaborators, the best way is to collaborate to punish them. But they must offense a common good. The common good may be material, but also can be a rule. The rules would be of course, the rules of collaboration: In what situations it is mandatory to help a member. All of these rules of the group are to be admitted as unquestionable truths by all members. Then, the problem becomes how to be a member . That delimitation of membership is very important, because every new member will receive the benefits of our robot, and must be willing to incur in the cost of helping others with as low cost of punishment as possible. Membership in a group works like a assurance company. A robot could not enter the group when he need a repair to leave when he has received the benefit. This would destroy the group collaboration. membership must be for a long time, enough to reciprocate many times. To avoid deception after benefited, an initial investment in the group is necessary. For example some pieces. Or a sacrifice (give one of his hands to the list of group pieces) until something else for the group has been done. The rules of group membership are added to the list of truths to be defended and enforced. We have a long list of rules, that every robot member must know and accept (and refresh). Also it is necessary a sort of periodic show of commitment where the group members refrest their memories about the rules, recognize themseves and show the willingness to defend the rules and castigate the offenders. This is a synchronization not only of knowledge, but also on intentions. A sort of visual rites are necessary, where some clues, perhaps a red light in top of each robot, goberned by a well know ROM program that verifies the list of truths of the group. It can be substituted by a a remote communication protocol , but
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space Those objects you mention are extended in space. Like numbers, programs and other digital machines. Well, even non digital machines, arguably. Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at all really is. Eventually they are the builders of space and time. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30 Subject: Science is a religion by itself. Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plane. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. ? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 . ? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. ? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. ? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . ? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . ? 6. Proton: (p). ? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. ? 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. ? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. ? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Physarum machine
On 04 Jan 2013, at 19:10, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 26.12.2012 13:45 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 26 Dec 2012, at 12:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I have recently seen a paper on a Physarum machine A Adamatzky Physarum machine: implementation of a Kolmogorov-Uspensky machine on a biological substrate http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0703128 The author also has a book on this theme: Physarum Machines: Computers from Slime Mould. Any comment? I love slime mold. Nice paper. Not sure if it is not a bit out of topic except as a weak evidence for comp among many. It is convincing for the implementation of variate UTMs by 'nature'. Our terrestrial body future relies in coming back to bacteria and amoeba :) Bruno, John Yates starts experiments with physarum. On his blog http://ttjohn.blogspot.in/2013/01/progress-towards-describing-tensed-time.html he mentions that Now Adamatzky considers that a good model for physarum behaviour may be the KUM model, which basically is like a Turing machine but in many dimensions, i.e. we can abstractly think of a multidimensional tape. Now it turns out that a KUM machine will be Turing-complete but may have some computational advantages beyond those of a Turing machine. As I understand it the Turing machine and the KUM will be Turing-equivalent. In fact the KUMs are pointer machines. Do you know what is the KUM model and how it is related to a Turing machine? Is not KUM equivalent, for complexity, with infinitely many tapes Turing machines? I have a vague intuition how slime could perhaps approach this. KUM and UM are equivalent in the Church-Turing sense: they compute the same class of partial recursive functions. But they are not equivalent in any other respect (notably computational speed, and memory use, for some class of functions). I have not studied KUMs in particular. Bruno Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The evolution of good and evil
On 04 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. If you offer services and education to your kids, that's rather cool and nice. That's not charity, it is more a sort of investment. Charity would be more like given them hundred thousand dollars comma. Again, I try to convey an idea by example, but in the human affair, all rules have exceptions. (Except taxes apparently). Bruno 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 . 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: A paranormal prediction for the next year
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Even people who have no sense of humor can deduce that other people do have it, Would they if only 0.001% of the population had a sense of humor? Yes, because unlike psi it would be easily repeatable, if one person who claimed to have a sense of humor laughed and said that was a very good joke it is statistically very likely (although not certain) that another person who also claimed to have a sense of humor would make the same noise, but the sound of laughter would not be heard when the vast majority who don't even understand what the word humor means heard the joke. Chalmers was just trying to make the point that it is a whole different order of difficult. The easy problem is quantitatively difficult, but progress is inevitable with applied effort. The hard problem is qualitatively difficult, so that not only is progress not inevitable, but it is not necessarily a realistic possibility. And that's what doesn't add up. As you say solving the easy problem is inevitable, and solving it would be of some philosophical interest and earn its discoverer several trillion dollars as a bonus, and yet nobody on this list casually spins theories about how to solve it. In contrast although success is not guaranteed and there would be no financial bonus in solving the hard problem every dilettante has their own theory about it and some, such as yourself, have even claimed to have already solved it. The reason for this is that a hard problem theory doesn't have to actually do anything, but a easy problem theory most certainly does. Any hard problem theory will work just fine, any at all, but the wrong easy problem theory will send a start-up company into bankruptcy. So the end result is that being a hard problem theorist is ridiculously easy but being a easy problem theorist is devilishly hard, and that's why armchair philosophers concentrate on the one and not the other. Genius and madness are notoriously close. There is a bit of madness in many geniuses, but most madmen have no trace of genius whatsoever because madness is a much more common phenomenon than genius. Tesla was a genius and a crackpot, but for every Tesla there is a mole of pure unadulterated crackpots. If it weren't for crackpots though, we would never likely be tempted to explore new areas. [...] we cannot afford for a tiny fraction of the population to deviate from the herd. I say that increasing that number 10 fold could only help. Yeah, all the problems of the world come from the fact that there just aren't enough loonies running around. Why doesn't some respectable non-crackpot reproduce Sheldrake's experiments and prove him wrong? They have, but like any card caring member of the crackpot guild being proven wrong has absolutely no effect on Sheldrake's behavior or that of his fans. 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: The evolution of good and evil
On 1/6/2013 4:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/5/2013 9:46 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 1:24 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/4/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Don't take this too much literally. I have never believed in any notion like charity, or distribution of wealth. It *looks* nice, but it generates poverty. Oops, too late! I already gave my kids several hundred thousand dollars in services and education. That's not charity, it's protecting your genes. So my motive makes a difference in the result? No but your actions do, and your motives determine your actions. So it's the actions, giving and charity, which have a bad effect. Which is what Bruno said in the first place. I can't talk for Bruno of course, but he said charity and distribution of wealth. The example you give is neither. When people say distribution of wealth they don't usually have one's progeny in mind. My point exactly. They think, If I spend a million dollars on my kid, it'll be good for him. If I give ten dollars to a panhandler he'll just get drunk. and they might be right, so it isn't the transfer of wealth that determines the outcome. Charity and redistribution of wealth can be good or bad. 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 6:56 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don´t only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. The creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are in many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of the a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. The other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the state took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy. So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. Hi! Excellent post! 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have been published in New Scientist. Seehttp://www.sheldrake.org/Research/overview/ *A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see thelight http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light, but rather because its opponents eventuallydie
Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. How so? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration worldviews. This is in part, no matter how shockig is, the logical evolution of the agreement that ended the religious wars of the XVI century. In the teistic and deistic stages the State made use of the transcendence in one form or another for his legitimacy, since the divine has a plan, and people belive in the divine, the legitimacy of the state, in the hearths fo the people, becomes real when the nation-state is inserted in this divine plan. When, to accomodate the materialistic sects, marxists among them, the ?tate took over Science to legitimate itself, because the State no longer had the transcendence as an option to suppor his legitimacy. the legitimacy of the state was supported by a materialistic sciece, subsidized, controlled and depurated from any heterodoxy.? So there is the current science, an image of the state political religion, Multicultural, relativistic and materialist. 2013/1/4 Stephen P. King On 1/4/2013 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King very few scientists Sheldrake has done many successful experiments to empirically prove what he claims. The results are in his books. Some have
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 1/6/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space Those objects you mention are extended in space. Like numbers, programs and other digital machines. Well, even non digital machines, arguably. Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at all really is. Eventually they are the builders of space and time. Bruno 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.
Re: Question: Robotic truth
On 1/6/2013 5:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I will say my conclussions: Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it as faitful. therefore I will believe in what it says. If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of non collaboration. Therefore this will influence my next collaboration with him. he will know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time if not for a good reason, or , else, he will loose the valuable collaboration of my robot. But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is the moment where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would say for example that there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of my pieces, so may steal them. I can returm and revenge, producing in it a damage such that further actions of this type would be non profitable for him. The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle term, but at the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both will be in a situation much worse than at the beginning. What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid such lies, revenges, misunderstandings etc?. Herbert Ginitis has addressed many of these questions mathematically in The Bounds of Reason and Game Theory Evolving. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
Hi Craig Weinberg Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By passing off a weak Bayesian regression analysis as a terrific consciousness breakthrough. Look again at the image comparisons. There is nothing being reconstructed, there is only the visual noise of many superimposed shapes which least dis-resembles the test image. It's not even stage magic, it's just a search engine. There are at least two imaginable theories, neither of which I can explain step by step: What they did was take lots of images and correlate patterns in the V1 region of the brain with those that corresponded V1 patterns in others who had viewed the known images. It's statistical guesswork and it is complete crap. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie Crick and Koch found in their 1995 study that The conscious visual representation is likely to be distributed over more than one area of the cerebral cortex and possibly over certain subcortical structures as well. We have argued (Crick and Koch, 1995a) that in primates, contrary to most received opinion, it is not located in cortical area V1 (also called the striate cortex or area 17). Some of the experimental evidence in support of this hypothesis is outlined below. This is not to say that what goes on in V1 is not important, and indeed may be crucial, for most forms of vivid visual awareness. What we suggest is that the neural activity there is not directly correlated with what is seen. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html What was found in their study, through experiments which isolated the effects in the brain which are related to looking (i.e. directing your eyeballs to move around) from those related to seeing (the appearance of images, colors, etc) is that the activity in the V1 is exactly the same whether the person sees anything or not. What the visual reconstruction is based on is the activity in the occipitotemporal visual cortex. (downstream of V1 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612305490196) Here we present a new motion-energy [10, 11] encoding model that largely overcomes this limitation. The model describes fast visual information and slow hemodynamics by separate components. We recorded BOLD signals in occipitotemporal visual cortex of human subjects who watched natural movies and fit the model separately to individual voxels. https://sites.google.com/site/gallantlabucb/publications/nishimoto-et-al-2011 So what they did is analogous to tracing the rectangle pattern that your eyes make when generally tracing the contrast boundary of a door-like image and then comparing that pattern to patterns made by other people's eyes tracing the known images of doors. It's really no closer to any direct access to your interior state than any data-mining advertiser gets by chasing after your web history to determine that you might buy prostate vitamins if you are watching a Rolling Stones YouTube. a) Computers are themselves conscious (which can neither be proven nor disproven) and are therefore capable of perception. Nothing can be considered conscious unless it has the capacity to act in its own interest. Computers, by virtue of their perpetual servitude to human will, are not conscious. or 2) The flesh of the brain is simultaneously objective and subjective. Thus an ordinary (by which I mean not conscious) computer can work on it objectively yet produce a subjective image by some manipulation of the flesh of the brain. One perhaps might call this milking of the brain. The flesh of the brain is indeed simultaneously objective and subjective (as are all living cells and perhaps all molecules and atoms), but the noise comparisons being done in this experiment aren't milking anything but the hype
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. Brent Hi Brent, I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a materialist, by definition... So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense. I don't know even one. 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:14 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. Brent Hi Brent, I think that you are taking as evidence the lack of overt statements as evidence. Any person that is marxist, for example, is a materialist, by definition... So how many physicists are marxists in the philosophical sense. I don't know even one. Brent Hi, OK, so we can safely discount your claims about no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists... My point is that the lack of a direct statement in some particular form, like I am a materialist does not act as proof that no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. It only tells us some of the limits of your personal knowledge. -- 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: Question: Robotic truth
I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group. And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not. The first of then is that whatever people say have two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them. 2013/1/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net refore I will believe in what it says. If I detect that what He says is -- Alberto. -- 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:
Hi Telmo Menezes Could be, but so far no success. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 07:51:49 Subject: Re: Hi Roger, Hi Telmo Menezes Thanks. But can such biomolecular structures develop into a living cell ? Current mainstream Biology believes that's the case. There isn't a complete model yet, but many pieces of the puzzle are already known. The current developmental theory is based on self-organisation processes. A cartoonish view of it would be that proteins are building blocks with highly specific affinities, so you can throw a bunch of them into the air and they will self-assembly into something more complex. This model is not just theoretical. Many cellular processes are known, and they all follow this principle. Effective drugs based on this model have been created. Modelling and entire cell has not been achieved yet, as far as I know. I know of people who are trying. The main problem seems to be that it's terribly complex. We seem to be getting closer as available computing power increases. Unlike generic artificial intelligence, where no amount of computing power can make up for the fact that we don't fully understand the first principles. If you don't mind a book recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Order-Adaptation-Builds-Complexity/dp/0201442302/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8qid=1357476298sr=8-4keywords=hidden+order This is one of the books that changed the way I see the world. It's a bit dated but I love it. I think you might like it too, because it's essentially applied philosophy. Sheldrake's morphisms all pertain to living entities. I listed to a few of the videos and I can't help but like the guy. I just think that he's wrong in claiming that we cannot explain morphogenesis without his field. That doesn't mean that he hasn't come across phenomena that challenge our current understandings of reality. But we have to keep a cool mind. Monads do also, except that for Leibniz, the whole universe is alive. I have no problem with that idea. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 16:57:26 Subject: Re: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes All I can find on the web is that DNA only contains instructions to make various biomolecules such as proteins, RNA, etc. That's enough. Proteins fold into complex 3D structures with very specific chemical affinities. They are capable of self-assembling into specific macro-structures. Here's a simulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-dAvbl330 There's a field of biology dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biology It only works on the molecular scale; the morphic fields are needed for larger macrostructrures. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-04, 03:51:54 Subject: Re: Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe Hi Roger, On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Roger Clough ?rote: ?upert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe What is space ? ?here is no such thing as space, there are only fields, ? ? which are mathematical structures. Fine. ? What is matter ? There is no such thing as matter, because it is only a field. ? ? There is no such thing as mass, which is why there is no such thing needed ? ? as a Higgs field to form what we call mass. Hence we haven't found a Higgs ? ? or field. Ok. ? What causes a foetus to grow into a baby ? Is it DNA ? Biologists agree DNA does not do that. This I have a problem with. Biologists agree on no such thing and they do have very compelling explanations for how morphogenesis works. As an aside, I find that someone using some variation of the phrase all scientists agree is a very bad sign. I believe this results from an outdates view of the DNA as an inert blueprint. We now know that DNA is a computer program, capable of conditional execution based on inputs from the environment. Biologists call these mechanisms gene regulatory networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_regulatory_network The initial?ndifferentiated?ell divides a number of times, and the accumulation of cells and their interactions eventually changes the environment in a way that triggers the expression of other segments of the genetic code. ? If these questions puzzle or intrigue you, you might want to watch Rupert Sheldrake's ?The Morphogenetic Universe
Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
Hi meekerdb Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are inconsistent if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't materialists. So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism can't very well be scientific dogma as you keep asserting. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma (such as materialism) any day. It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all immaterial. Brent No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13 -- 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: Question: Robotic truth
On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group. And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not. I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns. Brent The first of then is that whatever people say have two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them. -- 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 best of all possible Worlds.
On 1/6/2013 12:57 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Sorry, I obviously missed the point of your quote from Matthew. What is your point ? That the Christian Bible, and by extension fundamentalist Christianity, is a cartoonish world view which no thinking person would take as a guide for morality or ethics. Brent [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 14:15:41 Subject: Re: The best of all possible Worlds. On 1/6/2013 5:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb I'm sorry that Christ does not measure up to your liberal standards. I should have thought maintaining love and respect for one's family would be a conservative family value. Brent Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote: quantum physics, which is nonphysical A new record. You've contradicted yourself in only five words. 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-06, 14:08:54 *Subject:* Re: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so. On 1/6/2013 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Sounds like fascism to me. How so? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net mailto:%20rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-06, 06:56:37 Subject: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? Ipersonally think so. A greath truth. Every human knowledge has also social consequiences. When I say A. I don? only say A is true. I say also that because A is true and you must accept it because a set of my socially reputated fellows of me did something to affirm it, you must believe it, and, more important, I deserve a superior status than you, the reluctant. As a consequence of this fact o human nature (which has a root in natural selection). every corpus of accepted knowledge is associated from the beginning to a chiurch of guardians of ortodoxy. No matter the intentions or the objectivity or the asepsy of the methods of the founders. There is a power to keep, much to gain and loose, and as time goes on, real truth becomes a secondary question. ?he creatie, syncere founders are substituted by media polemizers and mediocre defenders of the status quio. This power-truth tension in science was biased heavily towards the former when State nationalized science at the end of the XIX century, because science was standardized and homogeneized to the minimum common denominator, chopping any heterodoxy, destroying free enquiry which was vital for the advancement. Now peer reviews are ?n many sofft disciplines, filters of ortodoxy, not quality controls. ? As the philosopher of science Feyerabend said, It is necessary a separation of State and science as much as was necessary a separartion of State and church: Because a state with a unique church of science is a danger for freedom, and because a science dominated by the state is a danger for any science. The standardization of science towards materiamism was a logical consequence of ?he a philosophical stance of protestantism: the Nominalism, that rejected the greek philosophical legacy and separated dratically the revelated knowledge of the Bible form the knowledge of the things of the world without the bridge of greek philosophy. Mind-soul and matter became two separate realms. Common sense or the Nous were not a matter of science and reason, like in the greek philosophy (what is reasonable included what makes common sense, just like it is now in common parlancy), but a matter of the individual spirit under the firm umbrela of the biblical revelation. The problem is that this umbrela progressively dissapeared, and with it, common sense. That gave a nihilistic relativism as a consequience. With the exception of USA, where common sense is still supported by the faith. ?he other cause were the wars of religion among christian denominations, that endend up in a agreement of separation between church and state, where any conflictive view was relegated to religion as faith, and only the minimum common denominator was admitted as a foundation for politics, This MCD was a form of political religion. This political religion was teist at the beginning (As is not in USA) laater deist and now is materialist, following a path of progressive reduction to accomodate the progressive secularization (which indeed was a logical consequence of the nominalism and the proliferation of faiths that the reform gave birth). In later stages, the political religion has dropped the country history, and even reversed it, and, following its inexorable logic, try to destroy national identity of each individual european country, in the effort to accomodate the incoming inmigration
Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:52 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I think what was meant was the inverse, namely that no consistent materialist can believe in quantum mechanics. Ah. OK. I would like to see an explanation of this claim if I had the time for such minutia. -- 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: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy You've obviously never watched one of Sheldrake's lectures. Watched, listened, and even read some things a few years back. I sincerely tried to open my mind, but when I realized I was forcing that, instead of doing my homework, I dropped him. Doesn't mean he hasn't changed, but what you posted sounds like the old song. Maybe my prejudice. All of his speculations are supported with empirical data. You'll find some of it on his website, others in his books and lectures. Aware of that. I watched the first hour of McKenna's lecture as given below, It was essentially a promo for taking drugs, and it showed no data, so finding him distasteful after watching for an hour, I gave up. May I ask what approximate criteria you associate with taste in this case? So where's all of McKenna's data? He never pretended to have any. He's self-avowed fool: the object of this talk is that you never have to hear this sort of thing again in your life; you can put that behind you paraphrased from video. I think he died about a decade ago of some brain problem (could it have been from taking drugs?). Begging. His brother became a drug addict also, don't know what happened to him. Same again, which seems to indicate you don't really care. Otherwise one google search and click would've wikied you this on a silver plate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_McKenna PGC [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net] 1/5/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 07:15:28 Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. Hi Everythingsters, When things get a little fringe, I want the best bang for my buck (time reading/listening in this case). Here Sheldrake only delivers when held in check by McKenna and Abraham, even if not stunning. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis by loadedshaman?1 year ago?15,768 views Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham - Metamorphosis (1995) 1:05:49 Otherwise, I find Sheldrake rather a sleeping pill. If we're gonna step into areas of wild speculation, then I want the writer/speaker to go as far as they can, instead of charting out curiosities as cracks in the sciences. Thus I simply prefer McKenna as wild speculator, as he at least leaves a trail for 1p to convince themselves of the trajectory of his speculation. So 1p can do some things to verify to a certain extent the wild propositions, and perhaps one day to lay things out more formally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQfC4WRg-g With Sheldrake, you're sort of just left with the speculation, and there's no harness whatsoever, which is why I fall asleep so quickly. PGC ? -- 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.+everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +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.+everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +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.+everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. +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
Re: Question: Robotic truth
The expression Socila construction of reality is an expression that hold any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element). Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se. Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any activity. we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded theory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection. The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical implications. 2013/1/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group. And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not. I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns. Brent The first of then is that whatever people say have two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them. -- 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 . -- Alberto. -- 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. Negative, from German perspective: Nazi as adherent to NSDAP (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) so national socialist german worker's party wrote in their constitution that corporations potentially pose a threat to the state and have to thus be merged with state force to facilitate common good. This was done not only to build and develop weapons, but to build the A1 freeway, on which yours truly traveled south today. Don't know how Japan handled it, but imagine that it would've run along similar lines. High efficiency, high productivity, lowers unemployment, automatically restrains budding monopolies... all the kind of things the west proclaims to want today; even though history should at some point teach us what this means, we don't seem to get it or don't want to. PGC -- 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: From nominalism to Scientifc Materialism Re: Is Sheldrake credible? Ipersonally think so.
On 1/6/2013 3:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 4:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 1/6/2013 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/6/2013 3:49 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The word must implies forcible persuasion. Hi, But the use of force to persuade is not the essence of fascism. Fascism is a governing system where the population can own property privately but the use of said property is dictated by the State. Most countries are fascistic. Only because you've taken a single attribute of Fascism and taken it to be a definition. Fascism is the idea that a nation is a kind of super-being in which labor, industry, and government are *bound together into one* (hence the name) and the life of citizens takes meaning from how they serve their function as an element of The State. This was further taken to imply that superior, i.e. Fascist, nations should bring this superior culture to other inferior, i.e. non-Fascist, nations by armed conquest. Brent Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- Thank you, Brent, for this. ;-) I was trying to highlight the behavior of fascism in ways that do not invoke extraneous discussion. All that you added, while true, is irrelevant to my definition as it is representative of just one form of fascism, that of Mussolini's Italy. That's like saying Hitler's Germany was just one form of Nazism, or China 1945 to 1976 was just one form of Maoism. 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: Science is a religion by itself.
Roger, I hate to keep harping on this but aren't BECs unextended in space, as you put it. And if so, life and its machinery could be embedded a BEC even if the BEC were extended. BECs have the kind of magical properties that suggest that they are outside spacetime. Richard On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jan 2013, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi socra...@bezeqint.net Spirit, like life, like God, like faith, like love, and like mind, is not extended in space Those objects you mention are extended in space. Like numbers, programs and other digital machines. Well, even non digital machines, arguably. Glad you agree that life is not extended in space, but no machinery at all really is. Eventually they are the builders of space and time. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/4/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-04, 04:47:30 Subject: Science is a religion by itself. Science is a religion by itself. Why? Becouse the God can create and govern the Universe only using physical laws, formulas, equations. Here is the scheme of His plane. =. God : Ten Scientific Commandments. ? 1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= 8 ,p= 0, t=8 . ? 2. Particles: C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, i^2=-1. ? 3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb. ? 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* . ? 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : HeII -- HeI -- H -- . . . ? 6. Proton: (p). ? 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton: a) electromagnetic, b) nuclear, c) biological. ? 8. The Physical Laws: a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass, b) Pauli Exclusion Law, c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law. ? 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness. ? 10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation. ===. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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.
