Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Stephen P. King Agreed, the constant other observer needed to maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God, But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example. Plato called it the One. Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly perceived. Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be perceived, only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the lights at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of counterfactuals goes on and on. So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 08:39:30 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi guys, Theology is just a form of philosophy, therefore is a rational pursuit, say like psychology or sociology or engineering mechanics. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 10:50:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:08, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You confuse theology and post 500 occidental use of the field. There is no such field of study. There are experts in literature and experts in the behavior of bronze age tribes but there are no experts in the field of theology because there is no knowledge there to impart. There is no there there. And I don't understand your grudge with occidental civilization, western religions are not significantly stupider than eastern religions. Theology is mainly perverted since 523 Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own private meaning then confusion is inevitable; we need a language to communicate and a language known to only one person is useless. Theology did come up with the idea that there is a reality, That is one ridiculous statement! With or without theology people had no trouble figuring out that there is a reality, so did snails. and that reason can unravelled it, or a part of it. I didn't think it was possible but that statement is even more ridiculous! Science had to fight every inch of the way against theology and theologians and the fight still isn't over. If you can't immediately figure out how something can be the way it is theology advises you to just give up and say God did it; in other words theologians are intellectually lazy, but fortunately scientists are not. But they do have something in common, they both love mysteries. Theologians love mysteries because they like to wallow in ignorance, scientists love mysteries because it gives them something new to try to figure out. That's why particle physicists would be absolutely delighted if the LHC produced something mysterious that contradicted something they thought they knew and will be very disappointed if nothing like that shows up in one of their detectors. Can you imagine a theologian being delighted to find something that contradicted his faith? I can't. What is your theory? That theologians are so dumb they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. To see a prefect example of a theologian who is apparently a graduate of The John K. Clark school of Liberal Divinity see: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/the-way-of-the-agnostic/ Gary Gutting seems quite good to me. Nice paper. Bruno I didn't bother to comment since there a plenty of good comments already, but it exemplifies many features of liberal theological thought: Some things can never be explained by science; and if science hasn't explained it then religion does. Religion gives access to a rich and fulfilling life of love (which is implicitly denied the irreligious). Atheists have to prove God doesn't exist. There is something called 'understanding' that is better than knowledge and you can have for free Brent 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13 -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
Hi Bruno Marchal Just trying to clarify things. 1) OK, I partly understand if we allow words as output. But words are descriptions (3p, or Thirdness), not experience (1p, or Firstness). 2) Let us admit for the moment that it is possible for a computer to be conscious. What would it be conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ? - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: the curse of materialism
Hi Stephen, Numbers do have an independent existence, that being nonphysical existence. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:28:48 Subject: Re: the curse of materialism On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for. Dear Bruno, Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume. Dear Bruno, I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental content and not independently existing entities, so we have an irreconcilable difference in our thinking. Then comp is meaningless. Even Church thesis is meaningless. Most papers you referred to becomes meaningless. It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation of arithmetics! But you have to derive the physical activity first, then. I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of the content of 1p experience. I was talking of deriving physics. We accept content of experience in comp, but then we can recover it from the numbers complex behavior when looking at themselves. Then physics is or should be explained from that, as UDA explains. I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell. That's the part where we agree. I explain experience from computer science, and it seems you disagree with this, but then I don't understand why you keep defending comp as it is clear it does not fit with your theory. Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and developing communication methods between themselves. Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you prove it first. What benefit comes from this proof? To get an explanation. Bruno Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can transform and remain the same! ? (looks like a prose to me). OK... 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 Subject: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 Subject: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and multverses. It's blind insanity. We are being led by the nose behind circular reasoning and instrumental assumptions. What if emptiness was actually empty? What if there is no such thing as a particle-wave? What if decoherence is not a plausible cause for the constellation of classical physics? Are the metaphysical assumptions of a Universe from Nothing falsifiable? Are metaphysical assumptions ever falsifiable? Wouldn't they become scientific theories if they were? Are your assumptions falsifiable? My assumptions require that we examine falsifiability itself in the context of sense. I find that if we do so, falsifiability can be understood as a function of privatizing public qualities, and publicizing private qualities. In other words I am seeing the idea of objectivity
A blind man creating a rock by tripping on it.
Hi Craig Weinberg This get sillier the more realistically we examine your claim. It would also make an interesting experiment to record with a videocam set off with a trip wire that could be posted on Youtube. How fast is the object of perception created in the brain? How fast would the rock be created ? Would it start being created at the point of contact, or all over ? Would that be faster than the blind man's reaction time ? Would there be a heat of solidification required ? Would that heat or cool the surrounding area ? Would the creation of the rock show up on a videocam recording the eventCould we hear that happen ? What would the creation of a rock sound like ? How does the speed of creation of the rock compare with the blind man's reaction time to contacting the rock ? What would his perception look like to a blind man? Etc. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 15:43:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:12:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? Then he detects it when he trips over it. Having eyes allows us to extend the range of our tripping and changes the quality of the experience as well. Craig - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 Subject: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 Subject: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 Subject: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gp6t1_UEDC0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/I8qwrsvyd5IJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Y--Z92oZB8oJ. 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
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 Subject: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. ? than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.? ? Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. ?ohn 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. -- 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: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options
Hi socra...@bezeqint.net There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. H. L. Mencken, - Receiving the following content - From: socra...@bezeqint.net Receiver: Everything List Time: 2013-01-22, 13:38:21 Subject: Re: Idealism, theology, and the world of science Options Very nice explanation. Congratulation There is only one small problem: It is too complex. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough / Albert Einstein. / ==. On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . . ==. The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14. The number of cells in the body is constantly changing, as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed. It means that bits information also constantly changing. Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ? No, we are called this process: ‘self organizing‘. ==. About ‘self organizing ‘. It is amazing to me, that some can use the term self organizing without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that claim that the universe lacks both mind and self. There just appears to be these massive blank spots in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self. It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality. They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid, self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded the complexity of the blocks themselves. I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception. / By Da Blob / Regarding self-organizing, In Bruno's words I postulate a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness and contains the forms of Plato from which come the principles and forms of self-organization. There may be as well little quantum minds associated with each 12d universe. But according to string theory, or perhaps my interpretation of it, each universe lacks its own compactification flux or fibrations (whatever) on which MWI type computations can be written. Only the 14d Metaverse has a 4 Dimensional Block Space with such volume-filling fluxes or fibrations for writing both all the quantum state possibilities in the future (so to speak- in the block metaspace the future is a space dimension) as well as all the happenings in the past. This is derived from 26d string theory separated into a 14d Many-World MW Metaverse and 12d MW universes, both containing supersymmetry. Richardhttp://www.math.mcgill.ca/palka/mgr-fiz-w.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics) These manifolds o er several globally de ned forms in terms of which vev-derived uxes could be written that might drive the super-Higgs mechanism. ...page 147 ofhttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/people/staff/thomas_house/the... ===.. -- 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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- 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 there an aether ?
Dear Roger, That which cannot be perceived, does not exist. But perception is a subtle thing! Is there an entity associated with physical laws or 'gravity', or are such an abstract concept that we 'percept' conceptually? Perception, beliefs, knowledge all seems tied together... But I would add that just be cause our language paints a particular picture in our minds, there need not be anything like such 'outside of us'. How fast we forget the lesson we can can find in Descartes /Meditations/... On 1/23/2013 5:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Agreed, the constant other observer needed to maintain the world when I close my eyes need not be God, But it has to be something like God. Omnipresent, for example. Plato called it the One. Nothing would work without physical laws, and these cannot be directly perceived. Gravity, for example, cannot be perceived. Force also cannot be perceived, only its effects. And time and space cannot be observed. cannot be directly perceived. And do I fall on the floor when I turn out the lights at night because it is too dark to see my bed ? The list of counterfactuals goes on and on. So I say that, whatever the cause, Berkeley's theory is just plain silly. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2013-01-22, 08:39:30 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On 1/22/2013 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. Hi Roger, This is a good example of the problem that the notion of God has; it server only to act as an impartial observer so that everything is real. When we consider large numbers of observers that can communicate with each other meaningfully, we obtain a means to define 'reality' and have no need for the excess hypothesis of God as observer. God's role becomes even less meaningful when we see that the point of view of such an entity cannot be transformed into that of a real observer that we can communicate with, as it is somehow special. We learn from GR and QM that there are neither preferred reference frames or observational points of view nor measurement basis. This pretty much makes the God hypothesis irrelevant. Why people would seek to rehabilitate it to play the same role again for mathematics puzzles me! -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On 1/23/2013 6:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, Numbers do have an independent existence, that being nonphysical existence. Hi Roger, I agree but only because I see existence as mere a priori necessary possibility; not contingent upon perception at all... -- 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno It seems that you have avoided my question by questioning what I mean by quantum mind. So let me rephrase it. Could arithmetics produce matter once and for all a long time ago? Or must the illusion of matter be constantly reinforced by arithmetics? Richard 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.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dwdoes a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography Nice. I watched the series and took some notes (and sent them off to him also). I like that he clearly sees the limitations of the other approaches, but he does not yet see the problems with 'information' and the 'semantic realm'. He is modeling experience in space rather than through time. I would dispute that and say that nothing emerges from neuronal function except more neuronal function. Personal meaning is instead recovered as an experiential recapitulation of higher and lower levels (super-personal and sub-personal) of experience since experience is primitive and personal. His view mistakes the difference between one level of impersonal phenomena (form, matter) and another impersonal level (function, logic) for the difference between personal [presentations (representations)] and impersonal [representations (presentations)]* He overlooks the same issue all the way down the line: 2. Logic gates, he says, coopt the mechanical function to acquit the semantic function of defining relationships. I suggest pivoting that assumption. It is we, the human end user or programmer who coopts both the a-signifying mechanical forms and a-signifying semiotic functions of the logic gate for our personal agendas. The logic gate has no semantic agenda, it is, like a marionette or cartoon character, a mindless machine with two mindless aspects - a spatially extended form and a temporally inferred function. There is no temporally intended motive, except the one which has been co-opted by the third and primary influence - participatory awareness . We are exploiting the public physics of the logic gate's form to generate a more subtle level of public physics which we read as signs. In other words, we exploit the public facing forms and functions of the gate to exploit our own public facing forms and functions (optical patterns to tease the eye, acoustic patterns to call to the ear), allowing a sharing and communication of experience *in spite of* forms and functions, which are completely hidden from the conscious spectacle. In fact no 'information' is exchanged, except metaphorically. What is exchanged is concretely real and physical, although physics and realism of course, should only be thought of as a range of scaled or scoped experience based on time-like frequencies on space-like obstructions. 3. He focuses on the logic of the mind rather than the richness of qualia. I suggest instead that the mind tries to be logical only when focusing on public interactions. Private fantasy would be the more raw presentation of mind; dreams, visions, delusions, etc. Logic is born out of necessity, not innate to consciousness. Left to our own devices, a brain in a nutritionally rich vat would wallow in a paradise of illogical raptures forever. 4. He conflates grammatical structure for meaning, missing the point that communication is a skill learned expressly for public interaction, not for private understanding. The true meaning itself is not assembled internally from parts using logic and grammar, but rather 'insists' as a narrative gestalt. 'The boy is eating some cake' is only an experience of verbal syntax through which we recover a deeper perceptual understanding of the referent, based on our experiences with or about boys, eating, and cake. The order of words is no longer important within the private range of experience. While it is important to model thought backwards through communication like he does for purposes of AI development, it is a mistake to apply the model the ontology that way. The horse is not an assembly of carts, so to speak. The cart without the horse is useless. The words and sentences are empty carts without the personal experience of semiosis, which is not included in physics or information theory. Experience is the key. 5. His assumptions about personality and mental disorder are the weakest parts in my opinion. They are normative and nakedly behaviorist, mistaking again public behaviors for private realities. What he sees as simply a collection of habits, I see as a vast interiority of identity and influence rooted in the sub-personal, super-personal and super-signifying bands of sensory-motive experience. 6. I disagree too that neurons pass information mindlessly. I would say that the same could be said of our own mass production systems. All mechanism is mindless, but that doesn't mean that sub-personal organisms like neurons are devoid of intention or participatory experience. It is that sub-personal experience which our experience is made of; not the motions of structures within cells, but the private
Re: Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:30:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig, What is a fundamentalist pathology ? And how does it apply to science ? A pathology here refers to a degenerative condition, like a disease, decay, or a failing strategy - a state of deepening dysfunction and corruption which produces increasingly undesirable effects. Fundamentalist here refers to a reactionary stance characterized by rigidity and overbearing defensiveness toward alternative approaches. Intellectual totalitarianism. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 11:00:27 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/RxABwuXe31MJ. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi John Clark From his hostile postings, Craig seems to have been very very badly hurt by the Christian Church sometime in the past. Haha, not at all. Some of my best memories in high school were of drinking beers and smoking cloves with the lovely and exciting girls from my friend's church group. I think cathedrals are wonderful. Church services bore me but not as much as synagogue services - wow, if you want to have a monotonous meaningless experience try sitting through a three hour monologue in Hebrew. I just think that the idea of an anthropomorphic God is an unfortunate and seductive mistake. If I sound hostile, it is because of the tremendous damage that this concept can do to people's lives. I am hostile toward crystal meth too. I love the idea of recreational drugs, but I have known too many exceptional people who have seen the course of their lives derailed by crystal. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Clark javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 13:23:37 *Subject:* Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS. On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. � than ethnic cleansing is representative of Darwin. Huh?� Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. Explaining how complexity came about from simplicity is much better than saying complexity came about from even more complexity. Religion does the same thing. Bullshit. The Tower of Babel. Noah's Ark. Genesis. Complexity emerges from simplicity God is not simple, although very often the believers in God are.� � Ron Popeil is not a theologian. True, Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. What would lead to unemployment is if the LHC discovers nothing mysterious that contradicts what we think we know. Not really. Yes really. Validating the standard model is just as profitable as mystery. Bullshit. Everybody knows that the standard model is very very good but they also know it can't be the end of the story because it says nothing about gravity or Dark Matter or Dark Energy nor can it explain why neutrinos have mass. And everybody knows that unlike telescopes that have found a lot of surprising stuff in fundamental physics, particle accelerators have not discovered anything surprising in almost 40 years (finding the Higgs was not surprising, not discovering it would have been surprising and that's why many hoped it didn't exist but they were disappointed), and if the LHC doesn't find anything new either it could be the last of these very expensive machines for a century. �ohn 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 everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQ5HjTvBgZIJ. 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.
remarkable female chess master
Hi - This national geographic special shows a young hungarian lady who can essentially play and win five games of chess blindfolded. Instead of a blindfold, here she is playing only by voice to voice over a mobile phone. Her father, a psychologist, trained her to excel at chess. This would seem to argue for nurture versus nature, for chess is a position-sensitive game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E Also of interest is that the part of the right side of the brain that deals with spacial relations (not getting lost while hunting) is thicker in males. But the corpus calliostrum or tissue connecting the right and left sides of the brain is more substantial in females. -- 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 1:15:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:14:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31:00 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Impossible, or comp is false. No machine can ever figure out that there is anything without postulating it by faith. The fact that such postulation is unconscious makes this counter-intuitive, but with comp it is provable with mathematical logic. Aha, now this is interesting. Here I can begin to see the sub- arithmetic sense that you are working with. By 'figure out', do you mean that a machine has a conscious experience of reasoning? Not systematically. Only if she is universal, or perhaps she has to be Löbian. I am still not sure on this. Or is the reasoning as unconscious as the faith upon which said reasoning must rely? Hard to say. But most people (as this discussion actually illustrates) are not aware that the idea of a primary universe is something that we infer. It is not something that we live. It is unconscious theory. It is obvious (by natiral selection) that it would be a waste of energy and time to make this systematically conscious. I think of the universe not so much as something we live or infer as just the ultimate context of consideration. Sort of the idea of the largest possible here. Where does provability by mathematical logic come in? I model the belief of an ideally correct machine by its provability predicate. This is a predicate that we can translate in the language of the machine (in arithmetic for example), an,d which obeys the usual axiom for rational belief: [](p - q) - ([]p - []q) []p - [][]p (for the rich machines). Rules: modus ponens and necessitation (p/[]p). In such a machine case, the machines (and all its consistent extensions) will obey the Löb axioms: []([]p - p) - []p, which is the building block of the comp hypostases. In that frame work, the inferences in the proposition t, and more generally of propositions in G* minus G, plays the role of consciousness. But the inference itself is not conscious. It only makes sense to me that propositions are a facet of conscious experience. Not necessarily. Don't confuse the propositions and the content of the proposition. The form of a proposition is an even more abstract facet of conscious experience. I don't see that propositions, or words, or figures drawn on paper, or any other symbolic form would themselves play at consciousness. Indeed, they don't. No more than SWE, or a book on black hole. Even neurons does not play at consciousness in the comp theory. They make it only relatively manifestable. Consciousness is already beyond word. It is a mystical truth, yet quite common. Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which comp comes to our attention? Because the mystical truth is what we want to explain, or meta- explain. We must start from simple things on which everyone agree. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Why not? What else would they be? ? Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, Consciousness makes knowledge available to a person in the first place. Unconscious people can gain no knowledge. Conscious people can be conscious whether or not they acquire any knowledge. I agree. This may be the core disagreement that I have with your position. Consciousness is in knowledge? Not a chance. ? Pain hurts whether or not you know anything about anything. You know the pain. Consciousness is that knowledge. and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. That assumes that logic is independent of consciousness. I don't think so. Logic is only a tool to make theories and apply them. It emerges too in the mind of the numbers. We need logic to describe this, but the arithmetical truth are not dependent on logic, nor on theories. I see that it is actually the range of conscious presentations which is furthest from the core. Logic is sense, but it is the sense of the opposite of sense - automated inevitable senseless sense. Applying modal logic to consciousness
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self- reference logics. let us compare with nature, and so we can progress. You seem to start from the answers. You can do that if the goal is just contemplation, but then you become a poet. That is nice, but is not the goal of the scientists. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:49, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? I think so. In earlier presentations I said that comp can make a bridge between Cantor realism and Brouwer idealism/intuitionism/ constructivism. But I eventually realize that when people hate other people, they all hate even more the diplomats and the bridge. But a lot of the Heraclitean insight does make sense in the parmenidean realm once we recognize the unavoidability of the first person perspective. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: remarkable female chess master
Roger, Chess is not the best measure of raw mental ability, much of it has to do with training with people at the highest levels having to spend hours each day practicing and constantly learning to maintain their level of play. That particular Hungarian woman you mention was one of three sisters, who were all trained to play at the grandmaster level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r So certainly, much of what it takes to be a good chess player can come from training, and the earlier such training starts, the more effective it is likely to be. It is also not uncommon for very good Chess players to be able to keep a board (or several) entirely in their mind. However, studies have shown this is more a memorization of common opening patterns. When shown boards with randomized layouts of pieces, both masters and regular people were equally bad at recalling them: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.mem.exp.html The same phenomenon with domain expertise was shown with waiters who memorize orders. When asked to memorize random words rather than menu items they fared no better than the average person at memorization. Interesting video, thanks. Jason On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi - This national geographic special shows a young hungarian lady who can essentially play and win five games of chess blindfolded. Instead of a blindfold, here she is playing only by voice to voice over a mobile phone. Her father, a psychologist, trained her to excel at chess. This would seem to argue for nurture versus nature, for chess is a position-sensitive game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E Also of interest is that the part of the right side of the brain that deals with spacial relations (not getting lost while hunting) is thicker in males. But the corpus calliostrum or tissue connecting the right and left sides of the brain is more substantial in females. -- 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration. It only seems to work retrospectively when we take perception and participation for granted. If we look at it prospectively instead, we see that a universe founded on logic has no possibility of developing perception or participation, as it already includes in its axioms an assumption of quantitative sense. Machines, as conceived by comp, are already sentient without any kind of tangible, experiential, or even geometric presentation. If you have discrete data, why would you add some superfluous layer of blur? let us compare with nature, and so we can progress. You seem to start from the answers. You can do that if the goal is just contemplation, but then you become a poet. That is nice, but is not the goal of the scientists. My only goal is to make the most sense that can be made. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CY9Meb6MC6kJ. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote: On 1/22/2013 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote: On 1/21/2013 9:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is only recently, as the limitations of the narrow Western approach are being revealed on a global scale, that science has fallen into a fundamentalist pathology which makes an enemy of teleology. Yes, it is only the recently, since the Enlightenment, that science has displaced theology as the main source of knowledge about the world. This is non sense. Science is not domain. It points only to an attitude. Science cannot displace theology, like it cannot displace genetics. It can give evidence that some theological theories are wrong headed, or that some theories in genetics are not supported by facts, but science cannot eliminate any field of inquiry, or it becomes automatically a pseudo-religion itself (as it is the case for some scientists). Of course it can't displace a field of inquiry. But theology wasn't a field of inquiry, it was apologetics for revelation and dogma. Like genetics has been in the ex-USSR. That's a reason to come back to the seriousness in the field. By refusing this, you just perpetuate the dogma. Coincidentally is only recently that the sin theory of disease was replaced by the germ theory...that the geocentric model of the solar system was replaced by the heliocentric...that insanity has been due to bad brain chemistry instead of possession by demons...that democracy has replaced the divine right of kings...that lightning rods have protected us from the wrath of God...that the suffering of women in childbirth has been alleviated... OK. This shows that religion provides answer, and then the scientific attitude can lead to corrections, making those answers into abandoned theories. This really illustrates my point. Now some go farer and make primary matter the new God. that's OK in a treatise of metaphysics, when physicalism is explicitly assumed or discussed, but some scientists, notably when vindictive strong atheists I met, just mock the questions and imposes the physicalist answer like if that, an only that, was science. This is just deeply not scientific. Can you cite any physicists who use the term 'primary matter'. Can you cite any physicist interested in the mind-body problem. Physicists does not care about the distinction between primary matter and matter, because they usually take Aristotle theology for granted. It is comp and logic which forces us to realize that science has not yet decide between Plato and Aristotle, making us obliged to be aware that matter might not have a primitive existence and might need to be derived from something else (like arithmetic). I've never come across it except on this list. Of course almost all physicists believe in some kind of matter which is the subject of their study and they may hypothesize that it is primary, that there is nothing more fundamental which explains the matter, but that's just an hypothesis. John Wheeler was not criticized for talking about It from bit. Indeed. Wheeler was aware that physics might be originating from something non physical. he was well inspired by the bits, and even by self-reference. Max Tegmark is still highly respected after suggesting a mathematical universe. I think you have just been unlucky in running into some close minded atheists who probably suspected that your use of God to mean Truth And trapped, as they encouraged me to do so, in the name of the free- exams. Some were sincere though, but others seem to have planned the refusal in advance. In Conscience Mécanisme I define theology by modal logic. Indeed Aristotle invented logic and modal logic to handle tricky metaphysical and theological question. Also, during my studies, when I suggested that modal logic might help for the study of provability and consistency (before Solovay), the atheists was used to dismiss the whole thing as theology. So it was a way to remind them of the free- exam, and indeed that's why some encouraged me to do so: to prevent easy dismissals. (and I'm not sure what that means) was an attempt to slip Christian dogma into science by the back door - it sounds very much like what, as John K. Clark pointed out, liberal theologians do in order to pretend that physics or mathematics supports their dogma. I don't know what is a liberal theologian. In science we have no dogma (ideally). Of course the existence of math and physics supports the idea that there is a reality and so can be seen as evidence that some transcendent truth might make sense. Then computer science explains that if a machine posit a truth it will have transcendent aspect. I use theology because I have read tuns of book in theology (from East and West) and they helped me to find the right
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:52, John Mikes wrote: Richard: and what is - NOT - an illusion? are you? or me? we have no way to ascertain existence and qualia, we just THINK. Our science is based on SOME info we don't know exactly, not even if it is like we think it is. We calculate in our human logic (stupidity would be more accurate) and then comes a newer enlightenment and we change it all. Brent wrote a nice list of such changes lately. I use the classic Flat Earth. But we live happily ever after and before (not knowing if TIME does indeed exist?). And some of us get Nobel prizes. Congrats. So: happy illusions! Science is only that. The courage to be stupid, and the hope that this might help to be a little bit less stupid tomorrow. But being wrong is, in fact, not really like being stupid. The real stupidity is what persists. It is staying wrong despite evidences. This happens often when people try to measure/judge intelligence and stupidity, especially their own, which makes no sense. We can evaluate special competence, but we can't evaluate intelligence. Bruno John Mikes On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard That seems to be Bruno's multiverse. Although I wonder if his 1p perspective is equivalent to your motor-sensory experience in order to make time, consciousness necessary? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/REVm4C8jHA8J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message 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 curse of materialism
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:01, meekerdb wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human need interpret the representations. I agree. Computer science can be defined by the study of digital representations and the manners to handle them. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is there an aether ?
On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:26:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then why would comp be primitive and not the mystical truth through which comp comes to our attention? Because the mystical truth is what we want to explain, or meta-explain. We must start from simple things on which everyone agree. To me the mystical truth is much simpler than arithmetic truth. Everyone can agree that we participate in a sensory experience. It's a simple matter to see that the same is true for all things in the proper context. We might infer they are conscious, like a cartoon or puppet, but I don't see any reason to suspect that symbols would suddenly become actually conscious at some point because of complexity or scale. What is conscious is the person making the inference (of a reality). Consciousness is not the inference, not the symbols used, etc. Why not? What else would they be? ? Symbols are an artifact of consciousness. Consciousness is in the knowledge of the person, Consciousness makes knowledge available to a person in the first place. Unconscious people can gain no knowledge. Conscious people can be conscious whether or not they acquire any knowledge. I agree. This may be the core disagreement that I have with your position. Consciousness is in knowledge? Not a chance. ? Knowledge is part of consciousness, but consciousness does not appear out of a hypothetically independent knowledge. Pain hurts whether or not you know anything about anything. You know the pain. Consciousness is that knowledge. You don't have to know pain the first time you feel it. It can feel completely new and unprecedented. You can doubt the pain after you have felt it, you can forget it or diminish it. You can have knowledge of pain and knowledge about pain, but pain itself is a perception independent of knowledge or belief. Pain is an encounter with the concrete, illogical horror of involuntarily and irrevocably embedded participation. The capacity to reflect on that encounter is the experience of knowledge of the horror of it, which modulates the horror to some extent, for better or worse or both. and that is non computably associated to infinities of computations. But it can obeys laws, and be described with a theory, or a meta-theory, because consciousness has no formal term to refer to it. Like arithmetical truth has no term to refer to it in arithmetic. that is why modal logic is useful, as it makes possible to talk about things which have no descriptions. That assumes that logic is independent of consciousness. I don't think so. Logic is only a tool to make theories and apply them. It emerges too in the mind of the numbers. We need logic to describe this, but the arithmetical truth are not dependent on logic, nor on theories. I would agree, but I would say that its because arithmetical truth is a subset of sense. All arithmetic truth makes sense, but not all sense is an expression of arithmetic. Really only the manipulation of abstracted rigid bodies is arithmetic. Arithmetic has no true fluidity or vagueness. Such fluidity is critical for all biological experience, and cannot be constructed logically, except as a digitized integral analysis. I see that it is actually the range of conscious presentations which is furthest from the core. Logic is sense, but it is the sense of the opposite of sense - automated inevitable senseless sense. Applying modal logic to consciousness in that way is like going into a cave with a blacklight and fluorescent paint to study the sun. Why doesn't everything use unconscious faith Faith is always conscious. The inference itself might be or not unconscious, so I guess what you mean. If I said unconscious faith, I meant unconscious inference of something and the unconscious bears on inference, not on the content of the faith. Ok, I can see where an inference would be unavailable to personal consciousness (I call this perceptual inertia - expectations become backgrounded and implicit) but because we are organisms with particularly elaborate consciousness, I would not rule out that what has become less than conscious to us at the personal level is still conscious on sub-personal levels. I tend to believe this, actually. But not really from my reflexion of comp, but from my reading of books on brains, and then my reading of salvia reports (and other plants). I tend to think that our consciousness result from the association of at least a dozen of already conscious beings integrated in some way. some drugs dissociates those presence. Amazingly some presence might not been in the brain, but in arithmetic, to which our brain is naturally connected. Sounds good to me. Except the
Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland
On 23 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Just trying to clarify things. 1) OK, I partly understand if we allow words as output. ... and inputs. OK. But words are descriptions (3p, or Thirdness), OK. not experience (1p, or Firstness). Yes. Experiences are not words. 2) Let us admit for the moment that it is possible for a computer to be conscious. What would it be conscious of ? The code it is running, which would be like a stream of consciousness, ie an experience ? In fact, a computer is never conscious. Similarly, my brain is not conscious. No more than my liver. It is the (immaterial) person which is conscious. The brain, or the computer, is only a local tool to make that conscious person able to manifest itself relatively to its most probable computational histories. The person is defined mainly by its first person experience, which is not something that we can identify with anything third person describable. But we can define it, at least in a first approximation, by the knower (notably the one who know the content of its memories). It has been shown, by Montague and Kaplan precisely, that like truth, knowledge by a machine cannot be defined in the language of the machine. But as scientists, by studying much simpler machine than ourselves, we can use a local and little theory of truth (like Traski's one) to (meta) define the knowledge of the machine (notably by linking the machine's belief (which are definable and representable in 3p) and truth. This works well, and explains already why the introspecting machine cannot know who she is. The identity card, or even the complete description of her body, will not do the trick (that leads only to a 3p copy, not her). That explains also that the knowing machine can only *bet* on a substitution level, without ever being sure it is correct, making comp asking for an act of faith (similar to some faith in some possible reincarnation). It is counter-intuitive, and it does leads to the reversal: eventually the brain and bodies are construct of the mind, even if they are also related to deep and complex 3p number relations. Consciousness is not due to the running of a computer. It only appears locally to be like that. In the global big picture, it is the running of a computer which appear as an event in consciousness. I hope this can help a bit. It is hard to explain something counter- intuitive in intuitive terms, and that is why I use the deductive method, starting from the hypothesis that there is a level where we are 3p duplicable. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:00:41 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You said: God, matter, consciousness are never computable Is that because the above are nonphysical ? Matter is physical, by definition, yet non computable. This follows from the UD Argument. If consciousness is not computable, can ideas be computable ? Yes. Most of them are (the programs, the monads). I'm totally lost. I don't even understand how ANYTHING other than numbers can be computable. Strings of letter are not number, but the operation of concatenation is computable ( a + baba = ababa). Look at your computer, you see mails, letters, etc. Not number, yet all what you do with your computer (like sending a mail) are computable operation. Suppose you do a computation. You get a number or a bunch of numbers. How can you say what they mean ? By remembering the definitions, the axioms I am assuming, etc. I don't see the problem. If you refer to the qualia, this is explain by the peculiarity of the logic of machines self-reference: when machine introspect they can understand things, without completely understanding the understanding process itself. It is normal, but it needs a bot of computer science and mathematical logic to get the complete picture. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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: Berkeley, Plato and Leibniz on existence
On 23 Jan 2013, at 12:01, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal An interesting way putting it. But that matter is only dreamed sounds like a stronger version of Berkeleyism. You say that matter doesn't really exist at all, Berkeley would say that it only exists if we perceive it. Both of these positions can be saved IMHO if there is some external, continuous, omnipresent observer. Like the One. I suspect that you already hold that view. It is an open problem. Is the One a person? I don't know. It surely becomes a person when linked to belief, as this gives the inner God (the universal soul, the knower). I do have some evidence that either the ONE is a person, but I have also evidence that such a ONE might not be the real ONE, but still more particular instantiations. All this is quite complex. Leibniz would not make such a strong statement, however. He would say that matter is not illusory at all, it is both an idea (a perception, a dream), which to us appears as a phenomenon, but to God appears as it really is. I am not sure I can translate that in the machine's language today. Too much complex. It is for the future generations. Keep in mind that the ideally correct machines remains mute all around the notion of God. To progress we will have to perturb her a little bit, and make her less correct, but then there is the risk of making her soul fall, and she has all the cognitive ability to develop her own wishful thinking. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-22, 12:11:04 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading On 22 Jan 2013, at 12:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say: Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Wikipedia says: Epistemology (i/ p st m l d i/ from Greek πιστ μη - epistēmē, meaning knowledge, understanding, and λ γο - logos, meaning study of) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.[1][2] It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given subject or entity can be known. How can matter be epistemological ? Because matter is only dreamed. It is an appearance. there is no stuff. Weal materialism is false (if comp is true, that is if we are machine). It's just nondescriptive stuff. That does not exist. That is a myth, even if it is a very old one. It is the result of billions years of simplification done by nature. Our brains has been programmed to surivive, not to contemplate the possible ultimate truth. It cannot be knowledge, for knowledge can be defined as a true belief. But there's nothing to believe. It's just nondescriptive stuff. It is indeed not true belief, but it is still belief. false belief if you want. Illusion. Dream. As to truth not being epistemological, consider this. If knowledge is a true belief, and epistemology provides you with knowledge, then that knowledge must be true by definition. I agree with knowledge = true belief (cf Bp p), but this makes truth primary with respect to knowledge. To have a knowledge you need two things: a belief, and a reality in which that belief is true. 'and of course you need a link to that reality, like being present there). You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:38:01 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Bruno - Receiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ?
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:21:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But if plants and animals experience the world at the same time as humans, They do, of course. They experience what they are able to experience of the world just as we do. wouldn't there be a strange population of objects, and wouldn't there be the problem of two objects being in the same space ? No, there would be exactly what there is. If a child experiences a kitchen counter as being a place that is too high to reach, does that preclude an adult from seeing that same kitchen counter as being a surface which is reached conveniently? If you sit in a room with your wife on one side of the couch, does that mean that the experience of the room can't also exist in which you are on the other side of the couch? - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:38:50 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:22:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg If you knew more about the history of philsophy, you'd know that Berkeley finally had to admit that the world out there is real prior to our individual observation because it is all observed by God. That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon *human*consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 11:53:45 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:53:25 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That is such a silly pov. Because it's your pov, not mine. You don't understand what I am talking about so you keep pointing at a Straw Man misinterpretation of Berkeleyan idealism. If a boulder fell off of a cliff above you onto you that you didn't see, would it hurt you or not ? It depends if I was in a coma or not. If a boulder fell on you while you were in a coma, and you remained in a coma for another year, there would be no 'hurt' caused by the boulder - at least not to you personally...to your cells and organs, that's another matter. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 15:47:31 *Subject:* Re: Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:40:53 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg So the world did not exist before man ? The world existed before man, but not before experience. Man does not define all experience in the universe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 11:20:07 *Subject:* Re: Is there an aether ? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 8:20:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: The whole worldview is built on the mistaken assumption that it is possible for something to exist without sensory participation. When you fail to factor that critically important physical reality into physics, what you get is senseless fields and the absurdity of particle-waves and aetheric emptiness full mass. Where does pure sense come from? Did it always exist? If so, how to explain that? come from is an experience within sense, as is 'exist'. Explanation is how one sense experience is intentionally translated into another. Sense pre-figures all concepts, all existence, all explanations, not out of enigmatic mysticism but out of simple ontological definition. It is simply not possible for anything to exist in any way (i.e. in any 'sense') outside of sense. There has never been anything but sense. Is pure sense unitary or plural? How do you explain the observable complexification of (this) universe? Sense unifies plurality. The complexification of this universe is the proliferation and elaboration of sense experiences. That is the motive of sense. To make more and more and better sense. What this does is push physics into a corner, so that everything beneath the classical limit becomes a Platonic fantasy of spontaneous appearance, and decoherence becomes the source of all coherence. It's tragically obvious to me - faced with a cosmos filled with concrete sensory appearances, of meaning and subjectivity, that we reach for its opposite - meaningless abstractions of multi-dimensional topologies and
Re: Is there an aether ?
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 23:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:20:58 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:49:09 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't have anything to do with your straw man of my position. I have never once said that existence is contingent upon human consciousness. I state again and again that it is experience itself - the capacity for sensory-motor participation which is the progenitor of all possible forms of 'existence'. Something 'being' means that there is an experience, otherwise there is no possibility of anything ever coming into being. However, in a static Block MWI Universe there is no need for time or consciousness or experience. Then in what sense does it 'exist'? It must be an illusion. Either that or MWI is an illusion. Doesn't Bruno say that matter is a dream or illusion? Richard I think MWI and block universe aren't even illusions, they are just ideas to defend mechanism against the fact that reality is only partially mechanistic. Once we assume mechanism, we can explain why reality needs to be only partially mechanistic. You get the same result by assuming that mechanism only needs to be a part of reality. I think that you are confusing total computable with partial computable. The universality of the Turing machine makes her behavior not total computable. In fact it makes such machine much more a new unknown, that we can invite at the discussion table, than anything like an answer. The new unknown is worth exploring, for sure, but I'm only interested in the integrating the realism of our direct experience with our indirect scientific understanding. There may indeed be other Turning universes out there, or in here, but I don't live in them yet, so I don't care. I would care if I could, but my interest in science fiction has waned surprisingly in the last 25 years. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/cGG3Xaa9bWYJ. 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 curse of materialism
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:03:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen, Numbers do have an independent existence, that being nonphysical existence. Then so does Mickey Mouse have a nonphysical existence. Do Mickey Mouse's thoughts have an independent existence too? Why not? Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 12:28:48 *Subject:* Re: the curse of materialism On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and multiplication in the sense I would wait for. Dear Bruno, Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic? Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form what you assume. Dear Bruno, I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental content and not independently existing entities, so we have an irreconcilable difference in our thinking. Then comp is meaningless. Even Church thesis is meaningless. Most papers you referred to becomes meaningless. It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the source of derivation of arithmetics! But you have to derive the physical activity first, then. I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of the content of 1p experience. I was talking of deriving physics. We accept content of experience in comp, but then we can recover it from the numbers complex behavior when looking at themselves. Then physics is or should be explained from that, as UDA explains. I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell. That's the part where we agree. I explain experience from computer science, and it seems you disagree with this, but then I don't understand why you keep defending comp as it is clear it does not fit with your theory. Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and developing communication methods between themselves. Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as numbers. yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you prove it first. What benefit comes from this proof? To get an explanation. Bruno Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can transform and remain the same! ? (looks like a prose to me). OK... 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.javascript: To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+ unsub...@googlegroups.com. javascript: For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/34OwtaYwo2EJ. 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 curse of materialism
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human need interpret the representations. Do you think that a Mars rover knows it's on Mars? When it's software was tested in the laboratory, do you think that it knew it was in a laboratory? Computers and machines have no representations because they have no presentations. Computers have parts which are public forms configured to perform public functions. Representation requires private inference and experience. Computers do not have that. Which is why I can plot the destruction of all computers openly on the internet without fear of persecution from technology. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-2E9PfRdu9gJ. 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 blind man creating a rock by tripping on it.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:39:17 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg This get sillier the more realistically we examine your claim. It would also make an interesting experiment to record with a videocam set off with a trip wire that could be posted on Youtube. How fast is the object of perception created in the brain? There is no object created in the brain. Perception is an experience which is accessed through the sensitivities of the brain to the body and the body to the world. How fast would the rock be created ? The rock is not created, except geologically. You really have no idea what I'm talking about. Would it start being created at the point of contact, or all over ? Not created - noticed in the experience of contact. Would that be faster than the blind man's reaction time ? What does faster have to do with anything. If you can see, then you detect the rock at a distance from your body. If you can't see, then you detect the rock as it contacts your body or a prosthetic extension of your body. Eyes extend the sense of your brain into a public optical context. Would there be a heat of solidification required ? Would that heat or cool the surrounding area ? You are way out in your own strawman version of my view. Would what require a heat or solidification? Kicking a rock? Would the creation of the rock show up on a videocam recording the eventCould we hear that happen ? What would the creation of a rock sound like ? Rocks sound like rocks when you kick them. They show up on videocam without being created - they are detected by the photosensitive CDC, but that is as far as it goes. That photosensitivity is not shared by any organism which interprets it though emotional or cognitive sensitivity. How does the speed of creation of the rock compare with the blind man's reaction time to contacting the rock ? What would his perception look like to a blind man? There is no rock 'created'. You are thinking of a caricature of idealism and projecting it onto me, and I suspect that you always will. Not your fault, but you aren't going to learn anything if you don't understand what I'm proposing. Craig Etc. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2013-01-22, 15:43:19 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:12:10 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg That's quite a stretch. You really expect me to believe that a rock in the path of a blind man walking would be detected by him ? Of course he could detect it with his cane, but what if he had none ? Then he detects it when he trips over it. Having eyes allows us to extend the range of our tripping and changes the quality of the experience as well. Craig - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 10:40:52 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 9:19:36 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg But nothing would exist for a blind man, since he can see nothing. Blind people can hear and feel and think, smell and taste, touch. Everything exists to the extent that it can be detected directly or indirectly. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-21, 09:11:18 *Subject:* Re: Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:54:58 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Could a blind man stub his toe ? Anyone can stub their toe. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2013-01-20, 21:35:50 *Subject:* Re: A God-limited God - My Theodicy What would an alien intelligence help explain the origin of the universe? Wouldn't you just have to explain the origin of this alien intelligence? On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:11:13 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone have an issue with thinking about God as an alien intelligence, which created the Hibble Volume (aka Universe)? Michael Shermer sort of put this concept together, perhaps in the hope of getting people to think, or possibly, to tick-off Christian Fundamentalist? I have no problem with this conceptualization. Is there a psycho-social, downside to this way of thinking? Or, maybe I have just gone off the deep-end, and Flying sphagetti monster here I come? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wiperHBOCuMJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe
Re: Re: Sensing the presence of God
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 – 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ‘disorders’ and was judged to be “disturbed but sane” by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. On Saturday, January 12, 2013 5:56:06 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: The only tenet to faith is trust in God. Period. Period? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7894536/Yorkshire-Ripper-Peter-Sutcliffe-could-leave-Broadmoor-despite-life-behind-bars-ruling.html Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, murdered 13 women and attempted to kill seven others during a five-and-a-half year reign of terror across Yorkshire and Greater Manchester 1975 to 1981. He claimed he heard the voice of God, speaking from tombstones while he was working in a graveyard, telling him to kill prostitutes. http://listdom.wordpress.com/category/a-serial-killers-view/ Albert Fish 1870 – 1936. Fish said he had killed around 23 people. He apparently had an array of ‘disorders’ and was judged to be “disturbed but sane” by a psychiatrist prior to any convictions. Fish murdered then ate his victims, and at his trial professed that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill children. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/22/mb-vince-li-schizophrenia-interview-manitoba.html Vince Li, who beheaded a fellow passenger aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba nearly four years ago, believed he was chosen by God to save people from an alien attack. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/K/KALLINGER_joseph.php On January 23, 1972 he branded his oldest daughter for running away. He was arrested for child abuse and found incompetent to stand trial. By mid-1974 he was constantly hearing voices from a floating head that followed him around. God also spoke to him and told him to kill young boys and sever their penises. Eager to comply, Joe enlisted his 13-year-old son, Michael, and proceeded to torture and murder a nine-year-old Puerto Rican youth. Their next victim was one of his own children, Joe Jr., who had previously accused him of abuse. For such a transgression the hapless youngster was found drowned in an abandoned building. There are many, many more of course... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bO19fN3wY3cJ. 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: Robot reading vs human reading
On 23 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno It seems that you have avoided my question by questioning what I mean by quantum mind. It seems you avoid my question of what you mean by quantum mind. Don't quantum mind too much :) So let me rephrase it. Could arithmetics produce matter once and for all a long time ago? The question does not make a clear sense. Arithmetical truth is out of time and space. Arithmetics is responsible for our own (atemporal existence), and we create time in it. (making time is the favorite pastime of the universal numbers). So in a larger sense I could have answer yes, in some metaphorical way. Arithmetic contains all the computations, but only the numbers/ machines are making sense of it, by virtue of their relations with the others numbers. Or must the illusion of matter be constantly reinforced by arithmetics? Not by arithmetic, which is out of time. But matter can be considered as being reinforced by the winning stable and sharable machines' histories/dreams. Normally if you get the UDA1-7, you could already figure out how this happens. Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat. For each possible brain states, there is an infinity, in arithmetic, of universal machine/number' computations going through that state. Whatever you predict that you will live is given by a probability- calculus on all those histories, making physics a relative probability calculus on the computations, but only a seen by the (locally self-referentially correct) numbers. Church thesis makes all computations something well defined, and the incompleteness phenomenon makes those computations terribly redundant, and this introduces the deepness and the bottom linearity making consciousness differentiating on long and rich 'normal' (gaussian, boolean) histories. This predicts/explains that once we look below our substitution level, the physical reality get blurred, as we have to see, somehow, the trace of the infinity of universal numbers competing to build you a consistent extensions. Seen is defined in arithmetic by []p t, and variants. You see a city, if there is a city in all relative consistent extensions ([]p), and there is such a consistent extension (t). This provides an arithmetical quantization, and I conjecture we can program a quantum computer in it. If we can't, then the concrete existence of a quantum computer would refute comp + the arithmetical interpretation of the classical theory of knowledge). Arithmetic produces mind and matter/time, atemporally. The existence of times and matters in the stable deep dreams of the universal machines, is a theorem of arithmetic, or of some consistent extension of arithmetic (made by creature living in arithmetic). Arithmetic from inside is vastly bigger than arithmetic seen from inside. It is a Löwenheim-Skolem-like phenomenon. Well, that happens also in Alice in Wonderland and in yellow Submarine
Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:46:23 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:58:32 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite my belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) from a brain, As long as you have another brain to experience the extracted memories in 1p, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 3p transmission of some experiential content from one brain to another. I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that consciousness emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a degree of consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the emergence from complexity idea. Still I feel that you avoid some questions. Maybe it's just my lack of understanding of what you're saying. For example: what is the primary stuff in your theory? In the same sense that for materialists it's subatomic particles and for comp it's N, +, *. What's yours? For me the primary stuff is sensory-motor presence. It's very hard for me to grasp this. It's supposed to be hard to grasp. We are supposed to watch the movie, not try to figure out who the actors really are and how the camera works. Particles are public sense representations. N, +, * are private sense representations. Particles represent the experience of sensory-motor obstruction as topological bodies. Integers and arithmetic operators represent the sensory-motor relations of public objects as private logical figures. Craig On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: Hi Craig, Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to get others to see the secret exit that I think I've found... Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it before. Would you tell me about that secret exit? The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs from functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends on a living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of the degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of experience, not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and participate depends on anything at all. Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning and significant preference to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, physically in here. If this is true, then the entire physical universe doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. Medicine and science and Justice have improved since 1600 but as for religion., well I suppose the Catholic Church has improved too, after all they did admit that they may have gone a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and that he may have had a point after all, they said this in the year 2000. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years, and I'm sure defending themselves from all those pedophile cases must be time consuming. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. It did for many people. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Apparently you believe that Charles Darwin should be held accountable for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a letter he said what a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. But of course the personal virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't like his theory tended to like the man personally. I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is bullshit, Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the waters and whatnot Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) produced something less grand and less complex (humans), but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to reach the very top. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 1/23/2013 7:55 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Belief and question are inseparable. Science and theology are converging to be what they always were before their artificial separation by political interests: agile, adaptive partners in our dealings with the final questions of real. These are exciting times, unless you have some axe to grind, in which case: Back to work! Go on, defend and substantiate with your godlike criteria! While you do that ...Uhmm I'm just gonna have a beer with that crazy Zen dude over there, even though I don't practice Zen. Cheers! My apologies PGC, I didn't mean to imply that your open mindedness was not superior to mine. 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: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 1:50:57 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see in the night sky were other suns very very far away. The Catholic Church of the 16th century is no more representative of Theology In Europe in 1600 the Catholic Church was not representative of theology it virtually was theology; competing franchises like Judaism and Islam were just rounding errors, and they were just as dumb anyway. Then by that logic, the practice of bloodletting should represent Medicine, and witch burning should represent Justice. Medicine and science and Justice have improved since 1600 but as for religion., well I suppose the Catholic Church has improved too, after all they did admit that they may have gone a bit too far in their treatment of Galileo and that he may have had a point after all, they said this in the year 2000. There have been calls for the church to reopen the case against the astronomer Giordano Bruno and give hin a posthumous apology for burning him alive but so far the church has not done so, but give them time, it's only been 413 years, and I'm sure defending themselves from all those pedophile cases must be time consuming. Huh? Charles Darwin and ethnic cleansing, it does not compute. It did for many people. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/ Apparently you believe that Charles Darwin should be held accountable No, that's why I used the comparison as an example of fallacious logic. for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a letter he said what a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. But of course the personal virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't like his theory tended to like the man personally. Newton was definitely a whack job, but I have no problem with either his theories or Darwin's - I'm just saying that they are part of the progress which began with spirituality and religion and continued to develop through theology, philosophy, and science. Of course, the key being that I am one of the many people who view the current phase of science as having passed its prime and will decay unless it can embrace larger and more scientific understandings. I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is bullshit, Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. I don't bullshit as far as I know. I have no reason to lie and I'm not very good at it. It's not because I have a moral aversion to it, I'm just too lazy to keep track of what I say, so it's simpler to tell the truth. Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing the waters and whatnot Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, so how complex could it be? produced something less grand and less complex (humans), Less grand maybe, but not less complex. Isn't God just supposed to be I am that I am.? but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. Probably several people contributed to writing Genesis, but while I think that the Bible has caused a lot of harm to the world, it's still responsible for driving much of the art and science of the Western world. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he sells on TV actually exists. Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to reach the very top. I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On 1/23/2013 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human need interpret the representations. Do you think that a Mars rover knows it's on Mars? Sure. And it knows where Earth is, which way to point its antenna and what frequency to use in communicating. When it's software was tested in the laboratory, do you think that it knew it was in a laboratory? I doubt it had the concept of 'laboratory', but it probably knew it wasn't on Mars since it knows temperature, air pressure, direction of the Earth, etc. Computers and machines have no representations because they have no presentations. So you say...over and over; as though repetition were evidence. Computers have parts which are public forms configured to perform public functions. Representation requires private inference and experience. Computers do not have that. Which is why I can plot the destruction of all computers openly on the internet without fear of persecution from technology. I wouldn't try it if I were you - you might find computers have friends with guns. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: the curse of materialism
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:42:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/23/2013 9:27 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:01:09 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/22/2013 10:57 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to drive through the streets of Los Angeles. You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. Not 'images', 'representations' (check your reading accuracy). And they do have representations of Mars and streets and signal lights and pedestrians; otherwise they could not successfully navigate. And no human need interpret the representations. Do you think that a Mars rover knows it's on Mars? Sure. And it knows where Earth is, which way to point its antenna and what frequency to use in communicating. Do think the dishwasher knows when your dishes are dry? When it's software was tested in the laboratory, do you think that it knew it was in a laboratory? I doubt it had the concept of 'laboratory', but it probably knew it wasn't on Mars since it knows temperature, air pressure, direction of the Earth, etc. I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. Computers and machines have no representations because they have no presentations. So you say...over and over; as though repetition were evidence. I repeat it only because I can't believe that you actually heard what I am saying. If I move an abacus bead from one side of the column to the other, does the abacus know what number it stands for? Does it imagine dots or Arabic numerals? Evidence is not the standard when dealing with the quality of experience, since it is first person only. We have to go by what makes sense - what we have observed by our interaction with machines. Computers have parts which are public forms configured to perform public functions. Representation requires private inference and experience. Computers do not have that. Which is why I can plot the destruction of all computers openly on the internet without fear of persecution from technology. I wouldn't try it if I were you - you might find computers have friends with guns. So you admit that computers are utterly helpless to defend themselves or to care about whether they exist or not. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AS-Cwhfk8lsJ. 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 curse of materialism
On 1/23/2013 5:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I guess you are serious, but I can't imagine how you can actually believe that. You think that you turn the Mars rover on and there is some entity there which has an expectation about 'Mars' or Earth. It really doesn't. There is no entity there So you repeat, ad nauseum. - just a collection of probes and logic circuits. Without humans to interpret the data coming out of it, it would be obvious that it is as unconscious as a stone. No it wouldn't. It has nothing to do with 'the data coming out'. It knows about Mars because it can navigate on Mars and accomplish things on Mars (which is more than you can do) and anybody watching it would conclude that. 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.
