date:20131027



On 26 Oct 2013, at 23:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You betray your feeling here. Some people, like you apparently,  
indeed find the FPI and the reversal as a work of genius. They  
think: if you were right you should have the Nobel Prize, but you  
don't, so something must be wrong, and so I don't need to study  
it. But of course this does not help as it makes people dismissing  
it indeed.


It seems to me that there is no disagreement about any fact in the  
duplication experiment - only arguments about what uncertainty



John understood what I meant. He compared it himself with coin  
throwing. He miss the originality and/or importance, but that is not  
used in the reasoning.





and you mean.


John has proposed itself a definition, which is indeed the definition  
needed to say that we survive drinking, coffee, getting an artificial  
brain, using teletransportation, or living a self-duplication.
He just stops doing the thought experiment just at the moment we  
interview each copies to see if the prediction written in the diary in  
Helsinki is or not fulfilled.




So why don't you explain to John what proceeds from the facts of the  
thought experiment?


I think he knows it. Comp implies (at step seven) that if there is a  
UD running in the universe, then physics is reduced to the FPI on  
arithmetic. Step 8 eliminates the assumption that there is a universe.


I am the one, like many, who does not understand John's point, so I  
think you should ask him to clarify his point. It seems originate from  
not taking the 1P/3P distinction into account, despite he showed to  
understand it in some post.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark



On 27 Oct 2013, at 00:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 10/26/2013 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
...

It is:

3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical  
computations.



Not at all. That would be the case if the goal was doing physics,  
but the goal was only to formulate the mind body problem.
Then, despite this, the math part (AUDA, the machine's interview)  
does provide the mathematical tools to do practical computations.  
The arithmetical quantization is fully given and has been compared  
with quantum logic.
That we are at light years from getting anything like the standard  
model is not really relevant, as the standard model does not  
address the mind-body problem.
A physicist can complain that comp is a long way to be able to use  
as physics, but I insist: the goal is to show that the mind-body  
problem is not solved, and that with comp, we have to derive  
physics from arithmetic, and I got already the propositional part  
of physics.


What do you mean by that last?  Whether you think it is necessary or  
not, it would certainly lend credence to your theory if it made more  
contact with physics.


Comp has enough credence. It is believed by almost all scientists  
since almost always.
The reasoning I propose has never met any problem, except in the lack  
of interest for reason which eludes me, but related to the fact that  
some scientist does not want to even heard words like consciousness,  
mind-body, or even QM and quantum mechanics. And they don't play the  
academic game. My work has been peer reviewed many times, has been  
defended as a PhD thesis, etc.
Non credence comes from people not trying to read it, like Bill and  
John Clark illustrates on this list (and/or FOAR).




 Here's a blog post that might suggest a point of contact:

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2013/10/distributed-computing-with-alien.html



Don't hesitate to elaborate, but this assumes QM, and does not bear on  
the mind-body or 1p/3p relation.


Bruno




Brent



The subject is the mind-body problem, not physics per se.

Technically, the problem is that physicists don't know mathematical  
logic (as Penrose illustrated to the logicians). Very few  
physicists understand the X1* and Z1* logic, which gives the needed  
arithmetical quantizations.


That's another problem: only logicians knows logic. They have no  
problem with AUDA. But many just dislike the mind-body problem and  
applications of logic. My work reminds that logic per se does not  
solve philosophical problem, which annoy them as they are still  
under the spell of Vienna positivism, where logic is used to  
replace metaphysics, and comp shows that this is not enough.


I think.


Bruno



Suppose that you could derive the Standard Model from deeper  
principles, then it doesn't matter what the philosophical  
objections against these principles are.


No one cares that Einstein's arguments leading to Special  
Relativity were not rigorous. Obviously, you can't derive special  
relativity rigorously from electrodynamics, because relativity is  
more fundamental than electrodynamics. At best you can present  
heuristic arguments. Some philosophers do make a problem out of  
that, but in physics no one really cares. Most modern textbooks do  
this correctly by discussing Lorentz invariance and only then  
deriving the Maxwell equations as the correct generalization of  
Coulomb's law.


Saibal


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it



On Sunday, October 27, 2013 2:11:35 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:




 On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
  wrote:


 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

 We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
 the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
 which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
 Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
 Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
 closer to answering this question.
   
 Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known 
 visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual 
 images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry 
 happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains 
 cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches 
 back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images 
 are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to 
 enter our consciousness.

 Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static 
 picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
 Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
 a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that 
 specifically processes visual 
 motionhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/. 
 The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
 have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
 amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.

 So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
 motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
 image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
 effect.
 This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
 conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
 brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/. 
 Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
 disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
 rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
 resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
 Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and 
 noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
 question of how this neural stability is achieved.


 Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense 
 *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*


 If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be 
 different if the conscious state is different. 


Sure, but consciousness does not supervene on neurochemistry, since we can 
change our neurochemistry voluntarily. We can change each others 
neurochemistry intentionally. That aside, certainly ordinary animal 
consciousness correlates to neurochemistry, so that conscious states would 
be *represented* publicly as different neurochemical patterns (and also 
different facial expressions, body language, vocal intonation, smells that 
dogs can detect, etc...lots of expressions beyond just microphysical 
containment). Changing the brain chemistry changes consciousness, but this 
study shows that the brain chemistry fights back. Being conscious is to 
resist noise being introduced from the microphysical level. It is top-down 
as well as bottom up. We are not mere puppets of neurochemistry, 
neurochemistry is also our puppet show.

 

 Demonstrating that there is a change in consciousness without a change in 
 the brain, or a change in the brain not explained by the physics, would be 
 evidence of supernatural processes.


This study alone should convince you that this iron law you have adopted is 
obsolete. The fact that it does not only shows that you are not looking at 
evidence, but ideology. This experiment shoes conclusively a change in the 
microphysical public brain which is actively ignored by the top down, 
macrophenomena of private physics.

Craig
 


  
 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


  I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes
 to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third
 person distinction.


Of course it's important, but I didn't need Bruno's help to figure that
out. And I especially agree when is says To avoid linguistic confusion it
is crucial that we distinguish between the outside view of the world [from
] the inside view.  Yes, we must avoid linguistic confusion!

It's true that in everyday usage there is no linguistic confusion and it
would be silly to keep asking what do you mean by the pronoun you?, but
this is very far from everyday usage. This is a thought experiment
involving identity duplicating machines and is a vital part of a proof that
is trying to find something new about the very thing that is being
duplicated, identity. Under those very very exotic circumstances the
meaning of the personal pronoun you is far from obvious. And if the
meaning of you is vague then the difference between 1p and 3p is vague
too, and that is not acceptable in a proof that claims to be mathematically
precise.

So when Bruno asks will you in Helsinki survive the duplication? or what
city will you see? it depends entirely on what you means. To me, and to
Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled, you is the guy(s) who
remembers being the Helsinki Man;  thus I would answer that yes you will
survive and you will see both Moscow and Washington. And if the ASCII
sequence y-o-u means something different in another language then John
Clark would answer the questions differently.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, you still find nothing to say about many-worlds interpretation of QM
 where you are duplicated billions of time a picosecond, but you are able to
 babble for years about a simple duplication experiment ?


The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
this thread:

Step 1: Quentin Anciaux states that John Clark treats Everett's ideas and
Bruno's ideas inconsistently.

Step 2: John Clark points out the ways Everett's ideas about probability
and prediction and Bruno's ideas about the nature of self are fundamentally
different.

Step 3: Quentin Anciaux neither agrees nor disagrees with John Clark's
points.

Step 4: Quentin Anciaux inserts one or more personal insults directed at
John Clark.

Step 5: GOTO step 1.


PS: 9 question marks following 9 rhetorical questions in a row is too much.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux

You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, it's a
shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it.

Believe what you want to believe.

Quentin


2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

   So, you still find nothing to say about many-worlds interpretation of
 QM where you are duplicated billions of time a picosecond, but you are able
 to babble for years about a simple duplication experiment ?


 The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
 this thread:

 Step 1: Quentin Anciaux states that John Clark treats Everett's ideas and
 Bruno's ideas inconsistently.

 Step 2: John Clark points out the ways Everett's ideas about probability
 and prediction and Bruno's ideas about the nature of self are fundamentally
 different.

 Step 3: Quentin Anciaux neither agrees nor disagrees with John Clark's
 points.

 Step 4: Quentin Anciaux inserts one or more personal insults directed at
 John Clark.

 Step 5: GOTO step 1.


 PS: 9 question marks following 9 rhetorical questions in a row is too much.

   John K Clark



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do with a
 sense of self, and that is what Bruno's proof is all about.


  Absolutely not.


Absolutely not what? Absolutely not that probability implies prediction or
that prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self or that your proof
is about investigating the nature of self?


  That is no more than what you need to say yes to a comp doctor.


I would say yes to the comp doctor because I would survive to tomorrow if
I did,  provided that I means something that remembers being John Clark
today. And if the personal pronoun I means something other than that in
your language then John Clark does not care if that fellow by the name of
I survives or not. And neither probabilities nor the accuracy of
predictions of what city will be seen nor the content of diaries would play
any part in my decision to say yes.  None whatsoever.

  John K Clark











-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

 You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently, it's
 a shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it. Believe what you
 want to believe.


The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
this thread:

Step 1: Quentin Anciaux states that John Clark treats Everett's ideas and
Bruno's ideas inconsistently.

Step 2: John Clark points out the ways Everett's ideas about probability
and prediction and Bruno's ideas about the nature of self are fundamentally
different.

Step 3: Quentin Anciaux neither agrees nor disagrees with John Clark's
points.

Step 4: Quentin Anciaux inserts one or more personal insults directed at
John Clark.

Step 5: GOTO step 1.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux

The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
this thread:

1) Point John Clarck mistakes.

2) John Clark ignores it. Repeat the same mistake ad nauseam.

3) goto 1

Quentin


2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

 On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

  You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently,
 it's a shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it. Believe what
 you want to believe.


 The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
 this thread:

 Step 1: Quentin Anciaux states that John Clark treats Everett's ideas and
 Bruno's ideas inconsistently.

 Step 2: John Clark points out the ways Everett's ideas about probability
 and prediction and Bruno's ideas about the nature of self are fundamentally
 different.

 Step 3: Quentin Anciaux neither agrees nor disagrees with John Clark's
 points.

 Step 4: Quentin Anciaux inserts one or more personal insults directed at
 John Clark.

 Step 5: GOTO step 1.

   John K Clark









 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com



 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


  I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes
 to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third
 person distinction.


 Of course it's important, but I didn't need Bruno's help to figure that
 out. And I especially agree when is says To avoid linguistic confusion it
 is crucial that we distinguish between the outside view of the world [from
 ] the inside view.  Yes, we must avoid linguistic confusion!

 It's true that in everyday usage there is no linguistic confusion and it
 would be silly to keep asking what do you mean by the pronoun you?, but
 this is very far from everyday usage. This is a thought experiment
 involving identity duplicating machines and is a vital part of a proof that
 is trying to find something new about the very thing that is being
 duplicated, identity. Under those very very exotic circumstances the
 meaning of the personal pronoun you is far from obvious. And if the
 meaning of you is vague then the difference between 1p and 3p is vague
 too, and that is not acceptable in a proof that claims to be mathematically
 precise.

 So when Bruno asks will you in Helsinki survive the duplication? or
 what city will you see? it depends entirely on what you means. To me,
 and to Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled,


This is a blatant proof of lies that John Clark likes to do.



 you is the guy(s) who remembers being the Helsinki Man;  thus I would
 answer that yes you will survive and you will see both Moscow and
 Washington. And if the ASCII sequence y-o-u means something different in
 another language then John Clark would answer the questions differently.

  John K Clark





  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Dialetheism



On Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:33:51 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 October 2013 20:01, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
  wrote:

 On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:


 The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical 
 failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not 
 support that it has ever happened. In the mean time, the view that I 
 suggest I think does make more sense and supports our experience fully.


 Could you explain this, about how Comp has failed empirically? Comp 
 presupposes that the brain is Turing emulable etc, so if you disagree with 
 that then obviously it fails but not empirically since no one has 
 proved/disproved the brain being TE.


 What I meant is that I don't have a problem with Comp theoretically or 
 ideally - it doesn't matter to me one way or another if consciousness can 
 or cannot be duplicated or emulated synthetically, and there is not 
 necessarily anything wrong with the logic of why Comp should work, given 
 the assumptions that we can make about the nature of our awareness and the 
 functioning of the brain. The problem that Comp has is that it seems not to 
 be true in reality. We do not see any non-organic biologies, or awareness 
 that is disembodied. We don't see any computation that is disembodied. We 
 do not see any appearance of symbols becoming sentient or unexpected 
 stirrings within big data such as the entire internet that would indicate 
 intentionality. To me, the actual story of human consciousness is one of 
 nested superlatives - a single species out of a few hominids, out of 
 several kinds of animals, out of many species of organisms, out of 
 countless planets... It is not a story of ubiquitous opportunity. Nothing 
 about machines seems to be reflect personal or unique characteristics, and 
 in fact mechanism is universally considered synonymous with impersonal, 
 automatic, unconscious, rigid, and robotic behavior.


 Hi Craig, thanks for the detailed response. I see Bruno has also 
 responded, but I will look at that later. For my own part I can't see why 
 comp should *entail* the existence of non organic biology or disembodied 
 awareness, although it allows for these. What it does suggest is that one 
 could build a sentient machine (given enough time and knowledge) but there 
 is no reason such machines should have evolved - or perhaps it would be 
 more accurate to say we are such machines, although obviously we refer to 
 ourselves as organic. It appears that only certain types of molecules have 
 the flexibility to take part in evolution starting from nonliving material, 
 but that doesn't mean that inorganic machines are ruled out if we built 
 then rather than requiring that they evolve.


True, but since we don't know the reason why the appearance and survival of 
biology is only associated with organic macromolecules, we should not 
assume that there is no reason. Inorganic things which we do not recognize 
as aware in the way that we are aware I would say are another type of 
awareness, but one which has a very different or nearly opposite aesthetic 
to our own (due to eigenmorphism). Certainly there are mechanical reasons 
why Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen lend themselves to explosive 
complexity, but that does not explain why complexity alone should take on 
an awareness that simplicity does not.


 Machines reflect robotic characteristics because we haven't yet learned 
 how to make them flexible enough. But then when people go wrong they also 
 show such behaviour, sadly - examples abound, e.g. OCD.


 In light of the preponderance of odd details, I think that as scientists, 
 we owe it to ourselves to consider them in a context of how Comp could be 
 an illusion. We should start over from scratch and formulate a deep and 
 precise inquiry into the nature of computation and mechanism, vis a vis 
 personality, automaticity, intention, controllability, etc. What I have 
 found is that there is a clear and persuasive case to be made for a 
 definition of awareness as the antithesis of mechanism. Taking this 
 definition as a hypothesis for a new general systems theory, I have found 
 that it makes a lot of sense to understand the mind-brain relation as 
 contra-isomorphic rather than isomorphic. The activity of the brain is a 
 picture of what the mind is not, and all appearances of matter in space can 
 be more completely understood as a picture of what the totality of 
 experience is not. 


 OK, I think I see what you're saying - a sentience of the gaps as it 
 were? However obviously this needs to be formulated in a way that people 
 who know about these things can understand and test. Bruno has done this 
 with comp I believe, so rather than worrying about odd details, it would be 
 better to show a flaw in his premises or his reasoning.


The only flaw

Re: Dialetheism



On 27 Oct 2013, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:27:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 27 Oct 2013, at 02:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, October 26, 2013 7:06:19 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Oct 2013, at 14:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:01:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:

What mathematical categories could correspond to a sound?


In the 3p, length waves + special information handling machine.
In the 1p, the non communicable/provable/rationally-believable  
part of some self-referential intensional logics.


What makes  non communicable/provable/rationally-believable part  
of some self-referential intensional logics correspond to  
sensation or sound sensation in particular?


They are good candidate. You can imagine that when the machine will  
refer to those, she might feel you treat her as a zombie, if in  
fine, you deny them to her. Keep in mind that the logic here  
implies that the machine got a direct link to some statement which  
she believes in, and which are true (even if only God can know  
that. My trick is to limit myself to correct machine. It is a non  
constructive notion. Nobody can distinguish a (sufficiently  
complex) correct machine from one that is not.


I have no problem with there being slippery, undetectable  
appearances in math (they would appear that way because sense is  
amputated), but I don't see why sense would or could arise from  
arithmetic when it could just be the nature of arithmetic to  
function as it does without sense, as far as Comp can propose.


It is very simple: I assume that. It is my working hypothesis. If we  
get a contradiction from that, then we have refuted comp.
Then AUDA provides some information. But you need to study a bit of  
computer science.


Again, I am NOT defending comp. But you are pretending comp is  
false, and I just intervene to explain your refutation of comp beg  
the question.


The only issue that I have about comp though is that assumption.  
Instead, I intentionally make the assumption that thought and  
computation are both a particular kind of qualia and a special case,  
first-branch of qualia which plays the role of public facing  
integration across felt histories. I think that besides the  
assumption that panqualia follows computation, your view makes  
another assumption that is unintentional, which is that thought/ 
computation is primitively unlike sensation or perception. I see  
only that they are a different specie of experience.


As all experience is a kind of pretending,


First person experience is when we cease pretending, or even fail to  
communicate or pretend. When you experience a joy or a pain, you don't  
need to pretend anything to feel it personally. That does not prevent  
the others to interfere with it of course.



there is great value in a way to access experience which pretends  
that it is not pretending. This is quanta and arithmetic truth.


I would say that is different. It is just simple sharable belief, like  
x + 0 = x, etc. We just put some principles on the table so that we  
can use it without philosophy to proceed.
Of course the intuition we have that x + 0 = x (for all number x) is  
related to our sense and qualia, but that does not make them depending  
on qualia, we don't have to rely on qualia and complex psychology to  
proceed from x + 0 = x.
Be careful, as arithmetic truth is far (an euphemism) bigger that the  
computable, and if comp is true, it manages the quanta and the qualia  
(admitting some standard definition in philosophy/theology).




It has a job to do, so that the rest of the concrete universe of  
experience can continue dreaming in peace. In a sense, that makes is  
'conscious' as far as being the voice of vigilance and the motor of  
realism. It is locally closer to God as far as allowing us access  
to control over our bodies and the outside world (except where that  
control conflicts with the deeper streams of large dreams with a lot  
of momentum, aka destiny, luck).


I put the scare quotes around 'conscious' though, because the  
character of that consciousness would be so perpendicular to  
experience that any person or animal would have that it is closer to  
anti-consciousness than something we would recognize. It would be  
like taking our experience of 'today' and our experience of  
'forever' and switching them, so that we would come to the world of  
experienced moments from the loong way around.


This *looks* like a description of the salvia experience, but term  
like anti-consciousness is a bit pejorative for that, although it  
has anti-life aspect, pointing on the fact that theology is not much  
pro-life.
Once you have the cognitive ability to imagine you might be a machine,  
you have the cognitive abilities to understand that somehow, you don't  
really need the machine. Comp makes transhumanism

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 15:54, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

I came across this today, which you might find of interest: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf
In particular section 3 goes to great pains to describe the
importance of the first person / third person distinction.

Of course it's important, but I didn't need Bruno's help to figure
that out. And I especially agree when is says To avoid linguistic
confusion it is crucial that we distinguish between the outside view
of the world [from ] the inside view. Yes, we must avoid
linguistic confusion!

It's true that in everyday usage there is no linguistic confusion
and it would be silly to keep asking what do you mean by the
pronoun you?, but this is very far from everyday usage. This is a
thought experiment involving identity duplicating machines and is a
vital part of a proof that is trying to find something new about the
very thing that is being duplicated, identity. Under those very very
exotic circumstances the meaning of the personal pronoun you is
far from obvious. And if the meaning of you is vague then the
difference between 1p and 3p is vague too, and that is not
acceptable in a proof that claims to be mathematically precise.

So when Bruno asks will you in Helsinki survive the duplication?
or what city will you see? it depends entirely on what you
means. To me, and to Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled,
you is the guy(s) who remembers being the Helsinki Man; thus I
would answer that yes you will survive and you will see both
Moscow and Washington. And if the ASCII sequence y-o-u means
something different in another language then John Clark would answer
the questions differently.

I give the two definition of the pronouns used in the reasoning, and
often confused by the use of an identical term in natural language,
but clearly distinguishes in UDA step 2, and the next one. The 1-you,
basically your definition, or simply the content of the diary taken
by the experiencer with him, and the 3-view, the content of the diary
of an external (not entering in the teleportation box).

But you stop the thinking before taking that distinction further into
account, and I don't know why.

Bruno

John K Clark

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark



On 27 Oct 2013, at 16:47, John Clark wrote:





On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


  probability implies prediction and prediction has nothing to do  
with a sense of self, and that is what Bruno's proof is all about.


 Absolutely not.

Absolutely not what?


that your proof is about investigating the nature of self?

Absolutely not that probability implies prediction or that  
prediction has nothing to do with a sense of self or that your  
proof is about investigating the nature of self?



The self has a big role, and that is obvious in the arithmetical  
translation which is based on the self-reference logics, but those are  
tools (even if key concepts) in the  UDA proof.
Comp asks only the idea that consciousness is invaraint for a kind of  
digital substitution, and shows that it makes physics necessarily into  
a branche of arithmetic, or computer science, or machine's theology.





 That is no more than what you need to say yes to a comp doctor.

I would say yes to the comp doctor because I would survive to  
tomorrow if I did,  provided that I means something that remembers  
being John Clark today. And if the personal pronoun I means  
something other than that in your language then John Clark does not  
care if that fellow by the name of I survives or not. And neither  
probabilities nor the accuracy of predictions of what city will be  
seen nor the content of diaries would play any part in my decision  
to say yes.  None whatsoever.



Of course.
Saying yes = step zero. Then we reason from that.

And?

Bruno




  John K Clark










--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

On 27 Oct 2013, at 17:27, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/10/27 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

So when Bruno asks will you in Helsinki survive the duplication?
or what city will you see? it depends entirely on what you
means. To me, and to Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled,

This is a blatant proof of lies that John Clark likes to do.

Thanks for helping me to reread this, and you are right. It is a lie.
I miss this, or hide it to myself.

That definitively proves that John Clark has an agenda unrelated with
the topic.

I will probably no more answer to him.

Anyone else believing that John Clark has tried to say something
sensical, by which I mean, have provided a reason to not go from step
3 to step 4, is free to explain. My feeling was that he just avoided
the question by neglecting the 1p/3p distinction opportunistically,
but here he lied plain and simple, entering in the club of my real
persistent opponents who use both lies and authoritative arguments. To
do it not under my back makes it not so much less grave.

Thanks Quentin, that was not obvious for me, and a bit sad to
acknowledge.

Case close.

Bruno

you is the guy(s) who remembers being the Helsinki Man; thus I
would answer that yes you will survive and you will see both
Moscow and Washington. And if the ASCII sequence y-o-u means
something different in another language then John Clark would answer
the questions differently.

John K Clark

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: For John Clark

2013-10-27 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

  Unlike you, I fortunately do not have the time to dig up your ad
 hominems.


 Well, I sure didn't have to dig very far to find your ad hominems! In just
 one short post you say: I'm a bigot. I'm a obscurantists. I have  excessive
 pride. I am crude. I am distasteful. I am loopy. I am full of nonsense. I
 don't really care about pronouns or entertaining alternate hypothesis,
 implying that I am a hypocrite. And I am a ass.


Shocker: the man who regards it as his perogative to pedantically  call it
as it is (i.e. insult people whenever he wants) is the victim of somebody
calling him names.

You have got to be kidding!

So cry us another river, drama queen. In CAPS, of course. PGC




 In fact there was virtually nothing in that post that was not a ad
 hominem, but that's OK I'm a big boy and have been called worse.

   John K Clark



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

2013-10-27 Thread John Mikes

Allegedly Stathis wrote:
*If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
processes.*

I would not call it 'supernatural', rather: beyond our presently
known/knowable.
Are you so sure that (your?) neurochemistry is all we can have? The
demonstration you refer to would only show that our view is partial and
whatever we call consciousness is something different from what's going on
indeed. Explained by physics?
I consider physix the ingenious explanation of the figments we perceive -
at the level of such explanatory thinking. It changed from time-period to
time-period and is likely to change further in the future.
Agnostically yours
John Mikes


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:




 On 24 October 2013 07:46, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

 We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
 the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and
 which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
 Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
 Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
 closer to answering this question.

 Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
 visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual
 images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
 happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains
 cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches
 back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images
 are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to
 enter our consciousness.

 Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static
 picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds.
 Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in
 a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that
 specifically processes visual 
 motionhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/.
 The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not
 have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the
 amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.

 So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing
 motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving
 image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no
 effect.
 This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
 conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
 brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/.
 Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be
 disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the
 rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more
 resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect.
 Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and
 noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the
 question of how this neural stability is achieved.


 Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense
 *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???*


 If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
 different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
 a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a change in the
 brain not explained by the physics, would be evidence of supernatural
 processes.


 --
 Stathis Papaioannou

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

John,

Do you have any comment on the article I posted?

Jason


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

  You're just lying... You are the one treating things inconsistently,
 it's a shame your pride so high you can't even recognize it. Believe what
 you want to believe.


 The following is a flow diagram of the conversation we've been having on
 this thread:

 Step 1: Quentin Anciaux states that John Clark treats Everett's ideas and
 Bruno's ideas inconsistently.

 Step 2: John Clark points out the ways Everett's ideas about probability
 and prediction and Bruno's ideas about the nature of self are fundamentally
 different.

 Step 3: Quentin Anciaux neither agrees nor disagrees with John Clark's
 points.

 Step 4: Quentin Anciaux inserts one or more personal insults directed at
 John Clark.

 Step 5: GOTO step 1.

   John K Clark









 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark


On 10/27/2013 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 Here's a blog post that might suggest a point of contact:

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2013/10/distributed-computing-with-alien.html



Don't hesitate to elaborate, but this assumes QM, and does not bear on the mind-body or 
1p/3p relation. 


No it doesn't assume quantum mechanics.  It shows that it non-local correlations were just 
a little bit 'stronger' then the world would be much more trivial, which reminded me of 
you remark that we live on a kind of fractal border.  I don't understand how you propose 
to get an inside view of arithmetic from which physics must appear, but I thought your 
theory might be able to say why the world has QM that has 'just enough' non-local 
correlation to make it interesting.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: For John Clark

John,

Sorry, I missed your reply.  Some comment's in-line below:


On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


  I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf In particular section 3 goes
 to great pains to describe the importance of the first person / third
 person distinction.


 Of course it's important, but I didn't need Bruno's help to figure that
 out. And I especially agree when is says To avoid linguistic confusion it
 is crucial that we distinguish between the outside view of the world [from
 ] the inside view.  Yes, we must avoid linguistic confusion!


But in all your responses to Bruno's question you use only the objective
viewpoint, not the subjective viewpoint, as the thought experiment demands.



 It's true that in everyday usage there is no linguistic confusion and it
 would be silly to keep asking what do you mean by the pronoun you?, but
 this is very far from everyday usage. This is a thought experiment
 involving identity duplicating machines and is a vital part of a proof that
 is trying to find something new about the very thing that is being
 duplicated, identity. Under those very very exotic circumstances the
 meaning of the personal pronoun you is far from obvious. And if the
 meaning of you is vague then the difference between 1p and 3p is vague
 too, and that is not acceptable in a proof that claims to be mathematically
 precise.


You refers to any survivor according to the assumption of the
computational theory of mind.  Guessing your next subjective experience is
a prediction made from the first person, subjective, inside, frog view, and
verification of that prediction, done following the duplication, is also
performed from the subjective, inside, frog view.  Of course there are two
such entities called John Clark after the duplication, but that is the
objective view, not the subjective.  Subjectively, neither can
(immediately) be sure of the existence of the other, the only thing they
know for certain is that they arrived in one of the cities.




 So when Bruno asks will you in Helsinki survive the duplication? or
 what city will you see? it depends entirely on what you means.


That question isn't asked, what is asked is to make a prediction regarding
the subjective, first person, inside frog view, and then to evaluate that
prediction from the subjective, first person, inside frog view.


 To me, and to Bruno too before he panicked and backpedaled, you is the
 guy(s) who remembers being the Helsinki Man;  thus I would answer that yes
 you will survive and you will see both Moscow and Washington.


Objectively, yes. Subjectively you have no idea whether you were duplicated
or transported to one of the two locations at random.

Jason


 And if the ASCII sequence y-o-u means something different in another
 language then John Clark would answer the questions differently.


Try answering it from the subjective viewpoint(s).

Jason







  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-27 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:08 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article

On Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30:34 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

-Original Message- 
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:  
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: ] On Behalf Of meekerdb 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM 
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:  
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article 

On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
 My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue 
 AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that 
 for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have to 
 be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what they 
 had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is an 
 accomplishment, but not_the_  accomplishment we hoped for. 

 Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so I 
have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use. 
Also having a very extensive 'book' 
memory is something humans use.  But the memorized games and position 
evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate in 
general problem solving.  So I think chess programs did contribute a little 
to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches sometimes. 

Agreed. 
Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- as 
they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental in order

to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out as stuff comes

in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the internal state of mind 
-- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in information 
overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth grows geometrically 
out of control. 
There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current neural 
science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large portion of raw 
sensory data during the process of reifying these streams into the smooth 
internal construct or model of reality that we in fact experience. In other 
words our model -- what we see, what we hear, taste, smell, feel, 
orient [a distinct inner ear organ]  (and perhaps other senses -- such as 
the sense of the directional flow of time perhaps  as well)... in any case 
this construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is 
constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw sensorial 
data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into editing actual 
real sense supplied visual reality for example literally out of the picture 
-- as has experimentally been demonstrated. 
We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it,

You are assuming that there is a real world that is independent of some
'modeling' of it. This is almost certainly untrue. If there were an
objective world, we would live in it. Nothing can be said to exist outside
of some experience of it, whether that is molecules bonding, or bacteria
communicating chemically, or quantum entanglement. The view from nowhere is
a fantasy. The notion of a model is based on our experiences of using
analogy and metaphor, but it has no meaning when we are considering the
power to interpret meaning in the first place. If the brain were able to
compose a model of sense experience without itself having any model of sense
experience, then it would not make sense to have a model that requires some
sensory display. Such a model would only require an infinite regress of
models to make sense of each other. The idea of a 'model' does not help
solve the problem, it makes a new problem.

That's my view, anyhow.
Craig

Yes. I can see how one could assume that. But not exactly what I assume
though. Who knows if there is a real world? 

All I know (and even that is open to question) is I experience my existence
as occurring within this (shared) high fidelity environment that in my
experience - for me as I experience it -- is the real word. This actually
says nothing more than what it does say. Again who knows. I don't. Do you?

And yet the experience stream is not random - reality has order,
directionality, sense; it is repeatable (touch a hot stove and you will burn
your finger every time); and it is sequenced in a knotty chain of causality.
A lot can be - and has been - discovered about it. basic laws, constants,
relationships, phases  states; mathematics, equations. and theories about
what this whatever it is must be.

When I say the mind models reality - I actually am not assuming any reality
in reality - just that there is some sense stream that is being generated by
something - open to discussion what that something is - and that the
reality we actually experience in our mind is a highly artifacted

RE: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-27 Thread Chris de Morsella



-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:

 -Original Message-
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
 Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 10:46 AM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article

 On 10/25/2013 3:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 My high-level objection is very simple: chess was an excuse to pursue 
 AI. In an era of much lower computational power, people figured that 
 for a computer to beat a GM at chess, some meaningful AI would have 
 to be developed along the way. I don' thing that Deep Blue is what 
 they had in mind. IBM cheated in a way. I do think that Deep Blue is 
 an accomplishment, but not_the_  accomplishment we hoped for.

 Tree search and alpha-beta pruning have very general application so 
 I
 have no doubt they are among the many techniques that human brains use.
 Also having a very extensive 'book'
 memory is something humans use.  But the memorized games and position 
 evaluation are both very specific to chess and are hard to duplicate 
 in general problem solving.  So I think chess programs did contribute 
 a little to AI. The Mars Rover probably uses decision tree searches
sometimes.

 Agreed.
 Some manner (e.g. algorithm) of pruning the uninteresting branches -- 
 as they are discovered -- from dynamic sets of interest is fundamental 
 in order to achieve scalability. Without being able to throw stuff out 
 as stuff comes in -- via the senses (and meta interactions with the 
 internal state of mind
 -- such as memories) -- an being will rather quickly gum up in 
 information overload and memory exhaustion. Without pruning; growth 
 grows geometrically out of control.
 There is pretty good evidence -- from what I have read about current 
 neural science -- that the brain is indeed, throwing away a large 
 portion of raw sensory data during the process of reifying these 
 streams into the smooth internal construct or model of reality that we 
 in fact experience. In other words our model -- what we see, what we 
 hear, taste, smell, feel, orient [a distinct inner ear 
 organ]  (and perhaps other senses -- such as the sense of the 
 directional flow of time perhaps  as well)... in any case this 
 construct, which is what we perceive as real contains (and is 
 constructed from) only a fraction of the original stream of raw 
 sensorial data. In fact in some cases the brain can be tricked into 
 editing actual real sense supplied visual reality for example 
 literally out of the picture
 -- as has experimentally been demonstrated.
 We do not experience the real world; we experience the model of it, 
 our brains have supplied us with, and that model, while in most cases 
 is pretty well reflective of actual sensorial streams, it crucially 
 depends on the mind's internal state and its pre-conscious 
 operations... on all the pruning and editing that is going on in the 
 buffer zone between when the brain begins working on our in-coming 
 reality perception stream and when we -- the observer -- self-perceive our
current stream of being.
 It also seems clear that the brain is pruning as well by drilling down 
 and focusing in on very specific and micro-structure oriented tasks 
 such as visual edge detection (which is a critical part of 
 interpreting visual data) for example. If some dynamic neural 
 micro-structure decides it has recognizes a visual edge, in this 
 example, it probably fires some synchronized signal as expeditiously 
 as it can, up the chain of dynamically forming and inter-acting 
 neural-decision-nets, grabbing the next bucket in an endless stream
needing immediate attention.
 I would argue that nervous systems that were not adept at throwing 
 stuff out as soon as its information value decayed, long ago became a 
 part of the food supply of long ago ancestor life forms with nervous 
 systems that were better at throwing stuff out, as soon as it was no 
 longer needed. I would argue there is a clear evolutionary pressure 
 for optimizing environmental response through efficient (yet also high 
 fidelity) pruning algorithms in order to be able to maximize neural 
 efficiency and speed up sense perception (the reification that we 
 perceive unfolding before us) This is also a factor in speed of 
 operation, and in survival a fast brain is almost always better than a
slow brain; slow brains lead to short lives.
 But not just pruning, selective  very rapid signal amplification is 
 the flip side of pruning -- and this is also very much going on as 
 well. For example the sudden shadow flickering on the edge of the 
 visual field that for some reason, leaps front and center

Survey of Philosophers

I came across this
surveyhttp://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhDareas0=0areas_max=1grain=coarseof
various professional philosophers.  It is interesting that two
mutually
contradictory opinions are the leading positions among philosophers
(according to Bruno's result):

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept or lean toward: physicalism981
/ 1803 (54.4%)Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism521 / 1803 (28.9%)Other301
/ 1803 (16.7%)


Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept or lean toward:
survival626 / 1803 (34.7%)Other610 / 1803 (33.8%)Accept or lean toward:
death567 / 1803 (31.4%)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article



 Yes… I can see how one could assume that. But not exactly what I assume 
 though. Who knows if there is a real world? 

 All I know (and even that is open to question) is I experience my 
 existence as occurring within this (shared) high fidelity environment that 
 in my experience – for me as I experience it -- is the real word. This 
 actually says nothing more than what it does say. Again who knows. I don’t. 
 Do you?

I agree, but we can take it a step further and say what we can understand 
is that the expectation of knowing is not necessarily valid.
 

 And yet the experience stream is not random – reality has order, 
 directionality, sense; it is repeatable (touch a hot stove and you will 
 burn your finger every time); and it is sequenced in a knotty chain of 
 causality. A lot can be – and has been – discovered about it… basic laws, 
 constants, relationships, phases  states; mathematics, equations… and 
 theories about what this whatever it is must be.

 When I say the mind models reality – I actually am not assuming any 
 reality in reality – just that there is some sense stream that is being 
 generated by something – open to discussion what that something is


What if it isn't being generated by something, but rather everything is 
generated by it? What leads us to believe that the universe is other than a 
nested stream of sense which is not only self-generating, but defines 
generation itself?
 

 – and that the “reality” we actually experience in our mind is a highly 
 artifacted reification and synthesis of the various sensorial streams 
 (leaving whatever they actually are the result of out of the discussion – 
 for the moment to focus on the point). 


Highly artifacted compared to what though? If we don't know whether there 
is an objective reality, then all of our expectations are just as 
artifacted as any experience we can have - the expectations of reification 
is itself an artifacted experience. So again, we have no footing outside of 
artifact to suspect that any such footing is possible. Physics itself may 
be artifacting reification. This is what I mean by 
multisenserealism.http://multisenserealism.com
 

 I am guessing we can all pretty much agree that our minds exist behind 
 sensorial surfaces and portals – our organs of sense. 

No, not at all. Our mind is an organ of sense too. Thoughts are qualia, 
just like colors and flavors. They are particular kinds of qualia which are 
optimized to represent in a way which dehydrates the appearance of feeling 
and emotion as much as possible, and in so doing makes them optimized for 
meta-qualitative comparison. Our entire body is made of cellular sense 
organs, which are made of molecular sense organs, which are made of 
motivated sensations. Instead of assuming that only we have interiority, I 
assume that the capacity to discern interiority from exteriority and to 
create that polarization is actually more primitive than physics. Physics 
is more indirect than sensorial surfaces or minds. It is a generalization 
based on instrumental measurements performed by the body for the mind.

 

 Without getting into to what it is that is causing our sense streams to 
 produce the signals and information streams they are in fact producing – we 
 can all agree (I hope) – that these streams are our experience of our 
 reality environment. 

I though we agreed that whether there is a reality environment is 
unknowable? I do agree that our experience is as real as any reality can 
ever be but I do not agree that they are producing any 'information' or 
'signals'. Sense is not a product, it is the fabric of the Absolute. Only 
sense can be informed or signaled. A sign or significance is only a 
saturation of sense - an associative promiscuity which renders locally 
divided sensations transparent to their underlying Absolute unity.
 

 Again without ascribing any rules or form about what that environment 
 ultimately is or is not; beyond stating and formulating the hypothesis we 
 have been able to discern, the replicating patterns  we have discovered. We 
 also all know on a gut level (our enteric co-brains) how our future reality 
 experience depends current actions – we know that if we leap off the cliff 
 that gravity will take over and that – at least in this world-line of our 
 multi-selves – we will splatter onto the rocks below…. There is no doubt 
 about this – in those of sane mind at least. 


Absolutely. I'm not advocating solipsism or idealism, except on the 
Absolute level. Locally, our personal consciousness does indeed depend on 
human sense organs. but those organs depend on sub-personal sense organs. 
We join the universal story already in progress. There is a lot of 
momentum/inertial of all of these experiences on many different scales 
which holds it all together.
 

 Whether or not reality is real is another matter – and a very interesting 
 one too J

 However without getting into that – it is useful I believe to start

RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

2013-10-27 Thread Chris de Morsella

Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact of
our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects
were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex
two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal
red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color
and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. What
they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as their
minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the gorilla
suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the sequence in
which they were being tested on.

What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man in
the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant (for
the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they saw.
How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something that
has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our perception.

From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very
efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant,
unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning
the raw film into the finished movie.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware
of it

 

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and which
reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists
Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative
Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step
closer to answering this question.

 
http://medicalxpress.com/openx/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=373campaignid=
196zoneid=79loc=1referer=http%3A%2F%2Fmedicalxpress.com%2Fnews%2F2013-10-
neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.htmlcb=79bd1b8ee7 

Their research, published in Current Biology, used a well-known visual
illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images
invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens
when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then
decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth
between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for
our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our
consciousness.

Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture to
cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. Simultaneously
they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in a 'motion
http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/  area' that specifically processes
visual motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/ . The effect
was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not have any
effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the amount of
time the static image was perceived grew longer.

So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing
motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving
image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no
effect.

This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between
conscious and unconscious motion representation in the brain
http://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/ . Whenever motion is unconscious, its
neural representation can easily be disturbed, making it difficult for it to
gain the upper hand in the rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it
apparently becomes more resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise
has no effect. Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a
more stable and noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which
raises the question of how this neural stability is achieved.


Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense on
purpose ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually conscious???

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it



On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:

 Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact 
 of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study in which test subjects 
 were told they were being scored on their ability to perform some complex 
 two levels of order visual task – say pressing a button whenever a diagonal 
 red bar appeared on their visual field… so they need to focus on both color 
 and shape in this case. Afterwards they had to report on what they saw. 
 What they were really being tested on was whether or not – absorbed as 
 their minds were in this complex visual task – they saw the man in the 
 gorilla suit who clearly walked across their field of view during the 
 sequence in which they were being tested on.

 What is surprising in the results was how many subjects never saw the man 
 in the gorilla suit…. How their brains helpfully edited this unimportant 
 (for the task) data stream, excising the gorilla from the world that they 
 saw. How much of what we see, smell, hear, taste, touch even is something 
 that has become subtly changed as it has become manufactured in our 
 perception.

 From what I have been able to read it sounds like the brain is very 
 efficient about throwing out information it has “decided” is redundant, 
 unimportant or distracting… the brain/mind as an editing machine… turning 
 the raw film into the finished movie.


I don't think that finished movies come from raw film, they come from 
recording the images and sounds of actors and scenery. The raw film is 
actually the public medium between one rich private experience and another. 
What personal awareness lacks in sub-personal fidelity to appearing 
gorillas it makes up for a thousand fold in fidelity to the totality of 
experienced anthropology. It's odd to me that the worldview which expects 
sense to be a solipsistic simulation within the brain is surprised that the 
brain makes mistakes that seem real rather than that it can compose high 
fidelity reality out of senseless mistakes.

Craig

 

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
 *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are 
 aware of it

  


 http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html

 We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in 
 the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and 
 which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists 
 Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative 
 Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step 
 closer to answering this question.

 Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual 
 illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images 
 invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens 
 when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then 
 decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth 
 between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for 
 our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our 
 consciousness.

 Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture 
 to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. 
 Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in 
 a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically 
 processes visual motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/. 
 The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not 
 have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the 
 amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer.

 So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing 
 motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving 
 image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no 
 effect.

 This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between 
 conscious and unconscious motion representation in the 
 brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/. 
 Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be 
 disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the 
 rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more 
 resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. 
 Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and 
 noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the 
 question of how this neural stability is achieved.


 Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense 
 *on

Rate of Convergence for Born Probabilities

Frank Tipler published a paper which aims to show he can predict the rate
of convergence toward Born probabilities using the Bayesian probability
density and the assumption of many worlds:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4422.pdf

He says: As one watches the distribution (1) build
up, one is really watching the activity of other versions
of oneself in the Many-Worlds, just as seeing the Sun set
is really seeing the Earth rotate.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article


On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of

intellectual development.
  
I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a

species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in.


Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Survey of Philosophers

2013-10-27 Thread spudboy100



For sure  it is interesting. From a science fiction point of view, 
author Wil Macarthy dream of a future where teleportation was the main 
daily transportation, as well as space and interstellar travel. People 
generally avoided the implications of using teleportation, which was 
you were destroyed by a complete copy emerges from the endpoint of your 
teleportation. Copies of you were possible, but illegal. If caught you 
and your clone were simply run through the teleporter at the same time 
and the united being emerged at the endpoint.  Travel between the stars 
at instant speed bacame possible through EPR entanglement, but the 
endpoint teleportation device had to have been hauled through space at 
slower than light speed. After that whizzing between the stars became a 
normal travel feature.

-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 27, 2013 6:17 pm
Subject: Survey of Philosophers

I came across this survey of various professional philosophers. 
nbsp;It is interesting that two mutually contradictory opinions are 
the leading positions among philosophers (according to Bruno's result):


Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept or lean toward: 
physicalism981 / 1803 (54.4%)Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism521 
/ 1803 (28.9%)Other301 / 1803 (16.7%)





Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Accept or lean toward: 
survival626 / 1803 (34.7%)Other610 / 1803 (33.8%)Accept or lean toward: 
death567 / 1803 (31.4%)





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Rate of Convergence for Born Probabilities


On 10/27/2013 4:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Frank Tipler published a paper which aims to show he can predict the rate of convergence 
toward Born probabilities using the Bayesian probability density and the assumption of 
many worlds:


http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4422.pdf

He says: As one watches the distribution (1) build
up, one is really watching the activity of other versions
of oneself in the Many-Worlds, just as seeing the Sun set
is really seeing the Earth rotate.


He says that but gives no reason to believe it.  He says he'll publish a proof 
elsewhere!?  What kind of paper is that?


Also, I don't see why the detector efficiency enters in C(M,e).

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

A Post About # and *



http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/pound.jpg

http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asterisk.jpg?w=595

Part of my approach to making new sense of the universe involves indulging 
in meditations on unintentional symbolism. Any pattern that catches my 
attention is a potential subject for intuition voodoo. Usually it pays off 
eventually, even when it seems absurd at first.

In this case, I was thinking about the # and * symbols that were inserted 
into our visual culture obliquely, as extra buttons on the telephone which 
flanked the 0. Taking this as my cue to relate this to the multisense 
continuum, I compared the symbols graphically, etymologically, and 
semantically.

The pound sign (hash, hashtag, number sign) seems to me a dead ringer for 
the Western-mechanistic pole of the continuum, while the asterisk (star) 
fits quite nicely as the Oriental-animistic pole.

Here’s how it breaks down:

# – number sign, so quantitative and generic. The symbol is one of four 
lines crossing each other at right angles to yield nine implicit regions of 
space. The slant provides a suggestion of orientation – a forward lean that 
disambiguates spatial bias and implies, subliminally, an arrow of time.

In the age of Twitter and Instagram, the hashtag has become an important 
cultural influence. It is interesting with respect to mechanism in that it 
refers to accessing a machine’s sorting algorithms. It is a note to the 
network of how this term should be handled. We have appropriated this 
satirically so that we recapture it for our own entertainment, but also as 
a kind of show of affection for and familiarity with the technology.

In direct contrast, the * is am icon which is used to interrupt one level 
of attention to direct the reader to another level – a footnote. Instead of 
relating to numbers, the * is a wildcard that can be related to any string. 
It stands for “all that is preceded by or follows”. Contrary to the 
cellular modularity of #, the * is a mandala. It implies kaliedoscopic 
sensibility and fractal elaboration. It is a symbol of radiance, growth, 
life, unity, etc.

There’s some interesting threads that connect the * with mathematical terms 
such as Kleene closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene_star (more 
commonly known as the free monoid construction). Just the words ‘free 
monoid construction’ ring in my ears as an echo of what I call solitrophy – 
the constructive progress of teleological unity…the creation and solution 
of problems.

Also the use of *asterisk* for heightened emphasis links it to the 
significance of euphoria or magnified feeling (and the euphoria that is 
associated with significance or magnified prestige/importance). Wikipedia 
mentions the use of # by editors to represent where space should be added 
on galley proofs. The use of * is, by contrast associated with repetition 
of a particular thing – a replication. This is a tenuous but deep 
connection to the origins of space and time in the difference between 
syntactic-public sense and semantic-private sense.

The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly 
mysterioushttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461. 
It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency 
or the Avoirdupois weight. Both references, however, have very tempting 
subliminal associations to the Western pole of empirical domination. On the 
other side, the name asterisk means ‘little star’, from Greek and Latin. I 
can read into that a reference to ‘as above, so below’, as the twinkling 
point of light reproduces in miniature that which is the grand solar source 
of life on Earth.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: A Post About # and *

2013-10-27 Thread Samiya Illias

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/pound.jpg

 http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asterisk.jpg?w=595

 Part of my approach to making new sense of the universe involves indulging
 in meditations on unintentional symbolism. Any pattern that catches my
 attention is a potential subject for intuition voodoo. Usually it pays off
 eventually, even when it seems absurd at first.

 In this case, I was thinking about the # and * symbols that were inserted
 into our visual culture obliquely, as extra buttons on the telephone which
 flanked the 0. Taking this as my cue to relate this to the multisense
 continuum, I compared the symbols graphically, etymologically, and
 semantically.

 The pound sign (hash, hashtag, number sign) seems to me a dead ringer for
 the Western-mechanistic pole of the continuum, while the asterisk (star)
 fits quite nicely as the Oriental-animistic pole.

 Here’s how it breaks down:

 # – number sign, so quantitative and generic. The symbol is one of four
 lines crossing each other at right angles to yield nine implicit regions of
 space. The slant provides a suggestion of orientation – a forward lean that
 disambiguates spatial bias and implies, subliminally, an arrow of time.

 In the age of Twitter and Instagram, the hashtag has become an important
 cultural influence. It is interesting with respect to mechanism in that it
 refers to accessing a machine’s sorting algorithms. It is a note to the
 network of how this term should be handled. We have appropriated this
 satirically so that we recapture it for our own entertainment, but also as
 a kind of show of affection for and familiarity with the technology.

 In direct contrast, the * is am icon which is used to interrupt one level
 of attention to direct the reader to another level – a footnote. Instead of
 relating to numbers, the * is a wildcard that can be related to any string.
 It stands for “all that is preceded by or follows”. Contrary to the
 cellular modularity of #, the * is a mandala. It implies kaliedoscopic
 sensibility and fractal elaboration. It is a symbol of radiance, growth,
 life, unity, etc.

 There’s some interesting threads that connect the * with mathematical
 terms such as Kleene closure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene_star(more 
 commonly known as the free monoid construction). Just the words ‘free
 monoid construction’ ring in my ears as an echo of what I call solitrophy –
 the constructive progress of teleological unity…the creation and solution
 of problems.

 Also the use of *asterisk* for heightened emphasis links it to the
 significance of euphoria or magnified feeling (and the euphoria that is
 associated with significance or magnified prestige/importance). Wikipedia
 mentions the use of # by editors to represent where space should be added
 on galley proofs. The use of * is, by contrast associated with repetition
 of a particular thing – a replication. This is a tenuous but deep
 connection to the origins of space and time in the difference between
 syntactic-public sense and semantic-private sense.

 The name ‘pound sign’ seems to be fairly 
 mysterioushttp://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2461.
 It does not seem to be related conclusively to either the English currency
 or the Avoirdupois weight. Both references, however, have very tempting
 subliminal associations to the Western pole of empirical domination. On the
 other side, the name asterisk means ‘little star’, from Greek and Latin. I
 can read into that a reference to ‘as above, so below’, as the twinkling
 point of light reproduces in miniature that which is the grand solar source
 of life on Earth.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Rate of Convergence for Born Probabilities

2013-10-27 Thread LizR

This must be one of those preannouncements I've heard about.

On 28 October 2013 14:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/27/2013 4:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

Frank Tipler published a paper which aims to show he can predict the rate
of convergence toward Born probabilities using the Bayesian probability
density and the assumption of many worlds:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.**4422.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4422.pdf

He says: As one watches the distribution (1) build
up, one is really watching the activity of other versions
of oneself in the Many-Worlds, just as seeing the Sun set
is really seeing the Earth rotate.

He says that but gives no reason to believe it. He says he'll publish a
proof elsewhere!? What kind of paper is that?

Also, I don't see why the detector efficiency enters in C(M,e).

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
.

Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article

2013-10-27 Thread LizR

I have been under the impression that violence has been decreasing, on
average, over historical time, that is to say the proportion of people
dying violently and being injured by violence has tended to decrease over
time. I believe the number of wars has decreased over historical time, and
continues to do so, which I attribute to improved communications. In my
opinion it becomes more difficult to demonise an enemy as one is better
able to contact and communicate with them, so the advent of photography,
television, the internet and so on have all incrementally improved the
situation.

I must admit the evidence I have for this is mainly anecdotal so if Stephen
Pinker has written on the subject he may have pulled together the  various
pieces of evidence which I personally have only come across occasionally.




On 28 October 2013 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/27/2013 2:49 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

  I have some hope that violence diminishes at higher levels of

  intellectual development.

 I share your hope, but my heart is saddened by how we do not seem to as a
 species be fulfilling this hope of yours, which I share in.


 Steven Pinker just wrote book showing that human violence is diminishing.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article