date:20140414

On 15 April 2014 12:51, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes
> doctor or not doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a
> brick-ologists. I don´t care about your substitution level. I tell you that
> if you don't get smart and leave your obsessions,, sooner or later a gang
> of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn your computer and will
> force you to worship Allah.
>
>
> Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back
> when they had the power.
>
>
I usually find that people with this sort of obsession project what they
would do onto others, it's similar to the climate change thing where
deniers assume all sorts of self-interest, conspiracies and desire to rule
the world ... which is exactly what THEY would like to do. It's called
thinking inside the box.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models


On 4/14/2014 3:30 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
What I said is not related with you neither with COMP neither with yes doctor or not 
doctor. I talk at the level of an architect. You talk as a brick-ologists. I don´t care 
about your substitution level. I tell you that if you don't get smart and leave your 
obsessions,, sooner or later a gang of islamist will enter your laboratory, will burn 
your computer and will force you to worship Allah. 


Alberto knows because that's what his co-religionists would have done back when they had 
the power.


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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 14 April 2014 22:54, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> It is clear in the reasoning.
>
> What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is
> produced is wrong?
>
> it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner
> program ( I tell you in machine terms, that is the level that people here
> understand)  The consequences are clearly expressed above.
>
> I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary
> numbers?  Modal logic?
>

I prefer English, preferably without the digs, histrionics and hyperbole,
if you have the time.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 15 April 2014 06:43, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>  On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>>   On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will
 cause suffering

 This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop
 breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select
 breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an
 optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just
 like in most of the animal kingdom.

>>>
>>>  You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is
>>> different from that of almost all mammmals.  But if it were like other
>>> mammmals there wouldn't be more rape.  There is seldom rape among mammals
>>> because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts
>>> males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males.  Humans
>>> and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually
>>> receptive even when not ovulating.  This is probably an evolutionary
>>> adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child
>>> that takes many years to become self-sufficient.  I recommend the book by
>>> Jared Diamond "Why is Sex Fun?".
>>>
>>>
>>  You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole.
>> Added your recommendation to my reading list.
>>
>>  Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display
>> many of the sexual behaviours that are considered "unnatural" or "deviant"
>> by our religious friends.
>>
>
>  That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these
> deviant freaks of nature unholy! :-) PGC
>
>  Sex between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing.  But between a man
> and a woman and a dog, a goat, and two chickens it's fantastic!
> --- Woody Allen
>

The meal afterwards isn't bad either. I know it's immoral, but, who can
resist fried chicken, stuffed dog and fricasseed Woody Allen?

Not me and the goat, that's for sure.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>>  No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals.
>>> Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education
>>> school classes according to a recent statistics.
>>>
>>>  For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are
>> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about
>> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines,
>> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.
>>
>> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not
>> right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of
>> previous generations.  It is so important that it is immediate. It is
>> necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today
>> is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the
>> common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers.
>>
>> On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me
>> feel according to women an inner sense on that matter.
>>
>> Wow I forgot this argument.
With arguments so ellaborated and complete like this I can say nothing
against.

Note for machines: This is what we the humans call sarcasm.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 01:51:22PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
> 

> So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is?
> There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For
> example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity
> to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already
> falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes
> of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible,
> betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under
> prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and
> instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the
> quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure
> speculation of course -- just like yours.
> 

Biologists call your "survival mode" r-strategists (for
r-selection). The other mode, involving extensive investment in
offspring are known as K-strategists.

Humans are inveterate K-strategists. Rabbits (or cockroaches) are
r-strategists.

The r and the K come from the logistic equation

   dx/dt = rx(1-x/K)

where r is the reproductive rate (net of births & deaths) and K is the
environmental carrying capacity.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 17:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most
>> pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school
>> classes according to a recent statistics.
>>
>>   For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are
> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about
> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines,
> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.
>
> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not
> right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of
> previous generations.  It is so important that it is immediate. It is
> necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today
> is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the
> common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers.
>
>
>
> On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me
> feel according to women an inner sense on that matter.
>
> Same for machine, I show that self-relatively correct machine can't avoid
> the presence of a fist person point of view, with qualitative properties,
> and this when using only the most classical definition of knowledge.
>
> It is your prejudice on the machines which makes you feel that such an
> hypothesis would be a reductionism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be machines
> at the image and likeness of themselves?
>
>
>
> On the contrary, I challenge the comp hypothesis. At first sight I refute
> it, but then I shows that the math illustrates it is too premature to say
> that it is refuted.
>
>
>
>
>
> How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything else?
> how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the only way is to
> talk in its own language.
>
> Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and produce
> other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of natural
> selection: machines have other machines, and these machines have been
> selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation fitness can be
> assimilated to the number and strength of the child machines produced.
>
> There are two kind of machines 1 and 2.  both produce third copies of
> themselves.
>
> Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the very
> nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1 and machine 2
> get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation of copies. When the
> main program find that there is no copies produced for whatever reason, it
> is logical that natural selection have produced the following  automatic
> strategies:
>
> 1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information  in order to
> try to make the reproduction mechanism to work.
>
>  2) if this does not work,  machine 1 and 2 will transfer information with
> other  machines 2  and 1 respectively.  infidelity
>
> 3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat indefinitely. 1 2
> 3 again and again.
>
>
> Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not
> sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I may
> call "adolescence" , characterized by a look for couples, trying to be
> attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other type as
> possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in the middle. and
> for living in the urgence of the present. This is realized in the form of
> ridculous display of power, false intelligence, egotism, violence, money
> and beauty, even at advanced age. But also by excessive exhibitions of
> sentimentalsm hate and whatever that permits the creation of gangs.
>
> Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it "adult responsiblity" and
> "devotion to past and future generations"  since natural selected algoritms
> of the machines must cover second and third level of fitness parameters by
> making sure that the society of machines work well and will work well for
> the future generations. If this is not covered with proper machine
> activities then no matter the number of machines produced in the next
> generation, if the society dies a few generations later, the machine
> fitness will be zero.
>
> The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and
> unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but because
> you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you hate and repress
> what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation as machines what is at
> stake
>
>
>
> I think you confuse me with someone else. I am a logician. All what I say
> is that IF we are machine, then Plato's theology and the mystic is more
> rational than Aristotle and the materialists/naturalist.
>
>
>
>
>
> So you not only are machin

Re: Climate models

On 15 April 2014 03:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most
>> pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school
>> classes according to a recent statistics.
>>
>>  For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are
> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about
> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines,
> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.
>
> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not
> right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions of
> previous generations.  It is so important that it is immediate. It is
> necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most urgent today
> is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this inner sense, the
> common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers.
>
> On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes me
> feel according to women an inner sense on that matter.
>
> Thank you Bruno! I'd forgotten that HUGE argument in my favour - on top of
the avoiding suffering for me and the potential child, there is also the
fact that it is natural for females to spontaneously abort unwanted
offspring. How could I have forgotten that? It happens all the time in the
animal kingdom, and there is evidence it happens amongst humans, too (why
not indeed?)

Men are scared of this fact! They don't like the idea that women might have
control over their own bodies, they want passive incubators who will just
say "yes master, I will spread your genes" - that's the inner voice Alberto
wants me to have, but by God I actually have another one!

I *thought* I was listening to my inner voice, I just couldn't marshal my
thoughts sufficiently to put it into words. It wasn't the stupid "yes
master" voice that Alberto is going on about, the voice that says "hop into
bed with this plausible rogue then suffer the consequences when he leaves
you in the lurch" - I have another more sensible inner voice that says "I
can do better than this, I'm going to cut my losses and try again."

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

> Hi Alberto,
>
> What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>>
>
> I find a number of problems with your reasoning:
>
> 1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is.
>
> Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It
> does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for
> reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some
> phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain
> environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a
> certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also
> self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter
> the environment, constantly changing the fitness function.
>
>
No. living beings do not optimize fitness. they execute adaptations. if the
fitness function changes, this does no change the behavour unless the
change has been produced on the past and it has developped an adaptation to
change. For example it is true that people, or for the matter many animals
try to reproduce as fast and with as much number as possible when in
uncertainty conditions and the oppossite: in a ambient of security they are
more selective. That is because both ambients have existed in the past. An
we developped dlexible strategies. Here enter the prosperity variable that
you mention below.

but what change that? these are second or third derivates that do not
change the whole picture.


> So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is?
> There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For
> example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity
> to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already
> falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes
> of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible,
> betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under
> prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and
> instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the
> quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure
> speculation of course -- just like yours.
>
> Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive
> strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the
> concept of "cheating" (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very
> recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated
> with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If
> we look for the "nous", then it would make more sense to learn from
> pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of
> taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very
> common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all
> believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was
> also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters
> with sex if they brought them some meat.
>

That is the strategy of the whore that is the less desirable for a woman.
For obvious reasons. it happens when women are in very bad conditions of
insecurity.

Poligamy is common when  big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in
harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing
that  these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?.
The fact that we are towards it.

>
> 2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively
>
> You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the
> brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are
> likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources
> for them at the expense of the majority. So you say "look at how evolution
> works, you just have to follow it's simple logic". But then you also claim
> that evolution needs some tweaks.
>

No evolution is doing its work. Many civilization have died by its own
merits and men continued to survive. What need a fix is THIS civilization
that I don´t want to die.

>
> Or instead you believe in some random "cultural virus" that infected us.
> Then you have to let evolution do its work: wether we can survive it or we
> are not a viable species. Because this virus is exploiting precisely the
> same system that contains your biological program. If the "nous" is real,
> then we'll be fine. Otherwise, your solution is to "take the matter into
> your own hands". Precisely the same type of solution of the people who say
> "no thanks" to having children. How can you possibly know that your "nous"
> is not just another virus?
>

My nous is your and is the one of all the people is the commons sense, the
human nature. It is the species-specific mental habilities that everyone
have and include inmediate j

Re: Video of VCR

2014-04-14 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
> If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all really
> particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my apologies. I just
> took Bruno by his word of "I'll just say if I see an argument or not." and
> felt that was better than to have this thread keep ballooning with nobody
> else in the discussion or seeming to follow anymore. But if that was not a
> genuine point, fine. I stand corrected. PGC
>
>
> On the contrary, and I wish I could have read your comment before
> answering Craig. I might have avoiding answering it but I have that sort of
> weakness in believing he might see some point. It is also hard to not
> answer false attribution.
>

Ok, it's undecidable whether he ever will see the points or the fallacies.
But one can mistake some appearance of progress with fresh syntax of the
day. I don't think his position changed or moved one iota in past two years
regarding just the possibility of subject/step 0. The latest posts prove
this again and again.


>
> Craig is quite correct compared to the first person associated to the
> machine by the []p & p definition, and it reminds me that comp is, and has
> to be, counter-intuitive.
>
> It is a mini Brouwer-Hilbert debate, with Brouwer played by Craig, and the
> 1p of the machine (S4Grz, []p & p), and Hilbert (me, or the []p of the
> machines.
>

That is a fine way to see it, but I doubt Brouwer would confuse his own
intuitive notions with problems/resolutions to "true generation of
consciousness" and concepts of that sort.


>
> The logical appearance of the person is
>
> Truth  -> person -> machine/theories/ideas
>
> or put it differently:
>
> p  ->  []p & p  -> []p (& p?)
>
> Craig illustrates well that consciousness is in the true part, not in the
> representation, but you need both to have a local particular person,
> relatively to some universal number or system.
>

He never acknowledged that he lacks a frame in some third person sense, or
limits for the primitives to his explanations. So he could continue forever
trivially, S4Grzetting you to the end of time with fancy color explosion of
syntax/semantics after you state some limit of machine or some flaw in
reasoning.


>
> Now this made him into a trivial step zero stopper, and I can be tired of
> the accumulation of word play, and the begging questions.
>
> I appreciate the intervention.
>

I see how that it's a tricky question, but I wouldn't be surprised if you
just turned around and walked away from these games that are not even that
funny; well, except for Craig = Brouwer and you = Hilbert []p (I'm not so
sure Brouwer would be ok with Craig; much less Hilbert with you!) kind of
stuff. PGC


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of argument?
>>
>>
>>
>> That is a very good idea.
>>
>> That is quite close to what happens with the definition by Theatetus of
>> (rational) knowledge by saying that is a (rational) belief (finitely 3p
>> describable) which is also true (something not definable in general, but
>> well known in many situations). That truth might not be computable (like in
>> self-multiplication), nor definable (like in Peano Arithmetic or by Löbian
>> machines), and that is why we use the truth (p) to represent itself, in the
>> definition of know(p) by []p & p.
>>
>> That describes a knower (it obeys S4), and explains the existence of the
>> fixed point, the locus where the beliefs are incorrigible, and correctly
>> so, from that necessarily existing point of view.  It explains the
>> existence of proposition which will be trivially true from the first person
>> perspective, yet impossible to communicate rationally to another machine.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  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/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this mes

Re: Video of VCR

2014-04-14 Thread Craig Weinberg

continued

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
>
> > and say that it is computation which is more likely derived from   
> > awareness rather than the other way around, and therefore   
> > computation in and of itself cannot necessarily contain/generate/ 
> > produce/lead to awareness/sense/ 
> > 
> > 
> > Do you agree with 0+1=1? 
> > Do you agree with 0+2=2? 
> > 
> > Yes, but so what? 
>
> So perhaps you agree that is true for any number n, and so you agree   
> on Ax (0 + x = x). And what comp says, is that with few axioms more,   
> of that type, we can extract a compelling theory which explains matter   
> and consciousness in a testable way. 
>

What is the testable way of explaining consciousness?
 

>
>
>
>
> > I agree with "B" and "P" are associated with lips, or that blue +   
> > red = purple. I believe in the extraordinary consistency of   
> > mathematics, but I do not think that sets it apart from sense or   
> > gives it the power to make sense experiences on its own. 
>
> You argue, like me and the machine, that comp is not provable, if   
> true. ~[]comp. We agree on this since the beginning, but you still   
> talk like if I was pretending the contrary. 
> It is your confusion between ~[]comp (we cannot prove comp) and your   
> string statement []~comp (I know that your sun in law is a zombie). 
> It is the second one that I challenge you to prove. 
>

Proof may not be the proper expectation. By Occam's razor we can see that 
the computer need not feel that it has lips in order to make a 'B' sound 
come out of a speaker. The speaker functions as mouth, lips, lungs, and 
voicebox but it has no connection to those things or their experiences. The 
sun in law is designed from the outside in to mimic external behaviors. Why 
would internal experiences match our expectations? Why should there be any 
internal experiences on that level at all?
 

>
>
> > 
> > If arithmetic truth is conscious, then comp is circular. 
> > 
> > Proof? Note that I was saying that it does not make much sense to   
> > say that the arithmetical truth is conscious, although I cannot   
> > exclude it. Open problem say. But comp is not circular as you   
> > illustrate by not attributing consciousness to my sun in law. 
> > 
> > I don't see where there is room for doubt. If you say A contains X   
> > then saying that 'X is contained by A' is a tautology. Nothing is   
> > explained, you have just moved dualism down to the level where   
> > arithmetic arbitrary contains unexplained non-arithmetic qualities.   
> > I understand that in the math you are talking about, you see   
> > indications that such non-arithmetic qualities must be present, and   
> > I don't doubt that numbers present a kind of negative rendition of   
> > those qualities by their absence, but I don't think that ultimately   
> > amounts to a support for comp. 
>
>
> But for the millionth time; I am NOT arguing that comp is true or   
> supported. You defend again ~[]comp, which is a theorem in comp. Since   
> the start I repeat and repeat again that you are CORRECT on this point. 
>
> All what I say, is that you cannot deduce validly []~comp from   
> ~[]comp. From your non seeing something you cannot pretend the non   
> existence of something. 
>

and I repeat that I agree you are correct in saying that it cannot be 
proved logically, but I am saying that nothing about consciousness is 
logical to begin with, so the expectation of that kind of deduction working 
for consciousness is not valid. There is no argument for why I can move my 
fingers just by moving them, but it is nonetheless as true as any truth can 
possibly be.
 

>
>
>
> > > You are saying that the assumptions of comp cannot be challenged 
> > 
> > I have never said that. You symmetrize again. 
> > 
> > By aligning the defense of comp 
> > 
> > 
> > I do not defend comp. You are defending non-comp. But I have not yet   
> > seen an argument. 
> > 
> > The argument is that the map is not the territory. 
>
> The map is not always the territory, but the map can be plunged in the   
> territory, 


I think only metaphorically
 

> and there will be a fixed point, that is a point of the map   
> whose position will be equal to the position of the location it refers   
> too. 
> Something similar happens with universal number transfiormation, there   
> are fixed point, some syntactical-like (reproduction), some semantical   
> (self-reference). 
>

I think self-reference can appear figuratively, as when a doll talks about 
itself. I don't reduce sophisticated AI to a doll talking to itself, since 
interactivity adds an order of magnitude more depth, but the principle is 
the same. We can be fooled by the doll, but the doll can't fool itself into 
thinking it is alive.
 

>
>
>
>
> > B and P sound can be reproduced electronically without reproducing   
> > any feeling of lips and speaking beh

Re: Video of VCR

2014-04-14 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 11 Apr 2014, at 20:30, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > > Craig, 
> > > 
> > > I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get 
> > > closer to a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument 
> > > against comp is not valid, you vindicate being illogical, 
> > > 
> > > I don't vindicate being illogical, I vindicate being more logical 
> > > about factoring in the limitations of logic in modeling the deeper 
> > > aspects of nature and consciousness. Logically we must not presume 
> > > to rely on logic alone to argue the nature of awareness, from which 
> > > logic seems to arise. 
> > > 
> > > so I am not sure that repeating my argument can help. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I will just sum up: 
> > > 
> > > 1) You keep talking like if the situation was symmetrical. You 
> > > defending ~comp, and me defending comp. But that is not the case. I 
> > > am nowhere defending the idea that comp is true. I am agnostic on 
> > > this. 
> > > 
> > > I think that you are pseudo-agnostic on it, and have admitted as 
> > > much on occasion, but that's ok with me either way. 
> > > 
> > > I am not convince by your argument against comp, that's all. That is 
> > > the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. 
> > > 
> > > Part of my argument though is that being convinced is not a 
> > > realistic expectation of any argument about consciousness. My 
> > > argument is that it can only ever be about how much sense it makes 
> > > relatively speaking, and that the comp argument unfairly rules out 
> > > immeasurable aesthetic qualities from the start. 
> > 
> > 
> > It does not. *you* rule it out. You make less sense. 
> > 
> > If it doesn't rule it out, then comp is circular. 
> > 
> > Proof? 
> > 
> > Reasoning. Comp has to begin without consciousness to explain   
> > anything. If comp begins with consciousness then you are saying that   
> > consciousness creates itself...which is fine, but it doesn't need   
> > computation then. 
>
> You will not convince me that my sun in law *has to be* a zombie or a   
> doll with argument like that, which mocks completely what I have done. 
>

That rebuttal doesn't convince me that I should doubt my reasoning. It 
sounds like you're just saying that my argument offends you.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > For the statement that comp makes "consciousness is generated by   
> > computation" 
> > 
> > Comp does not say "consciousness is generated by computation". I   
> > have insisted on this many times. 
> > 
> > "In philosophy, a computational theory of mind names a view that the   
> > human mind or the human brain (or both) is an information processing   
> > system and that thinking is a form of computing. " - 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind 
> > 
> > The Wikipedia definition agrees with me. If you are not saying that   
> > consciousness is a form of computation or product of computation,   
> > then it seems to me you have made comp too weak of an assertion.   
> > What do you say that comp asserts? 
>
> That my sun in law might not be a zombie/doll. Comp assumes that the   
> brain is Turing emulable at some level of description. 
>

What does the brain being Turing emulable mean in this context other than 
that "consciousness is generated by computation"? If sun in law is not a 
doll, and if he has a brain that is being emulated by a Turing machine, 
then that means that the computation of the machine is generating his 
consciousness.

In my work, comp is an assumption, but usually comp is seen as a   
> consequence of other theories, and is usually an implicit theory of   
> all materialist (and that is a problem for them, as UDA shows that   
> comp does not marry well with materialism). 
>
> By materialism, as usual I mean the weak sense: the doctrine which   
> asserts the primitive existence of matter (or time, space, energy, ...). 
>
> UDA assumes consciousness as subject matter of the inquiry, and   
> assumes that it is invariant for digital functional substitution done   
> at some level, and it explains from that assumption that both   
> consciousness and matter emerges from arithmetic. 


If you assume rather than prove digital functional substitution for 
consciousness, then how can the conclusion that consciousness emerges from 
arithmetic be something other than tautology?
 

> Then AUDA (the   
> arithmetical UDA) shows, by applying an idea of Theaetetus on Gödel's   
> predicate of probability,  how to make the derivation, and derives the   
> propositional physic

Re: Climate models


On 4/14/2014 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>:


No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most 
pregnant
kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school classes 
according to
a recent statistics.

 For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are disconnected from 
your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about very basic chains of causations. 
People that believe that men are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.


Doesn't that make you wonder if Alberto has raised any kids?  Did he tell them to "follow 
their nous", go forth and mulitiply...that's what hormones are for...if you weren't 
supposed to be pregnant at 14 God wouldn't have made you fertile.


If he has any, I'm sorry for them.

Brent
P.S. If anyone's interested I have four children, two grandchildren, and one great 
grandchild.  And they're all doing just fine.


--
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models


On 4/14/2014 11:35 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote:





On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program 
will cause
suffering

This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop
breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not 
select
breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading 
to be an
optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, 
just
like in most of the animal kingdom.


You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is 
different from
that of almost all mammmals.  But if it were like other mammmals there 
wouldn't
be more rape.  There is seldom rape among mammals because the female 
becomes
receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and otherwise she 
is not
sexually attractive to the males.  Humans and bonobos are unusual among 
mammals
in that females are sexually receptive even when not ovulating.  This is
probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is 
useful in
raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient.  I 
recommend
the book by Jared Diamond "Why is Sex Fun?".


You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole.
Added your recommendation to my reading list.

Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many 
of the
sexual behaviours that are considered "unnatural" or "deviant" by our 
religious friends.


That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these deviant freaks of 
nature unholy! :-) PGC


Sex between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing.  But between a man and a woman and a 
dog, a goat, and two chickens it's fantastic!

--- Woody Allen

--
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>> 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will
>>> cause suffering
>>>
>>> This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop
>>> breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select
>>> breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an
>>> optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just
>>> like in most of the animal kingdom.
>>>
>>
>> You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is
>> different from that of almost all mammmals.  But if it were like other
>> mammmals there wouldn't be more rape.  There is seldom rape among mammals
>> because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts
>> males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males.  Humans
>> and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually
>> receptive even when not ovulating.  This is probably an evolutionary
>> adaptation to achieve couple bonding which is useful in raising a child
>> that takes many years to become self-sufficient.  I recommend the book by
>> Jared Diamond "Why is Sex Fun?".
>>
>>
> You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole.
> Added your recommendation to my reading list.
>
> Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many
> of the sexual behaviours that are considered "unnatural" or "deviant" by
> our religious friends.
>

That's why we keep 'em out of zoos. Protect the children from these deviant
freaks of nature unholy! :-) PGC


>
> Thanks
> Telmo.
>
>
>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>  Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite
>>> obvious that the "niche" that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are
>>> not particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run
>>> particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of
>>> circumstances. At some point there was a choice between
>>> optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will
>> cause suffering
>>
>> This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop
>> breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select
>> breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an
>> optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just
>> like in most of the animal kingdom.
>>
>
> You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different
> from that of almost all mammmals.  But if it were like other mammmals there
> wouldn't be more rape.  There is seldom rape among mammals because the
> female becomes receptive when she ovulates and readily accepts males and
> otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males.  Humans and bonobos
> are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even when
> not ovulating.  This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve
> couple bonding which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to
> become self-sufficient.  I recommend the book by Jared Diamond "Why is Sex
> Fun?".
>
>
You are right, of course. I got too carried away in that hyperbole.
Added your recommendation to my reading list.

Bonobos are very interesting, I've read before about how they display many
of the sexual behaviours that are considered "unnatural" or "deviant" by
our religious friends.

Thanks
Telmo.



> Brent
>
>
>  Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious
>> that the "niche" that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not
>> particularly strong nor particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly
>> fast. But we can adapt very quickly to a wide range of circumstances. At
>> some point there was a choice between optional/non-optional in
>> reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this.
>>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 4/14/2014 4:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will cause
suffering

This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop breathing. Your
brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select breathing to be an optional
behaviour. But it did select breading to be an optional behaviour. Otherwise there would
be a whole lot more rape, just like in most of the animal kingdom.

You are right of course that the human evolutionary 'program' is different from that of
almost all mammmals. But if it were like other mammmals there wouldn't be more rape.
There is seldom rape among mammals because the female becomes receptive when she ovulates
and readily accepts males and otherwise she is not sexually attractive to the males.
Humans and bonobos are unusual among mammals in that females are sexually receptive even
when not ovulating. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to achieve couple bonding
which is useful in raising a child that takes many years to become self-sufficient. I
recommend the book by Jared Diamond "Why is Sex Fun?".

Brent

Why was optional breading selected? We can speculate. It is quite obvious that the
"niche" that humans explore is superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor
particularly resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly
to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between
optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this.

--
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models


On 4/14/2014 3:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

It is clear in the reasoning.

What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is produced is 
wrong?

it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner program ( I tell 
you in machine terms, that is the level that people here understand)  The consequences 
are clearly expressed above.


I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary numbers? 
 Modal logic?



these are the consequences at the social level. At the personal level the consequences 
of  "not believe the inner voice" that is, "going against your own nature", or in 
machine terms that you may understand as machines, "going against the goals of your own 
inner program" is, of course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide.


It is necessary that I explain why?


No it's not necessary to explain why all those dire consequences happen - 
because they don't.

Brent
"True, secular values can turn a civilization inside out. In post-Christian Europe, entire 
nations have been plunged into endemic health, skyrocketing education and hopelessly low 
rates of violent crime."

--- Austin Dacey, NY Times 3 Feb 2006

--
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:40, Alberto G. Corona wrote:





2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :

No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals.  
Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual  
education school classes according to a recent statistics.


 For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are  
disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk  
about very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men  
are machines, behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.


You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is  
not right. This inner sense is the legacy of knowledge from millions  
of previous generations.  It is so important that it is immediate.  
It is necessary a lot of indoctrination to silence it. What is most  
urgent today is to remove all this indoctrination to recover this  
inner sense, the common sense, the Nous of the Greek Philosophers.



On the contrary, for abortion, both studies + listening to women makes  
me feel according to women an inner sense on that matter.


Same for machine, I show that self-relatively correct machine can't  
avoid the presence of a fist person point of view, with qualitative  
properties, and this when using only the most classical definition of  
knowledge.


It is your prejudice on the machines which makes you feel that such an  
hypothesis would be a reductionism.








But how to talk about this with men that want other people to be  
machines at the image and likeness of themselves?



On the contrary, I challenge the comp hypothesis. At first sight I  
refute it, but then I shows that the math illustrates it is too  
premature to say that it is refuted.






How to talk with machines that hate what makes humans above anything  
else? how to talk with people that despises its own humanity?. the  
only way is to talk in its own language.


Contraception reproduce most of the problems that I mentioned and  
produce other new. You, machines, contemplate the blind process of  
natural selection: machines have other machines, and these machines  
have been selected to maximize fitness, In a firt approximation  
fitness can be assimilated to the number and strength of the child  
machines produced.


There are two kind of machines 1 and 2.  both produce third copies  
of themselves.


Think a little bit: machine 1 and 2 programs main purpose, by the  
very nature of natural selection, to produce copies. If machine 1  
and machine 2 get crazy by a virus program that impede the creation  
of copies. When the main program find that there is no copies  
produced for whatever reason, it is logical that natural selection  
have produced the following  automatic strategies:


1) try to intensify the frequency f transfer of information  in  
order to try to make the reproduction mechanism to work.


 2) if this does not work,  machine 1 and 2 will transfer  
information with other  machines 2  and 1 respectively.  infidelity


3) finally the pair will break. the process will repeat  
indefinitely. 1 2 3 again and again.



Because the phase 1 of the life program of machine 1 and 2 is not  
sucessfully executed, both stay in this phase of the program, that I  
may call "adolescence" , characterized by a look for couples, trying  
to be attractive and try to monopolize as much machines of the other  
type as possible by means of pacific or violen means or whatever in  
the middle. and for living in the urgence of the present. This is  
realized in the form of ridculous display of power, false  
intelligence, egotism, violence, money and beauty, even at advanced  
age. But also by excessive exhibitions of sentimentalsm hate and  
whatever that permits the creation of gangs.


Phases 2 and 3 never get executed: let´s call it "adult  
responsiblity" and "devotion to past and future generations"  since  
natural selected algoritms of the machines must cover second and  
third level of fitness parameters by making sure that the society of  
machines work well and will work well for the future generations. If  
this is not covered with proper machine activities then no matter  
the number of machines produced in the next generation, if the  
society dies a few generations later, the machine fitness will be  
zero.


The net effect is uncertainty, violence, hypersexualization and  
unhappiness. And the destruction of the society, by the way. but  
because you are machines uncapable to acknowledge that, since you  
hate and repress what is human, yo can not agree. is your reputation  
as machines what is at stake



I think you confuse me with someone else. I am a logician. All what I  
say is that IF we are machine, then Plato's theology and the mystic is  
more rational than Aristotle and the materialists/naturalist.







So you not only are machines, but a degraded form of machines if you  
disobey your inner program. But I do not expect that machines like  
y

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi Alberto,

What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>

I find a number of problems with your reasoning:

1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is.

Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It
does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for
reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some
phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain
environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a
certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also
self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter
the environment, constantly changing the fitness function.

So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is?
There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For
example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity
to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already
falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes
of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible,
betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under
prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and
instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the
quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure
speculation of course -- just like yours.

Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive
strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the
concept of "cheating" (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very
recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated
with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If
we look for the "nous", then it would make more sense to learn from
pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of
taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very
common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all
believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was
also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters
with sex if they brought them some meat.

2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively

You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the
brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are
likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources
for them at the expense of the majority. So you say "look at how evolution
works, you just have to follow it's simple logic". But then you also claim
that evolution needs some tweaks.

Or instead you believe in some random "cultural virus" that infected us.
Then you have to let evolution do its work: wether we can survive it or we
are not a viable species. Because this virus is exploiting precisely the
same system that contains your biological program. If the "nous" is real,
then we'll be fine. Otherwise, your solution is to "take the matter into
your own hands". Precisely the same type of solution of the people who say
"no thanks" to having children. How can you possibly know that your "nous"
is not just another virus?

3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will
cause suffering

This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop
breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select
breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an
optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just
like in most of the animal kingdom. Why was optional breading selected? We
can speculate. It is quite obvious that the "niche" that humans explore is
superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly
resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly
to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between
optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this.

The research so far seems to contradict your hypothesis. There are several
studies on this topic, but for example:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/7/2/131.short

Best,
Telmo.


>
> That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that
> supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the
> little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature.
> You are ideologically sick.
>
> What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the
> consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes
> to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that
> you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect.
>
> I repeat: Forget the literature. What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2014-04-14

Re: Climate models

Ok. forget me


2014-04-14 13:09 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>>
>>> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>>>
 What in my reasoning steps is wrong?

>>>
>>> The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice.
>>>

 The price for you to "not believe the inner voice" that is, going
>> against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as
>> machines, "going against the goals of your own inner program" is, of
>> course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively,
>> the diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons,
>> unless some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it.
>>
>
> You haven't given me any reasoning steps.
>
>>
>>  --
> 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/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 14 April 2014 23:01, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> 2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>
>> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>>
>>> What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>>>
>>
>> The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice.
>>
>>>
>>> The price for you to "not believe the inner voice" that is, going
> against your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as
> machines, "going against the goals of your own inner program" is, of
> course, unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively,
> the diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons,
> unless some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it.
>

You haven't given me any reasoning steps.

>
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 14 April 2014 22:56, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

>
>
>> So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this
>> case, I suppose)
>>
> By the way. Do you know what ad-hominem mean?
>
>>
>> Attacking the person rather than their arguments. Which is what you were
doing.

"The pride of reason" "You are ideologically sick." "childish" "ignorance"
"hypocrisy"

Were some of the terms you used.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Graham Hancock on The Plant Teachers (Banned TED Talk)

Cool.


On 14 April 2014 01:12, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:33, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w#t=174
>
>
> Cannot see why it was banned. Well, OK - I can. But here it is anyway.
>
>
>
> Nice.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Kim
>
>
> 
>
> Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL
>
> Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
> Mobile:   0450 963 719
> Landline: 02 9389 4239
> Web:   http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
>
> "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
>
>
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>>
>
> The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice.
>
>>
>> The price for you to "not believe the inner voice" that is, going against
your own nature, or in machine terms that you may understand as machines,
"going against the goals of your own inner program" is, of course,
unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide. Collectively, the
diminish and destruction of society for the above mentioned reasons, unless
some of you give me the reasoning step that is wrong on it.

If you like I can also explain why going against own nature produces
unhapiness in computational terms. Anyone can understand it naturally, but
not the machines that are here.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

>
> So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case,
> I suppose)
>
By the way. Do you know what ad-hominem mean?

>  --
> 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/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

It is clear in the reasoning.

What reasoning step between contraception and the problems that is produced
is wrong?

it does not matter if you like it or not, if you go against your inner
program ( I tell you in machine terms, that is the level that people here
understand)  The consequences are clearly expressed above.

I don´t know how to express it more explicit terms. Do you need in binary
numbers?  Modal logic?

these are the consequences at the social level. At the personal level the
consequences of  "not believe the inner voice" that is, "going against your
own nature", or in machine terms that you may understand as machines,
"going against the goals of your own inner program" is, of course,
unhappiness in the personal sense and maybe suicide.

It is necessary that I explain why?

2014-04-14 12:47 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>>
>
> The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice.
>
>>
>> That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that
>> supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the
>> little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature.
>> You are ideologically sick.
>>
>> What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the
>> consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes
>> to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that
>> you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect.
>>
>
> So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case,
> I suppose)
>
>>
>>
>  --
> 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/d/optout.
>

-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 14 April 2014 20:42, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> What in my reasoning steps is wrong?
>

The bit where you said we need to listen to the inner voice.

>
> That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that
> supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the
> little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature.
> You are ideologically sick.
>
> What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the
> consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes
> to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that
> you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect.
>

So do you have anything except for ad hominems? (or feminems in this case,
I suppose)

>
>

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

What in my reasoning steps is wrong?

That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that supposes
that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the little
experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. You
are ideologically sick.

What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the
consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes
to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that
you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect.

I repeat: Forget the literature. What in my reasoning steps is wrong?





2014-04-14 10:25 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>>
>>>  No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals.
>>> Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education
>>> school classes according to a recent statistics.
>>>
>>>  For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are
>> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about
>> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines,
>> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.
>>
>> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not
>> right.
>>
>> And I should believe that inner sense because...?
>
>  Well, I can answer that - or rather, I can answer it in the negative. We
> should not believe that inner voice. Because that inner voice is the result
> of Evolution, which has done a job that is only just good enough to get by,
> to make us create the next generation willy-nilly. Evolution tells us to
> get knocked up as quickly as possible, evolution tells us to stuff our
> faces with sugary food, evolution tells us that the lines with the
> arrowheads going opposite ways aren't the same length. It tells us to die
> when our bile duct gets blocked, rather than have keyhole surgery. It tells
> us to go blind rather than have our cataracts removed. It tells us to fall
> off cliffs rather than wear glasses, to be eaten rather than create fire to
> scare of predators, to starve to death rather than develop weapons.
>
> Yes, we have silenced this "nous", this voice of unreason, this voice that
> would tell us to live with whatever handicaps chance has dealt out, which
> tells us to have children and then die, no matter who we have them with, no
> matter how badly they fare as a result.
>
> Because that's all evolution can see. A blind watchmaker is likely to make
> defective watches that only occasionally work. We have the sense to see
> further than that, and to say, no, THIS is wrong - the blind hand dealt to
> us by evolution is what is wrong, and we have the nous to put it right.
>
>  --
> 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/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models

On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>
>>  No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. Most
>> pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education school
>> classes according to a recent statistics.
>>
>>  For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are
> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about
> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines,
> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you.
>
> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not
> right.
>
> And I should believe that inner sense because...?

Well, I can answer that - or rather, I can answer it in the negative. We
should not believe that inner voice. Because that inner voice is the result
of Evolution, which has done a job that is only just good enough to get by,
to make us create the next generation willy-nilly. Evolution tells us to
get knocked up as quickly as possible, evolution tells us to stuff our
faces with sugary food, evolution tells us that the lines with the
arrowheads going opposite ways aren't the same length. It tells us to die
when our bile duct gets blocked, rather than have keyhole surgery. It tells
us to go blind rather than have our cataracts removed. It tells us to fall
off cliffs rather than wear glasses, to be eaten rather than create fire to
scare of predators, to starve to death rather than develop weapons.

Yes, we have silenced this "nous", this voice of unreason, this voice that
would tell us to live with whatever handicaps chance has dealt out, which
tells us to have children and then die, no matter who we have them with, no
matter how badly they fare as a result.

Because that's all evolution can see. A blind watchmaker is likely to make
defective watches that only occasionally work. We have the sense to see
further than that, and to say, no, THIS is wrong - the blind hand dealt to
us by evolution is what is wrong, and we have the nous to put it right.

-- 
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/d/optout.

Re: Climate models