Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[meekerdb]

On 5/27/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:

On 28 May 2014 14:12, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue 
into a
theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that either 
his
premises or his argument is wrong...


I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't gone 
down that
road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to drop it. I shall 
probably
try again.

Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to follow the arguments you 
and he have had on the subject, or not very much. I know Bruno has said he does have a 
theory of everything, which is subject to falsification... which it seems to me is an 
awful lot to derive from the idea that consciousness arises from computation


I think the more crucial step is arguing that computation (and therefore consciousness) 
can exist without physics.  That physical instantiation is dispensable.


Brent

... but I guess some relatively simple idea can sometimes lead to a huge theory ... 
maybe when (or if) I get to grips with the MGA and the logic involved in deriving some 
features of physics from comp, I might have something more sensible to say on the matter,


--
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: Pluto bounces back!

[Samiya Illias]

There is a debate between the interpretation of the word s-j-d. I assume it
also means to become lowly, humble, submissive, and not only physical
prostration. [http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ Book 1 Page 1307 ]
Summary of why is can't only mean physical prostration:
http://www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/Summary-problems-sujud-prostration-Quran.html




On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:10 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?
>
>
> On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total
>> of 11 or 12 planets in the solar system.
>> [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his
>> father: O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and
>> the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
>> [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on
>> the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father!
>> This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true,
>> and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath
>> brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my
>> brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the
>> Wise.
>>
>> Samiya
>> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>>  Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons,
 an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its
 outer solar system rival Eris.

>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> 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.
>

-- 
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: Pluto bounces back!

[LizR]

Does it also explain how planets prostrate themselves?


On 28 May 2014 15:51, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of
> 11 or 12 planets in the solar system.
> [Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father:
> O my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon,
> I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
> [Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on
> the dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father!
> This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true,
> and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath
> brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my
> brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the
> Wise.
>
> Samiya
> http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>>  Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons,
>>> an atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its
>>> outer solar system rival Eris.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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: Pluto bounces back!

[Samiya Illias]

I won't be surprised if they eventually discover that there are a total of
11 or 12 planets in the solar system.
[Al-Qur'an 12:4, Translator: Pickthall] When Joseph said unto his father: O
my father! Lo! I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I
saw them prostrating themselves unto me.
[Al-Qur'an 12:100, Translator: Pickthall] And he placed his parents on the
dais and they fell down before him prostrate, and he said: O my father!
This is the interpretation of my dream of old. My Lord hath made it true,
and He hath shown me kindness, since He took me out of the prison and hath
brought you from the desert after Satan had made strife between me and my
brethren. Lo! my Lord is tender unto whom He will. He is the Knower, the
Wise.

Samiya
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an
>> atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its
>> outer solar system rival Eris.
>>
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>
>
>  --
> 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: Is Consciousness Computable?

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 14:12,  wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
>> into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
>> either his premises or his argument is wrong...
>>
>
> I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't gone
> down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to drop
> it. I shall probably try again.
>

Bruno may well be wrong about falsification. I haven't tried to follow the
arguments you and he have had on the subject, or not very much. I know
Bruno has said he does have a theory of everything, which is subject to
falsification... which it seems to me is an awful lot to derive from the
idea that consciousness arises from computation ... but I guess some
relatively simple idea can sometimes lead to a huge theory ... maybe when
(or if) I get to grips with the MGA and the logic involved in deriving some
features of physics from comp, I might have something more sensible to say
on the matter,

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Stephen Paul King]

"To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless. "  Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
organized...


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:52 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2014 11:55,  wrote:
>>>

 the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in
 popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by
 a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason
 it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up
 another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual
 evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence,
 where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with
 knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it
 wouldn't happen

>>>
>>> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
>>> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
>>> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
>>> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to
>>> catch their parasites...
>>>
>>
>> there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this.
>> It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is
>> treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his
>> short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther
>> bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and
>> underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between
>> ape and pig can't go on all fours.
>>
>> this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a
>> microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits
>> is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level
>> featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are
>> impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are
>> acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share
>> parentage for that.
>>
>> It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to
>> evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of
>> distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts
>> over. He did his legwork
>>
>> does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site
>> macroevolution.net
>>
>
> not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point:
>
> *sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be
> present*.s
>
> --> of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic
> sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different
> traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like
> this, when, where.
>
>  An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals
> affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical
> features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ
> in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome,
> sequence data is completely useless.
>
> --> he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really
> because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a
> whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy
> and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his
> argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/X0w0JtCyK1U/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received thi

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue 
> into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that 
> either his premises or his argument is wrong...
>

I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't gone 
down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to drop 
it. I shall probably 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 13:54,  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I
>> can't recall all the evidence though.
>>
>
> well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig
> theory as I do. come, let us kneel together and oink
>

 OK, I'm game. Let me just take this apple out of my mouth first.

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs

> treat us as equals."
>   --- Winston Churchill
>

Indeed. Some animals are more equal than others.

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 13:48, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 5/27/2014 6:26 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I
>> can't recall all the evidence though.
>>
>
> Sometimes I read your posts and wonder what they are referring too?
>

Sorry, that is the price of not leaving a huge tail of stuff at the end,
which I try to avoid as I personally find *that* rather confusing. Or of
trimming the tail but not leaving just the most recent part (on the
assumption it will be visible in the post above).

Anyway, in this case the matter at hand was the idea that human beings
might be the result of hybridisation between apes and pigs.

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I 
> can't recall all the evidence though.
>

well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig 
theory as I do. come, let us kneel together and oink

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2014 11:55,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in 
>>> popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by 
>>> a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason 
>>> it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
>>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
>>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
>>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
>>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
>>> wouldn't happen 
>>>
>>
>> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune 
>> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use 
>> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions 
>> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to 
>> catch their parasites...
>>
>
> there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this. 
> It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is 
> treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his 
> short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther 
> bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and 
> underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between 
> ape and pig can't go on all fours. 
>
> this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a 
> microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits 
> is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level 
> featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are 
> impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are 
> acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share 
> parentage for that. 
>
> It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to 
> evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of 
> distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts 
> over. He did his legwork
>
> does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site 
> macroevolution.net
>

not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point: 

*sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be 
present*.s 

--> of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic 
sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different 
traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like 
this, when, where.

 An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals 
affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical 
features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ 
in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome, 
sequence data is completely useless. 

--> he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really 
because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a 
whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy 
and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his 
argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly.

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[meekerdb]

On 5/27/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 May 2014 12:56, Russell Standish > wrote:


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough 
to
> catch their parasites...
>
> This idea goes back a long way. In fact, it may even go back to this
> guy.
> ..
>

Very punny - or maybe I should say hammy!


I just get rasher and rasher...



"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs
treat us as equals."
  --- Winston Churchill

--
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[meekerdb]

On 5/27/2014 6:26 PM, LizR wrote:
I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I can't recall all 
the evidence though.


Sometimes I read your posts and wonder what they are referring too?

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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I
can't recall all the evidence though.

-- 
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: Is Consciousness Computable?

[LizR]

As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
either his premises or his argument is wrong...

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2014 11:55, > wrote:
>
>>
>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular 
>> knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, 
>> is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's 
>> ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
>> wouldn't happen 
>>
>
> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune 
> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use 
> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions 
> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to 
> catch their parasites...
>

there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this. 
It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is 
treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his 
short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther 
bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and 
underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between 
ape and pig can't go on all fours. 

this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a 
microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits 
is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level 
featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are 
impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are 
acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share 
parentage for that. 

It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to 
evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of 
distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts 
over. He did his legwork

does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site 
macroevolution.net

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 12:56, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> > Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
> > systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we
> use
> > bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
> > have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough
> to
> > catch their parasites...
> >
> > This idea goes back a long way. In fact, it may even go back to this
> > guy.
> > ..
> >
>
> Very punny - or maybe I should say hammy!
>

I just get rasher and rasher...

-- 
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: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: LizR  
> > To: everything-list  
> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
> > 
> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com 
> > > wrote: 
> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
> > the scientific sense. 
>
>
> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>
>  
> Because you don't have one. 
>
>
>
> But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional 
> physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
>
> So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, 
> like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
>
> And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the 
> quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
>
> The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and 
> infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
>
> If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the 
> field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the 
> possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the 
> computations going through our states (computational states), and so that 
> logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. 
> Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) 
> beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? 
>
>
>
> Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the physics 
> of the machines.
>
> Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I 
> do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into 
> boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show 
> trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical 
> laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a 
> subpart of it. 
>
> Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or 
> retrodicts that the observable
> have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It 
> predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry 
> conditions.
>
> It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but 
> that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to 
> progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have 
> done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric 
> Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
>
> And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, 
> which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My interest is 
> in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. But 
> does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. 
>
>
>
> They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or bad 
> luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the 
> quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. 
> And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of 
> the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and 
> machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. 
>
> If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, 
> well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
>
> Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, 
> and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new 
> physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical 
> knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the 
> Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first 
> order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
>
>  
> Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've no 
> access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a 
> 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and private. Like 
> fight clu

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to
> catch their parasites...
> 
> This idea goes back a long way. In fact, it may even go back to this
> guy.
> ..
> 

Very punny - or maybe I should say hammy!

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.

Pluto bounces back!

[LizR]

>
> Pluto Bids To Get Back Planetary Status Pluto has at least five moons, an
> atmosphere and now a new analysis places its diameter as bigger than its
> outer solar system rival Eris.
>

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/pluto-bids-for-planethood/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

-- 
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: TRONNIES

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 12:03, John Ross  wrote:

> Some of you seem to think the relativity theories and the Standard Model
> are fact.  Last time I looked they were still regarded as theories.  I
> know  there is lots of evidence that support these theories.  There is just
> as much (maybe more) evidence to support my theory.  A lot has been learned
> in the past 100 years that Albert Einstein was not aware of when he did his
> work.  So in that respect I have an advantage over him.
>

Well, except that just about all the evidence that has come in *since *1915
has supported relativity theory. I don't think there are any widely
accepted pieces of data that contradict SR or GR, unlike Newtonian
gravitation, which I believe had a problem with the perihelion of Mercury
long before Einstein explained it. So in that sense Einstein has the
advantage of having had his ideas tested for a 100 years by lots of
independent groups, and to have passed at least 99.9...% of these tests
(all of which were conducted by people who would have loved to have proved
him wrong and scooped a Nobel, of course!)

>
>
> As a simple example Coulomb’s Law supports the most important feature of
> my theory.  Coulomb’s Law requires  that all charged particles must be
> point particles or made from point particles.
>

This is a good point, if you'll excuse the pun. However, I'm not aware that
quantum theory claims that the electron has any internal structure, either.
The probability of finding one is described by a wave function, which is
spread out in space, but whenever you actually find one, as far as I know
it registers as a point particle...???

I can think of a counter example, by the way. I don't suppose it's viable
but I will just mention it to contribute to the discussion. As far as I
know, Coulomb's law also allows charge to be spread evenly over the surface
of a hollow sphere, in which case there is no repulsive force inside the
sphere. So one can imagine particles being hollow spheres, as long as they
can withstand the finite repulsive force that wouldf be trying to blow it
apart, they would remain intact. I'm not saying this is a viable model for
electrons, but it does imply that it may at least *be possible* for
Coulomb's law to support non-point particle models...I'm still trying to
think of a snappy name for my hollow sphere particle model, though.
(Somehow "a load of balls" doesn't quite cut it...)


> Do any of you believe that there are an equal number of electrons and
> positrons in our Universe?  Remember electrons and positrons are created in
> pairs and destroyed in pairs.  (Where are the missing positrons?)
>

Another interesting point. As far as I know the only existing answer
involves symmetry splitting (plus perhaps some hand waving). However, the
Tronnie theory would still have to explain why some collections of tronnies
prefer to form into massive particles and some prefer to form light ones -
one particle being around 1836 times the mass of the other. (This is also
asymmetric behaviour, of course...)

-- 
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: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>  
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>>  On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>  
>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > -Original Message- 
>>> > From: LizR  
>>> > To: everything-list  
>>> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
>>> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
>>> > 
>>> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
>>> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com 
>>> > > wrote: 
>>> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
>>> > the scientific sense. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
>>> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
>>> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>>>
>>  
>> Because you don't have one. 
>>
>>
>>
>> But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional 
>> physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
>>
>> So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, 
>> like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
>>
>> And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the 
>> quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
>>
>> The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and 
>> infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
>>
>> If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the 
>> field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the 
>> possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the 
>> computations going through our states (computational states), and so that 
>> logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. 
>> Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) 
>> beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the 
>> physics of the machines.
>>
>> Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I 
>> do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into 
>> boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show 
>> trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical 
>> laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a 
>> subpart of it. 
>>
>> Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or 
>> retrodicts that the observable
>> have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It 
>> predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry 
>> conditions.
>>
>> It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but 
>> that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to 
>> progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have 
>> done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric 
>> Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
>>
>> And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, 
>> which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My interest is 
>> in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. 
>> But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. 
>>
>>
>>
>> They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or bad 
>> luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the 
>> quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. 
>> And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of 
>> the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and 
>> machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. 
>>
>> If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, 
>> well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
>>
>> Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, 
>> and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new 
>> physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical 
>> knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the 
>> Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first 
>> order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
>>
>  
> Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've no 
> access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a 
> 'list' - even a pub

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

On 28 May 2014 11:55,  wrote:

>
> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular
> knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile,
> is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's
> ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up
> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual
> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence,
> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with
> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it
> wouldn't happen
>

Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune
systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use
bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions
have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to
catch their parasites...

This idea goes back a long way. In fact, it may even go back to this
guy.
..

-- 
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: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:45:50 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: 
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:02:37AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> > qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.I don't know about you but I agree 
> > with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it 
> > looks.which speaking of killing people.you'd have to kill 
> someone 
> > here to get a ban from Russell, so it looks. 
>
> For a start, the everything list is not my list - Wei Dai is the 
> official owner, but I haven't seen him posting in a while! 
>
> As for FOAR, you don't need to kill someone. Posting obvious spam is 
> enough. Several spammers have been banned from FOAR already. 
>
> But so long as it's vaguely on topic to the eclectic tastes of the 
> lists, and so long as people exercise a little bit of courtesy and 
> moderation in their language, I'm fine with what is posted. There's 
> always a handy delete button for that stuff I don't want to read :). 
>
> Cheers

 
You're still the boss Russell...ownership is for wimps 

>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Pr...

-- 
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: TRONNIES

[John Ross]

Some of you seem to think the relativity theories and the Standard Model are 
fact.  Last time I looked they were still regarded as theories.  I know  there 
is lots of evidence that support these theories.  There is just as much (maybe 
more) evidence to support my theory.  A lot has been learned in the past 100 
years that Albert Einstein was not aware of when he did his work.  So in that 
respect I have an advantage over him.

 

As a simple example Coulomb’s Law supports the most important feature of my 
theory.  Coulomb’s Law requires  that all charged particles must be point 
particles or made from point particles.  My theory explains that electrons and 
positrons are each comprised of three tronnies (two minus and one plus and two 
plus and one minus).  Tronnies have a charge of plus e or minus e.  Protons are 
comprised of eleven tronnies (six plus and five minus).   Photons are comprised 
of one entron which is comprised of two tronnies.  My theory provides a 
detailed description of pair production and electron-positron annihilation 
consistent with experimental evidence.

 

Your statement that my theory has been proven wrong several times is incorrect. 
 No portion of this version of my theory has ever been proven wrong.  If there 
were any portion of my theory that had been proven wrong, I assure you I would 
be making plans to fix it.  But I have seen no such proof.  This version is 
Version 8. There were lots of errors in versions 1-7 but they have all been 
corrected.  The basic feature that I started with is still correct, that is 
that protons comprised of electrons and positrons.  Do any of you believe that 
there are an equal number of electrons and positrons in our Universe?  Remember 
electrons and positrons are created in pairs and destroyed in pairs.  (Where 
are the missing positrons?)

 

I have also offered to send a free book to several of the people in this group, 
but only LizR has requested one.   

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

 

 

2014-05-27 23:46 GMT+02:00 John Ross :

Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of the 
only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet deep.”  
“Because down deep they are not too bad.”

 

I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new 
knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is 
checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.  

 

You are right.  I have been buggering along for 13 years and expect to continue 
doing so until I find something basically wrong with my theory

 

It already has been shown wrong several times... but you lack honesty and 
humility like all good crackpots... hence that will never happen (and *that's* 
a real honest and verifiable prediction).

 

Quentin

 

 

that I can’t fix or until I receive the Nobel prize.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ghib...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:46 AM


To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

 

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:43:33 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

On 25 May 2014 02:44, John Clark  wrote:

 

And you think rusty high school algebra is all you need to revolutionize 
physics and win a Nobel Prize. Does anyone around here STILL think John Ross is 
not a crackpot? 

 

Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.

 

(Unless they are mugs, for they let out the coffee...)

 

Sadly, having given Mr Ross lots of rope, I am coming to the conclusion that 
he's fashioned a very serviceable noose for himself.

 

You were *very* decent Lizzie...I had to read that post twice and felt it 
rather moving, when you said his idea might be crazy enough to have 
something...that it was elegant. I agree actually. And I think it's more than 
possible, and there are more than plenty of precedents, for someone being 
essentially wrong or ill-informed about a shed load of stuff, yet right about 
something that in the fullness of time turns out to be more significant than 
all of the stuff wrong and otherwise ill-informed when should not reasonably 
have been. Not saying that'll be our John Ross mind you...but I agreed or found 
agreeable something about the chap. Also, it's good to feel sure - unlike poor 
Edgar - that John Ross will not be put off at all by anything that has been 
said. He'll keep buggering onfor better or worse 3p sense. Of 
course...it'll likely be for nothing...but that is the price one pays for 
saying it's different. Of course he should have learned the law of sines, and 
the other stuff...and of course John Clarke gave a splendid and admirable 
showing and shall rightly be the star of the thread. But on the other 
hand.if Ross had known all that maybe he'd neve

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:32:07 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: 
>
>  On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
>   
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [
> mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>   
> On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes > 
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR > 
> wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes > 
> wrote:
>  
>  
>   
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR > 
> wrote:
>  
> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting 
> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, 
> jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...
>
>  
>
> Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions 
> of years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off 
> the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life.
>  
>  
>  
> Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability 
> to reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic 
> code, as I think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't 
> interbreed.
>
>  
>
> Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and 
> that species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and 
> eggs. Now that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the 
> sex drive may be quite common and function in essentially the same way. 
> Pure conjecture on my part of course J
>
> Naturally in order for a viable offspring to be produced the species must 
> share most of their DNA, with even relatively closely related species, 
> mostly being unable to reproduce with each other (or producing infertile 
> hybrids) 
>
> Life on earth has long been exchanging DNA with other life on earth 
> through other means besides sexual reproduction, virus vectors for example. 
> I would argue that life on Earth has exchanged a lot of DNA over the eons 
> and that our own species has probably long ago picked up DNA from very 
> different species by these means and that this DNA becomes incorporated 
> into our hereditary lineage.
>
> I suspect that life is not nearly as isolated each within its own silo as 
> we tend to assume; rather it is more like a sponge soaking in the soup of 
> our dynamic living environment… cohabitating and sharing (even our own 
> internal spaces) with a host of other organisms.
>
>
> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I 
> can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>
> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular 
knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, 
is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's 
ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
wouldn't happen 

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:27:24 AM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: 
>
>   
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 5:41 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>   
> On 27 May 2014 11:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  
>  
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR > 
> wrote:
> 
> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting 
> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, 
> jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...
>
>  
>
> Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions 
> of years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off 
> the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life.
>  
>  
>  
> Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability 
> to reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic 
> code, as I think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't 
> interbreed.
>
>  
>
> Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and 
> that species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and 
> eggs. Now that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the 
> sex drive may be quite common and function in essentially the same way. 
> Pure conjecture on my part of course J
>  
>  
>  
> But so what? Generally speaking, we don't want to have sex with all the 
> species on Earth that uses the same method of reproduction as us. Why would 
> you expect aliens to want to have sex with us, any more than we want to 
> have sex with, say, dogs?
>
> Perhaps… but an alien species may want to inject its code into our species 
> DNA – If it could travel across the gulf of interstellar space I assume it 
> would also have sophisticated abilities to directly edit our DNA without 
> the need for sex. If DNA life forms are in fact widespread and common 
> throughout the galaxy then presumably this hypothetical alien species would 
> already have vast knowledge from a diversity of planetary systems and 
> reading and then editing our code would not present much of an issue.
>
> Chris
>  
> I can conjecture SF-y scenarios in which this might be likely, but nothing 
> that seems reasonable under what seem remotely likely assumptions. For an 
> example of something like this, see James Tiptree's story “And I Awoke and 
> Found me Here” - in which humans have a pathological desire for sex with 
> aliens (which the aliens don't reciprocate).
>
> But assuming some aliens *do* have a pathological desire for sex with 
> other species due to some evolutionary kink, then obviously if they have 
> suitable genitalia and can get the other species to agree, they can. 
> However, generally humans don't have a desire for sex with other species, 
> or even with the majority of members of their own species, and most other 
> species on Earth are similarly disinclined, for obvious evolutionary 
> reasons. So I don't see that this is at all likely.
>  
> Or is this all some blokeish thing?
>
 
technological beings probably look quite similar. It's just that a lot of 
people still have the carl sagan hangover. Anyway, I'm up for screwing nice 
looking aliens if anyone's got a flying saucer

> 
>

-- 
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: TRONNIES

[Quentin Anciaux]

2014-05-27 23:46 GMT+02:00 John Ross :

> Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of
> the only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet
> deep.”  “Because down deep they are not too bad.”
>
>
>
> I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new
> knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is
> checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.
>
>
>
> You are right.  I have been buggering along for 13 years and expect to
> continue doing so until I find something basically wrong with my theory
>

It already has been shown wrong several times... but you lack honesty and
humility like all good crackpots... hence that will never happen (and
*that's* a real honest and verifiable prediction).

Quentin



>  that I can’t fix or until I receive the Nobel prize.
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *ghib...@gmail.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:46 AM
>
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:43:33 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2014 02:44, John Clark  wrote:
>
>
>
> And you think rusty high school algebra is all you need to revolutionize
> physics and win a Nobel Prize. Does anyone around here STILL think John
> Ross is not a crackpot?
>
>
>
> Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.
>
>
>
> (Unless they are mugs, for they let out the coffee...)
>
>
>
> Sadly, having given Mr Ross lots of rope, I am coming to the conclusion
> that he's fashioned a very serviceable noose for himself.
>
>
>
> You were *very* decent Lizzie...I had to read that post twice and felt it
> rather moving, when you said his idea might be crazy enough to have
> something...that it was elegant. I agree actually. And I think it's more
> than possible, and there are more than plenty of precedents, for someone
> being essentially wrong or ill-informed about a shed load of stuff, yet
> right about something that in the fullness of time turns out to be more
> significant than all of the stuff wrong and otherwise ill-informed when
> should not reasonably have been. Not saying that'll be our John Ross mind
> you...but I agreed or found agreeable something about the chap. Also, it's
> good to feel sure - unlike poor Edgar - that John Ross will not be put off
> at all by anything that has been said. He'll keep buggering onfor
> better or worse 3p sense. Of course...it'll likely be for nothing...but
> that is the price one pays for saying it's different. Of course he should
> have learned the law of sines, and the other stuff...and of course John
> Clarke gave a splendid and admirable showing and shall rightly be the star
> of the thread. But on the other hand.if Ross had known all that maybe
> he'd never had had his insights. A double edged blade that one
> certainly...but let's not forget it is a two edged thing.,
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: TRONNIES

[John Ross]

Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of the 
only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet deep.”  
“Because down deep they are not too bad.”

 

I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new 
knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is 
checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.  

 

You are right.  I have been buggering along for 13 years and expect to continue 
doing so until I find something basically wrong with my theory that I can’t fix 
or until I receive the Nobel prize.

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ghib...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:46 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 


On Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:43:33 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

On 25 May 2014 02:44, John Clark  > wrote:

 

And you think rusty high school algebra is all you need to revolutionize 
physics and win a Nobel Prize. Does anyone around here STILL think John Ross is 
not a crackpot? 

 

Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.

 

(Unless they are mugs, for they let out the coffee...)

 

Sadly, having given Mr Ross lots of rope, I am coming to the conclusion that 
he's fashioned a very serviceable noose for himself.

 

You were *very* decent Lizzie...I had to read that post twice and felt it 
rather moving, when you said his idea might be crazy enough to have 
something...that it was elegant. I agree actually. And I think it's more than 
possible, and there are more than plenty of precedents, for someone being 
essentially wrong or ill-informed about a shed load of stuff, yet right about 
something that in the fullness of time turns out to be more significant than 
all of the stuff wrong and otherwise ill-informed when should not reasonably 
have been. Not saying that'll be our John Ross mind you...but I agreed or found 
agreeable something about the chap. Also, it's good to feel sure - unlike poor 
Edgar - that John Ross will not be put off at all by anything that has been 
said. He'll keep buggering onfor better or worse 3p sense. Of 
course...it'll likely be for nothing...but that is the price one pays for 
saying it's different. Of course he should have learned the law of sines, and 
the other stuff...and of course John Clarke gave a splendid and admirable 
showing and shall rightly be the star of the thread. But on the other 
hand.if Ross had known all that maybe he'd never had had his insights. A 
double edged blade that one certainly...but let's not forget it is a two edged 
thing.,

 

-- 
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: TRONNIES

[John Ross]

Amazing!

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TRONNIES

 

On 27 May 2014 05:56, John Ross  wrote:

Are the astronauts that spend a month in the space station younger than their 
twin brothers when they get back to earth? 

 

Yes, an astronaut aboard the ISS is younger than his hypothetical twin born at 
the same instant by about 0.007 seconds per 6 months spent in orbit.  
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q2739.html

 

In my 25 May post my use of the word believe is meant to mean “believe”.  It 
means am not certain.

 

OK, but for future reference, in general usage "I do not believe X" doesn't 
mean you're uncertain about X, it means you believe X is not true.

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

I'm downloading it for possible future viewing, although I suspect my other
half will find the Danish thriller "Forbrydelsen" (The Killing) more
enticing...


On 27 May 2014 20:27, Kim Jones  wrote:

> And here is the link to the full doco. Its a syndicated link to a
> newsstand site so the content may not play in all regions which is pretty
> damn annoying, I know. Anyway, you may be able to pull it up on YT or
> iTunes for a couple of bucks.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Investigation/The-Hidden-Hand-5000237.html
>
> K
>
>
>
> On 27 May 2014, at 6:07 pm, Kim Jones  wrote:
>
> http://youtu.be/p6nGwg0jCcA
>
> This is an interview with the director of an award winning documentary
> about alien incursion on Earth called "The Hidden Hand." I have seen the
> full documentary and I would rate it as one of the best around. Anyone who
> has already made up their mind that this is a non-issue will of course not
> bother. Yet there is plenty of eyewitness testimony and plenty of evidence
> to support the hypothesis that extraterrestrials have a hidden hand in our
> civilisation. The testimony of many of high ranking individuals is included
> such as The Honourable Paul Hellyer, the ex-Canadian Minister for Defence,
> decorated air force pilots who were sent on "hot" (i.e. fully armed and
> instructed to fire) missions to engage UFOs and a range of whistleblowers
> in connection with United States black ops. Quite a few female abductees
> are interviewed who provide credible evidence of their experiences of being
> impregnated by aliens for the stated purpose of producing human/alien
> hybrid offspring and doctors who removed the implants and other foreign
> objects from the bodies of the abductees are interviewed. This is a complex
> and multifaceted subject and if it sounds like science fiction to you then
> rest assured it does to me also. But we have a duty as thinkers to examine
> all evidence however distasteful it may seem. I have myself been the
> subject of a UFO experience, so yes, I guess I would be interested in this
> now wouldn't I.
>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 May 2014, at 5:21 pm, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 27 May 2014 19:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean
>> I can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J
>>
>> On the other hand we became who we are, also through the  exchange of DNA
>> cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it
>> than we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent
>> parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means
>> other than sexual reproduction.
>>
>>
>> Retroviruses, for example. I believe are responsible for a lot of
> beneficial stuff. There was an article in New Scientist recently that I
> seem to recall said as much.
>
> (None of this makes it more likely that we'd want to mate with aliens or
> vice versa, however.)
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Kim Jones]

And here is the link to the full doco. Its a syndicated link to a newsstand 
site so the content may not play in all regions which is pretty damn annoying, 
I know. Anyway, you may be able to pull it up on YT or iTunes for a couple of 
bucks.

http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Investigation/The-Hidden-Hand-5000237.html

K



> On 27 May 2014, at 6:07 pm, Kim Jones  wrote:
> 
> http://youtu.be/p6nGwg0jCcA
> 
> This is an interview with the director of an award winning documentary about 
> alien incursion on Earth called "The Hidden Hand." I have seen the full 
> documentary and I would rate it as one of the best around. Anyone who has 
> already made up their mind that this is a non-issue will of course not 
> bother. Yet there is plenty of eyewitness testimony and plenty of evidence to 
> support the hypothesis that extraterrestrials have a hidden hand in our 
> civilisation. The testimony of many of high ranking individuals is included 
> such as The Honourable Paul Hellyer, the ex-Canadian Minister for Defence, 
> decorated air force pilots who were sent on "hot" (i.e. fully armed and 
> instructed to fire) missions to engage UFOs and a range of whistleblowers in 
> connection with United States black ops. Quite a few female abductees are 
> interviewed who provide credible evidence of their experiences of being 
> impregnated by aliens for the stated purpose of producing human/alien hybrid 
> offspring and doctors who removed the implants and other foreign objects from 
> the bodies of the abductees are interviewed. This is a complex and 
> multifaceted subject and if it sounds like science fiction to you then rest 
> assured it does to me also. But we have a duty as thinkers to examine all 
> evidence however distasteful it may seem. I have myself been the subject of a 
> UFO experience, so yes, I guess I would be interested in this now wouldn't I. 
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>> On 27 May 2014, at 5:21 pm, LizR  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27 May 2014 19:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I 
>>> can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J
>>> 
>>> On the other hand we became who we are, also through the  exchange of DNA 
>>> cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it 
>>> than we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent 
>>> parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means 
>>> other than sexual reproduction.
>>> 
>> Retroviruses, for example. I believe are responsible for a lot of beneficial 
>> stuff. There was an article in New Scientist recently that I seem to recall 
>> said as much.
>> 
>> (None of this makes it more likely that we'd want to mate with aliens or 
>> vice versa, however.)
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[Kim Jones]

http://youtu.be/p6nGwg0jCcA

This is an interview with the director of an award winning documentary about 
alien incursion on Earth called "The Hidden Hand." I have seen the full 
documentary and I would rate it as one of the best around. Anyone who has 
already made up their mind that this is a non-issue will of course not bother. 
Yet there is plenty of eyewitness testimony and plenty of evidence to support 
the hypothesis that extraterrestrials have a hidden hand in our civilisation. 
The testimony of many of high ranking individuals is included such as The 
Honourable Paul Hellyer, the ex-Canadian Minister for Defence, decorated air 
force pilots who were sent on "hot" (i.e. fully armed and instructed to fire) 
missions to engage UFOs and a range of whistleblowers in connection with United 
States black ops. Quite a few female abductees are interviewed who provide 
credible evidence of their experiences of being impregnated by aliens for the 
stated purpose of producing human/alien hybrid offspring and doctors who 
removed the implants and other foreign objects from the bodies of the abductees 
are interviewed. This is a complex and multifaceted subject and if it sounds 
like science fiction to you then rest assured it does to me also. But we have a 
duty as thinkers to examine all evidence however distasteful it may seem. I 
have myself been the subject of a UFO experience, so yes, I guess I would be 
interested in this now wouldn't I. 

Kim



 

> On 27 May 2014, at 5:21 pm, LizR  wrote:
> 
>> On 27 May 2014 19:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I 
>> can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J
>> 
>> On the other hand we became who we are, also through the  exchange of DNA 
>> cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it 
>> than we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent 
>> parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means other 
>> than sexual reproduction.
>> 
> Retroviruses, for example. I believe are responsible for a lot of beneficial 
> stuff. There was an article in New Scientist recently that I seem to recall 
> said as much.
> 
> (None of this makes it more likely that we'd want to mate with aliens or vice 
> versa, however.)
> 
> -- 
> 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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[LizR]

On 27 May 2014 19:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I
> can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>
>
>
> Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J
>
> On the other hand we became who we are, also through the  exchange of DNA
> cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it
> than we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent
> parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means
> other than sexual reproduction.
>
>
> Retroviruses, for example. I believe are responsible for a lot of
beneficial stuff. There was an article in New Scientist recently that I
seem to recall said as much.

(None of this makes it more likely that we'd want to mate with aliens or
vice versa, however.)

-- 
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: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:32 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

 

On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

 

 

 

On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

 

On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR  wrote:

On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

 

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to 
have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish 
and slugs than we are to aliens...

 

Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions of 
years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off the 
same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life.

 

Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability to 
reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic code, as I 
think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't interbreed.

 

Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and that 
species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and eggs. Now 
that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the sex drive may 
be quite common and function in essentially the same way. Pure conjecture on my 
part of course J

Naturally in order for a viable offspring to be produced the species must share 
most of their DNA, with even relatively closely related species, mostly being 
unable to reproduce with each other (or producing infertile hybrids) 

Life on earth has long been exchanging DNA with other life on earth through 
other means besides sexual reproduction, virus vectors for example. I would 
argue that life on Earth has exchanged a lot of DNA over the eons and that our 
own species has probably long ago picked up DNA from very different species by 
these means and that this DNA becomes incorporated into our hereditary lineage.

I suspect that life is not nearly as isolated each within its own silo as we 
tend to assume; rather it is more like a sponge soaking in the soup of our 
dynamic living environment… cohabitating and sharing (even our own internal 
spaces) with a host of other organisms.


Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I can 
mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.

 

Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate with a sponge… or an alien J

On the other hand we became who we are, also through the  exchange of DNA 
cross-species. Life is a soup and we are in it and less distinct from it than 
we like to believe. Over time beneficial mutations (and to some extent 
parasitic selfish DNA) will jump from species to species through means other 
than sexual reproduction.

 

Chris



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.

-- 
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.