Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 24 Jun 2014, at 17:34, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: What about this Irish Times article? It seems to be out of the box thinking. I don't know, if true, that it has any value for the human species? But it might in my imagination. My imagination, plus 3.50, can get me a coffee latte. Any thoughts, condemnatory or laudatory. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/what-if-god-were-part-of-the-natural-order-1.1836816 A platonist believes more in god (truth, universal mind) than in nature (a collective stable hallucination brought by the confluence of relative stable number dream). To naturalize god is basically a word play, if not the same sort of blaspheme than pretending some human are god. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 3:39 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 23 Jun 2014, at 18:39, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear John, it is wasted time and effort to argue who is right in a question that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND such 'faith' does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do not share their faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities which our part of the world would not accept anymore. There is no question about 'truth', believability, oracles and supernatural wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions of people with no questions asking and willing to do whatever they believe has to be done. It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims, literalist muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous. I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at the start if only to see if it contains anything scientific (in physics, biology, ... but also theology). This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well, indeed 1500 years. Regarding skepticism, the High Holy Days service of Judaism contains a prayer for the value of doubt. Not sure how far back the origin of that prayer is in time, but it certainly contributes to regard that Jews have for science. Interesting. In fact judaism; like taoism, and branches of buddhism encourage the comments to the sacred texts, and allow a sort of jurisprudence making possible some notion of amendment, and favorize the non literal reading of texts. Google does not seem to know of its existence. The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many kinds. Bruno Richard There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered. Wars and wars. We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things differently. Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war. I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?) An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest. It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey for violence. Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31 december 2011 (NDAA 12). But the bad seed comes from something older than Kennedy's assassination. There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminal activities. The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars which constantly create and fuel its enemy. The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition, and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money is used to create fake money, based on lies or on problems created for that purpose. Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify its job. So we are not civil, but still can become. Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be only a bad habit, a passage similar to some dilemmas in game theory, when you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's a devil's temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic or paranoid egocentrism. Bruno John M On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Ok, so let's talk some specifics. Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic expression.
we are the narrators of our minds
To speak of thinking should first answer what is thought? We each experience our unfolding selves and live each of us within the inner drama of our minds. It is experimentally known that brain activity precedes conscious awareness by significant periods of time, as much as a half a second (which might as well be forever in terms of the throughput of processing on a 10^11 node parallel machine with 10^14 network arcs… e.g. a human brain). We are post facto manifestations of consciousness living nearly perfect illusions of spontaneous being… experiencing ourselves as the source of our own being. But, our being, essentially has already happened in that incredible massively parallel machine, and MRI evidence (for example) supports this this. I have evolved to see myself as the narrator of my mind; to see our conscious ego selves as narrators of mind. We do not decide… our minds decide. We sense ourselves as having an identity… and of course we do, not arguing that, but it seems that our identity is actually a dynamic consensus of our mind quorum. Highly parallel quorum based decisional networks seem to play a central role in the executive functioning of the brain. These networks also seem to be characterized by also being wide area networks linking distance neural columns and densely crackling regions with other regions in the brain. Executive decision making in the brain seems to involve neurons from many regions on the cortexual sheet, and not just in the frontal cortex. All of us… unless some amongst us are already AI (I jest) are neuronal beings… we all arise from vast crackling networks of electro-chemical nature populated by a growing zoo of different neuron types and a growing awareness of the subtle roles that glial cells (the majority of brain cells) play in critical activities for consciousness such as long term memory formation. I, personally find myself fascinated by the massively parallel, highly noise tolerant, self-healing algorithms that may soon be discovered (also by studying how brains work) underlying the emergence of consciousness and self-awareness… fascinated and also concerned for how it could be abused by power. In reality we are crackling electric chatrooms – the brain is very noisy environment, but this allows it to also be incredibly efficient, using negligible power. The signal to noise ratio is extremely flat; current computer architectures could not function in this environment. Current architecture relies on highly predictable outcomes. When a gate is flipped it is flipped (with a six sigma guarantee). The brain/mind we experience is that quiet center. We clearly hear ourselves reify our being. It seems so balanced and 3-D perfect all around us… so stable. We sense our minds and think we are thinking. But are we really? Isn’t it more accurate – seeing as how we are post facto manifestations of a phenomena that has already been in play before we experience it as being in play – more accurate to describe ourselves as the narrators of our minds. We are the manifestation of network consensus… and we are the focus of network quorum decisional processes. I see it as being logical to search for the mystery of consciousness in the working of our brain/mind and humbling as it may be for the ego… we happen, ourselves, after the fact. Cheers Chris -- 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!
On 25 Jun 2014, at 06:46, meekerdb wrote: On 6/24/2014 12:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Google does not seem to know of its existence. The net does not know everything, and contains a lot of propaganda of many kinds. Bruno Have you read Scott Aaronson's latest blog in which he discusses the application of Google technology to the problem to defining morality and improving democracy? http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ I am a bit skeptical on improving democracy by such means, and a lot more skeptical for defining morality. I have not studied the details of the paper though (for reason of lack of time). Bruno Eigenmorality June 18th, 2014 This post is about an idea I had around 1997, when I was 16 years old and a freshman computer-science major at Cornell. Back then, I was extremely impressed by a research project called CLEVER, which one of my professors, Jon Kleinberg, had led while working at IBM Almaden. The idea was to use the link structure of the web itself to rank which web pages were most important, and therefore which ones should be returned first in a search query. Specifically, Kleinberg defined hubs as pages that linked to lots of authorities, and authorities as pages that were linked to by lots of hubs. At first glance, this definition seems hopelessly circular, but Kleinberg observed that one can break the circularity by just treating the World Wide Web as a giant directed graph, and doing some linear algebra on its adjacency matrix. ... 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician, Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get into the Evo-Devo view? I don't know him. I don't know Evo-Devo view. You might say more on this perhaps. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 10:36 am Subject: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non- boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 27 May 2014, at 01:37, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com 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 te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 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. A plausible hypothesis - actually saw it a few nights ago on the Cosmos reboot is that when stars transit through interstellar gas clouds (the nurseries of new stars and planets) their attendant comet clouds become gravitationally perturbed, initiating an era of cometary bombardment. I think they're doing a fine job with that reboot, although probably not up to Bruno's standards, lol. Recently found a video where the host chats for 3 minutes on his take regarding atheism and agnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos Very nice. I am not astonished that Tyson is systematically renamed atheist on the wiki page on him (that he did not create, but try to correct, unsuccessfully!). In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this can only create a confusion. Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to Conscience Mécanisme I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference. Bruno PGC If a planet orbiting a star that is transiting one of these immense clouds get a good whack some of its life bearing rock can be hurled from the system and every once in a great while find its way to another water bearing planet orbiting some other star. This actually sounds plausible to me... that interstellar nurseries are also the cosmic engines for spreading advanced microbial life forms from planets of one star to other planets orbiting other stars Over the eons. Perhaps star systems have been exchanging DNA and microbial life since life first began somewhere in our galaxy and that this kind of emergent process is occurring in every galaxy in every universe with laws consonant with stable wet organic chemistry. Chris Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, or the most likely solution. Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't interbreed with them. Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in sheep are nervous. :) Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items, depending on your tastes (See A melon for ecstasy and The unrepentant necrophile for some suggestions for things one can have sex with in this sense, should one be so inclined). However your original reply (in blue above) certainly appeared to be talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are the only viable solution for fetishists who happen to get
Re: we are the narrators of our minds
Yes, according to this view we are just along for the ride. -- 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: we are the narrators of our minds
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To speak of thinking should first answer what is thought? -- 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: we are the narrators of our minds
On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To speak of thinking should first answer what is thought? If you like. But you don't have to know what thought is to know how to think. But you knew I was going to say that. If we had to know what thought was before we could learn to think effectively there would be little point to getting out of bed in the morning. Asking this particular question won't improve the kind of thinking skills I am advertising. There is the eternal question of philosophy: What is this? And there is the more useful question of the strategic thinker: What can we do with this? Just the same, great post, Chris. I find myself happening to myself all the time, like you. We ARE our minds. So, it is a natural question to want to ask. Just the same, don't hold your breath expecting an answer any time soon. It's closely, dangerously closely related to the question: What is life? Or, better still: What is a soul? I enjoy immensely thinking about these things too and reading the musings of others about it. Kim -- 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: American Intelligence
On 26 Jun 2014, at 11:36 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:33 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 26 June 2014 13:19, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. Indeed, black and white aren't even in the spectrum! (Sorry, I'll get my coat of many colours...) Which is why I deliberately used the word hue instead of color, was hoping that my use of a synonym would let me off the hook on that one... should have probably used the word shades :) You only need six colours (and in this designed spectrum white and black DO occur: White (facts) Yellow (benefits) Red (feelings) Green (alternatives) Black (caution) Blue ( overview) K -- 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 - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 04:33, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: *All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings.* Yes of course, but that was my point. I offered the analogy as a toy model of 3p reductionism per se. It's pretty clear that when we talking about, say, a country having opinions or character, that this is merely a manner of speaking. If we cared to, this manner of speaking could be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of the individual human beings who play the role of the fundamental entities in this reduction. However it seems, for some reason, to be less obvious to most people in the case of *physical* reductionism. Actually the reason is perhaps not so mysterious after all, as it is difficult not to take for granted what is constantly staring us in the face - hence the frequent confusion between what should be considered ontologically, as opposed to epistemologically, basic. But on reflection, can we really countenance an appeal to one convenient fiction (computation) to explain another (consciousness) given a prior commitment to the exhaustive hierarchical reducibility of both to the ontological basement level of explanation? And in relying on epistemological fictions in general to account for *epistemology itself* are we not thereby in serious peril of merely arguing in a circle? *If Bruno is right the only thing that is real are persons who are essentially minds or computational relations anyway. Bruno is not saying there is no sunstrate or 'hypothese'. He's dropping continual heavy hints as to what it is. But, we just can't really describe that with a mind. The hammer cannot hit itself. Blame Gödel or someone...* Well, I've said before that I originally had misgivings that Bruno's schema was vulnerable to a similar analysis as I have given above - i.e. that it was in the end an exhaustive reductionism, in this case with number relations as the basement level. But actually, on reflection, this cannot be the case as it turns out to be impossible to reduce comp to number relations tout court *without loss*. In fact, not less than everything would be lost in such a reduction (assuming comp to be correct, of course): the whole of physics, the entire possibility of observation, the whole kit and caboodle. The emulation of computation and the universal machine in arithmetic - with the concomitant umbilical connection to arithmetical truth - make any straightforward hierarchical 3p reduction, along the lines of physicalism, impossible in principle. The totality of computation implies both the FPI (the indeterminism at the heart of determinism) and a fundamental asymmetry of measure. Taken together, these motivate a principled explanation of a consistent set of observable (indexical) physical appearances, abstracted, as it were, from the dross of the totality, by the unequal attention of a generalised universal observer. Indeed the systemic inter-dependence of its explanatory entities make a schema of this sort, as Bruno is wont to say, a veritable vaccine against reductionism. But is it correct? That's another question. David On 26 Jun 2014, at 8:07 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings (i.e. what Margaret Thatcher presumably intended by there's no such thing as society). David All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings. In addition, when was Margaret Thatcher ever wrong about something? ;-) So you lose a few 'isms' in this view...sounds like a good idea to me. If Bruno is right the only thing that is real are persons who are essentially minds or computational relations anyway. Bruno is not saying there is no sunstrate or 'hypothese'. He's dropping continual heavy hints as to what it is. But, we just can't really describe that with a mind. The hammer cannot hit itself. Blame Gödel or someone... Kim -- 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
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 23:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. No, I mean the precise opposite: eliminable in fact, but not in explanation. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. There is indeed. But as you yourself say below, we do suppose that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced and hence that any intermediate level in the hierarchy of reduction IS eliminable (i.e. surplus to requirements) *in fact*. Such intermediate levels (be they in terms of temperature or kinetic energy of molecules) are by contrast NOT eliminable from our explanations, simply because we lack the capability to follow through any explanation at the fully-reduced level. The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Or that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced. Which is what I suppose. There may remain 1p phenomena (qualia?) which are not explicitly part of the reductive description, but which we suppose are still there because of the similarity of the 3p part to our 3p part which is consistently correlated with our 1p part (i.e. the reason we don't believe in p-zombies). But our 3p part turns out to be one of the convenient epistemological fictions that we have (inconveniently) eliminated *in fact*. This is no kind of a problem for a purely 3p reduction, in terms of which which all such intermediate levels are in the end fictional, but every kind of a problem for the remaining 1p part, which it is (to say the least) inconvenient to consider such a fiction. Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss I think without loss is ambiguous. It could mean that in a simulation of the phenomena we would not have to consider it (because it would arise from the lower level, e.g. markets) or it could mean that it wouldn't occur. No, it just means that if you assembled all the relevant human players in the appropriate relations you would ex hypothesi have reproduced the higher-level phenomena. Hence the inverse reduction from the sociological to the human can be accomplished unambiguously without loss. It really is a case of bottom-up all the way down. David On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. And, should they indeed be eliminable in this way, what does that bode for any 1p accompaniments? Note, please, that I am not staking any personal belief on the reductive assumptions as stated; I'm merely attempting to articulate them somewhat explicitly in order to discern what might, and what might not, be legitimately derivable from them. The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Or that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced. Which is what I suppose. There may remain 1p phenomena (qualia?) which are not explicitly part of the reductive description, but which we suppose are still there because of the similarity of the 3p part to our 3p part which is consistently correlated with our 1p part (i.e. the reason we don't believe in p-zombies). Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Spot on, Liz. Actually, we can consider both or either to be such fictions, in terms of their mutual reducibility to some (exhaustive and assumptively irreducible) basement level (string, anyone?). My point is that the fundamental tenet of any 3p reductionism is bottom-up all the way down. If that leads to inconvenient consequences (not to mention a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance) don't blame me, blame the assumptions. David -- 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!
Brent, far be it from me to defend the RC, but its also a matter of how far back you wish to go in history, or even care to look? Look at Syria, look at Nigeria, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan. You know what's going on there and you know why. It's not animists, or Zen Buddhists, who are doing the nasty today. Maybe they will change in 25 years and maybe things will get worse ithis area. As for birth control, yes we need more. If you look to the 20th century, you will note that the 70 million dead from the biggest Atheists on the planet, so much so that they had put in on their party doctrine, back in the 19th century. Yeah, not all Atheists are Marxists, but almost all Marxists are atheists, and they were easy, on the Sovs, the Chinese, North Kor, and Kampuchea, during their class purging. Not a bad case of 'catch up' to the RC, I'd say! And why zing the RC when the fire burns all over the world from another source? Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrativecriminal acts includes a lot more than murderous martydom. TheCatholic Church has probably condemned more children to starvationby outlawing contraception than the Islamist ever will. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 6/25/2014 4:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Brent, Jesuspeople don't become murdering martyr's anymore, Well there are those who murder abortion doctors. But lucrative criminal acts includes a lot more than murderous martydom. TheCatholic Church has probably condemned more children to starvationby outlawing contraception than the Islamist ever will. Brent so let'sfocus where the problem is. Look at Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,a and Iraq, and draw together the facts. If it was Buddhists setting off bombs in subways' one could concede your point. Also, I amnot a Jesus person, and don't hate em. If ya want to beat up JCwhy not this quote, I come not to bring peace but with asword. And the Christians surely did, right into the 20thcentury, but no longer. This is naive. Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get money which can purchase goods, luxury, women, power. So why do suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury, women, power,..? You just want to excuse religion and blame it all on some criminal acts. What is a crime is often defined by religion and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. Sothe problem is not just radical Islam; it is any Islam,and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief inthat dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions. Brent But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. --- Jesus, Luke 19:27 -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 9:57 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 6/23/2014 7:47 AM, BrunoMarchal wrote: There is a problem with radicalislamism, but the real problem is in the exploitation ofthat problem by bandits to hide their lucrative criminalactivities. This isnaive. Bandits do lucrative criminal acts to get moneywhich can purchase goods, luxury, women, power. So whydo suppose that no one uses religion to get goods, luxury, women, power,..? You just want to excusereligion and blame it all on some criminal acts. Whatis a crime is often defined by religion and it oftenincludes questioning the priesthood and the officialdogma. So the problem is not just radical Islam; it is any Islam, and any religion, which has a dogma and requires belief in that dogma to avoid sanctions and punishment in this life or a putative afterlife...that is to say 90% of all religions. Brent But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. --- Jesus, Luke
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
Its a good point. Dawkins was just suggesting a hypothesis. Humans look for limits and somehow beat them, given enough time effort. Hypercomputing looks plausible to me. Theres a fair amount of papers at ARXIV that write about this kind of thing. I don't know if god-like intelligences are possible in our universe, it's possible the laws of physics don't allow it. There are a lot of known / suspected limitations on computation for example, and a god that couldn't at least perform hypercomputations isn't really godlike IMHO. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 26 June 2014 07:05, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Or to quote, Richard Dawkins, Yes, I can imagine there are god-like intelligences in the universe. Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Sure. All three. (Or in other universes, or branches of the level 1 or level 3 mulitverse, or...) I don't know if god-like intelligences are possible in our universe, it's possible the laws of physics don't allow it. There are a lot of known / suspected limitations on computation for example, and a god that couldn't at least perform hypercomputations isn't really godlike IMHO. -- 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: American Intelligence
I was going to say that 22 minutes is, suspiciously, the actual length of half-hour daytime TV in the U.S. once the commercials are removed. If you're judging us Americans based on our daytime TV, then indeed, it must appear there is no hope at all left for us. But since MIT doesn't have a School of Cooking, and since the U. of Missouri Extension produced this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSpQJvF6jBg , I guess it was just a bundle of humorous exaggerations. :) On Monday, June 23, 2014 6:02:48 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: Last week I decided to do a bit of research on the Internet because I wanted to find out the uses of a vegetable called Kohl Rabi which has just appeared in the shops here in Oz. Kind of a cousin of the turnip. So I found a YouTube video on how to cook this thing. It was by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology School of Cooking so I figured it would be pretty good. The video was 22 minutes long which seemed a bit excessive but just the same I was interested. The chef was going to do fried Kohl Rabi and onions, nice and simple. For the first eight minutes of the video the chef instructed his audience in how to peel and slice onions the correct way. For the next four minutes he instructed how to heat a frypan the correct way and how to caremelise the fucking onions in the butter and oil. He then proceeded to tell all these anecdotes about how different styles of heating range had given him differering results in caremelising onions throughout his career, say for about three minutes. For the next five minutes he told us how to grow the fucking Kohl Rabi. For the final two minutes of the clip, he quickly chopped it up and threw it into the pan with the onions and said all you have to do is quickly soften it - he presto! 22 minutes. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: kmjc...@icloud.com javascript: Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
On 25 Jun 2014, at 15:47, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: In terms of ideological nutjobs, I suspect that the solution is counter-intuitive. Instead of fighting them, perhaps it's better to not react to them at all. Treat a skinhead like a perfectly normal person and the skinhead is destroyed. The feeling of persecution is exploited in recruiting people to these organisations. This I have been barking at for years. The same way we don't point the camera at some flasher at sporting event or World Cup and don't put them up on big screen. I find the extra attention that savage, ideological acts of violence receive totally counterproductive. They should face trial like any mass murderers and the propaganda thirst of the west has to be quenched elsewhere. Elevating obscure groups/individuals to global publicity status for this is idiotic, inspires misguided followers, empowers right wing hawk types and the interests they represent everywhere: extremist, weapons industry and its black market, both right and left political side, prohibition tendencies, and abuse of authoritative argument all benefit from this mutually beneficial publicity system. I agree a lot with you and Telmo. Especially for terrorists. An expert on terrorism (a cousin of mine) told me that to fight terrorism, the key is discretion, and that the media should put the terrorist news in the fait divers (local incidental news). The expression war on terror is already suspicious in that regard. Terrorists can only applaud. What an advertizing on their cause and methods. if we can only keep ourselves secure by agreeing to do each others' dirty laundry, bypassing other sovereign nations' laws, so they may bypass our own, then I don't see why this isn't perceived as dangerous and cynical; and because of legal complexity times digital age, even counterproductive to security on all levels of democratic model (multiplying hacker warfare etc). I think the illusion that has to be broken is very much related to patriotism. Culture not only as the bringer of progress, but also collective jailor. But as long as we get to watch drama of some ball being kicked around, who cares? Patriotism is even good. It can protect you from nazis sometime. But the fact that humans needs to belong to some group to forge his identity can be a problem for the fundamental inquiry, and very often, a problem for the overall political sanity. Soccer cup? That's the modern panem and circenses. bread and game. Why not. it is certainly better than war and blood, but it can often be a way to distract people from some issues. Panem (bread) is good, of course. Tomorrow Germany plays US to prove that they're good at kicking a ball around; Go Germany! Go US! Let us hope the best is the winner! if they can't safeguard their democracy from getting legal system undermined and US intimidation, then at least they get to penetrate a fishing net with a spherical piece of cow skin, or its space age replacement nowadays, I guess... Merkel, Obama, Hollande, etc. have more allegiance to each other than to their citizens. It's naive to assume that Merkel is German of Obama is American. They are world leaders and belong to the cast of the world leaders. They feed on patriotism to act against their people. In a globalised western world, patriotism is the old strategy of divide and conquer. I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to say about nationalism and hating immigrants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4 He has an indoor smoking permit? In many places, smoking on stage is allowed if part of an artistic performance. I know. I need more clout in local bars. People have done all kinds of disgusting things on stage, like cut themselves and what not... my inability to do so (uhm smoke, not cut...) reflects my bad/needy/ overly polite PR strategy. You've got to have some things to look forward to in life, I suppose. To infinitely higher standards and beyond, lol. ;-) PGC The people needs witches to hunt. May be we need more soccer cup! Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:06, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Predictions are great for validating scientific theories but predictions, good bad or ugly, have absolutely nothing to do with establishing a sense of self. We use the usual sense of self defined by the yes doctor. Nobody does that, even you don't do that to define yourself except when you're arguing philosophy on the internet. ? We use that all the time. I do it just now to reply to you. If you made a prediction yesterday about what would happen today that turned out to be wrong you don't feel like you've ceased to exist, you just feel like you made a mistake and continue to believe you're Bruno Marchal because you still remember being Bruno Marchal yesterday. Exactly. But this amkes my point. There is no way to define yourself from the present into the future, you can only define yourself from the present into the past; you know who you were but you don't know who you will be. We need no more that to make sense to I survive this or that operation at the hospital. And not that it matters but even your prediction is wrong; each and every time you repeat your experiment Mr. You sees Moscow, not half the time, ALWAYS. Just iterate the experiences. There is no choice, if probability is to be derived its got to be iterated, and no matter how often you iterate it Mr. You ALWAYS sees Moscow only AND Mr. You ALWAYS sees Washington only; This contradicts 2^n - 1 diaries (which by definition are the first person discourses of the survivors). The W-john Clark will be force to change its mind, unless he confuse him see in the 3p view, and him as the owner of this or that particular diary. and a logician should know that this is not a paradox because Mr. You HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. It's your thought experiment and you're the one who invented the duplicating machine, but it's clear you haven't thought through what that really means. Once done the W-guy admits seeing only W and [ blah blah] There is no need for a and, you already know all you need to know. This entire exercise is about finding out what Mr. You will or will not see, if Mr. W is not Mr. You then there is no point of even asking what Mr. W sees, it's irrelevant. The fact that Bruno Marchal thinks it would be productive to ask Mr. W anything at all logically means that Bruno Marchal thinks that Mr. W is Mr. You; thus if Mr. W ALWAYS sees Washington then the probability Mr. You will see Washington is 1.0 not 0.5. Both the W-person and the M-person are the H-person, but the question was about what they can expect for there first person future, and here W M is refuted by both, and W v M is confirmed by both. Just look at was is written in the diaries. not M, and the M-guy admits having seen M, and not W. They wrote each a different letter than the doppelganger. If you iterate the experiences 10 times, only one guy among the 2^10 one will say that has the story MM. And that one guy is Mr. You. Yes, it's perfectly true that other guys have seen different sequences and those other guys are not each other, but they are all Mr. You because they all remember being the Helsinki Man even if different things have happened to them after the duplication. But so what? As I keep saying this is a very odd situation because we're not accustomed with dealing with duplicating machines, but it is NOT a logical paradox because Mr. You HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. No doubt you will come back and say that if there are difficulties in your theory the same ones exist in the MW interpretation of the 2 slit experiment but this is untrue for two reasons: 1) In the 2 slit experiment it's always crystal clear who Mr. You is, I don't see that. In Everett, if I put you in the state M+W, you are two persons in different simultaneous states. but in Bruno Marchal's thought experiment the pronouns You and he and I are thrown around like confetti (apparently Bruno just can't stop himself) without giving a single thought to who those personal pronouns refer to. On the contrary, by making clear the 1-3 difference, every references are crystal clear. And, yes, you can't predict with certainlty the unique city you will see, but that is not paradoxal. many students told me that they understood QM makes sense since they got the FPI. 2) The 2 slit experiment is about what a observer will see, Bruno's thought experiment is about the sense of self of the observer. Wrong. It is about what an observer will see. You push a button, and open a door, and note which unique city you see. ypu might even been unaware of the protocol. The majpority of copies will conclude they have no means to predict what they will see. It is an indeterminacy in a clear 3p deterministic situation, and which
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this can only create a confusion. Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Agnostic. You never know. I agree that with such a teapot, and what I believe, I would say that it highly non plausible. Yet your analogy does not work, because the notion of god is not that clear-cut. Bruno Technically I guess I'd have to say I'm a teapot agnostic but in this case the difference between the 2 words is so small it's not worth talking about. And I found another short video by Tyson that I like better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8 John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 15:47, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Tomorrow Germany plays US to prove that they're good at kicking a ball around; Go Germany! Go US! Let us hope the best is the winner! if they can't safeguard their democracy from getting legal system undermined and US intimidation, then at least they get to penetrate a fishing net with a spherical piece of cow skin, or its space age replacement nowadays, I guess... Merkel, Obama, Hollande, etc. have more allegiance to each other than to their citizens. It's naive to assume that Merkel is German of Obama is American. They are world leaders and belong to the cast of the world leaders. They feed on patriotism to act against their people. In a globalised western world, patriotism is the old strategy of divide and conquer. I can't resist sharing what my favourite comedian (American, btw) has to say about nationalism and hating immigrants: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4 He has an indoor smoking permit? In many places, smoking on stage is allowed if part of an artistic performance. I know. I need more clout in local bars. People have done all kinds of disgusting things on stage, like cut themselves and what not... my inability to do so (uhm smoke, not cut...) reflects my bad/needy/overly polite PR strategy. You've got to have some things to look forward to in life, I suppose. To infinitely higher standards and beyond, lol. ;-) PGC The people needs witches to hunt. May be we need more soccer cup! More?! Your logic here is funny. German logic is simply: If we loose, it's because the US trainer is German and the German team's World Cup trainer from 2006; who back in 2006 was the chief of German trainer today, who got the baton past down to him. So if US wins, we win because our German football algorithms are being implemented in any case Not very far from our political stance towards US, lol! PGC Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. ? Bohm added a potential obeying a quite special equation, in addition to the SWE. Bohm gave a non collapse QM, but a quite different theory than QM. That potential has to act non locally and physically. Also. (of course by Bell theorem). In fact that move mirrors the adding of primitive matter and primitive physical laws to arithmetic. In this everything-list we are supposed to dislike adding equation, or axioms, to make things judged ugly disappear. Bruno Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this hasalready been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this 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!
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:34, meekerdb wrote: On 6/25/2014 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What is a crime is often defined by religion That makes sense in primitive society, but religion might have nothing to say on the terrestrial plane. You confuse religion, and the institutionalization of religion. and it often includes questioning the priesthood and the official dogma. That is the way of bandits. If theology would have remained a science, we might have just forbid the institutionalization of any religion. Don't confuse religion and what the human do with them On the contrary, it is you who confuse mysticism with religion. Religion IS by definition an institution. You can't have a religion by yourself. You can have a philosophy and maybe even a theology by yourself - but not a religion. Religion comes from a latin root meaning to bind together. Religion is supposed to bind together people sharing experience. I agree that religion is mystic at its roots, but as you know I am large on mystical. I define it by everything a machine can produce as true, yet with some possibly high degree of non-justifiability. Consciousness can be considered has the zero mystical state, that is, the first most basic one (which many people take for granted). Then, institutionalization of a religion can develop more or less naturally, but indeed will very often be perverted into a political power. That's life. It makes not religion false, but like a forest it is fragile and can be burned by lower level, simpler but still potent, entities (like fire for forest, and lies for the mind). And some Pope gave me some confidence that Church can progress, and I have some quite good books on Plotinus written by Christians, etc. I am, as scientist, agnostic, both on god and matter, Brent. I take only the bibles, Quran and Alice in Wonderland as evidences that humans can intuit something weird and counter-intuitive. I only take seriously the theologians, and among them obviously those making sense to me, and there are many, in many culture. I read all reports of experience, a bit like I study the self-referentially correct report of the universal machine looking inward in the sense made utterly precise by Gödel and followers. I intuit something in common in all those discourse, which can protect the soul, or the first person, from easy reduction. It is an humbling sort of intuition. It can also give a metaphysical vertigo. But then Hubble's galaxies too. Awesomeness is not yet illegal, OK? Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: we are the narrators of our minds
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Yes, according to this view we are just along for the ride. One way of looking at it. However it seems to me more apt to think of ourselves as the loci of the consensus of our brain/minds; to view ourselves as the dynamic manifestation of a consensus quorum, which is the wellhead of our coming into being. We are in some sense operators as well in this neural consensus network, influencing its vast number of constituent neurons with what we feel, believe, conclude and so on. However all this “feeling”, “believing”, “concluding” is actually happening in the brain/mind and mediating through what we sense as being ourselves back through the quorum network (that I suspect is operating beneath our conscious selves) looping back to us as “doubt”, “certainty”, new thoughts or focus of attention or whatever beautiful or ugly turn our mind’s eye takes. In my view our common view of ourselves, of our “I” is incomplete. We are more than we are conscious of being and the part of ourselves, of which we are conscious – IMO -- is the narrating loci of the executive decisional consensus network that I am arguing is our actual “self”…. Even though we are unaware of the existence of by far most of its constituent activity. Chris -- 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: we are the narrators of our minds
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:47 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: we are the narrators of our minds On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:17 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To speak of thinking should first answer what is thought? If you like. But you don't have to know what thought is to know how to think. But you knew I was going to say that. If we had to know what thought was before we could learn to think effectively there would be little point to getting out of bed in the morning. Asking this particular question won't improve the kind of thinking skills I am advertising. Perhaps, but knowing how we think and even more to the point who we are helps us understand what thought is; how it forms up within us; the dynamics of how it evolves; the processes on which it is based and how it becomes influenced and how our focus moves from here to there. It helps us in thinking to know we are networked intelligences, that we emerge from the vast crackling electro-chemical chatter box of the brain. It gives us a perspective on ourselves (we are but the tip of our being) that helps us understand the modality and mechanisms of thought itself. There is the eternal question of philosophy: What is this? And there is the more useful question of the strategic thinker: What can we do with this? Just the same, great post, Chris. I find myself happening to myself all the time, like you. We ARE our minds. So, it is a natural question to want to ask. Just the same, don't hold your breath expecting an answer any time soon. It's closely, dangerously closely related to the question: I believe, instead that we are on the cusp of discovering the algorithms of our minds operating within the wetware of our brains. It is both exhilarating and terrifying (the NSA and agencies of similar nature around the world (I am certain) are throwing grant money at this area of research) What is life? The answer to that would be a fuzzy gradient... is a virus alive? It cannot reproduce without first taking over a living host so it is missing a key part of what we understand as being alive. What about all the stretches of hitchhiker DNA seemingly common across multitudes of distinct life forms (as far as I know) that has no discernable function for the host life form other than its own self replication. Would parasitical DNA, successfully replicating itself within the DNA of a host being across eons of time be a form of life? Is AI life? What about the self-replicating and also evolving electrically charged dust grains that appear to be evolving in the plasma environment of dusty places in space (such as in the rings of Saturn) and that might exist in unfathomable numbers within interstellar dust clouds. Or, better still: What is a soul? If there is a soul... we sense (or perhaps would like to believe) that we are imbued with soul, but is this an illusion? Cheers, Chris I enjoy immensely thinking about these things too and reading the musings of others about it. Kim -- 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: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:06 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Even if the cost of solar cells fell to zero it wouldn't be enough to replace fossil fuels even at today's levels much less provide enough energy to enable developing countries (the vast majority of the world) to equal or even approach the living standards found in North America and Western Europe. Even if solar cells were free you'd still need to buy lots and lots and lots of land to put those solar cells on and thousands of miles of high voltage transmission lines to take the energy from the vacant land where the solar cells are to the cities where the people live. And you'd still need expensive DC to AC converters. And you'd still need hugely expansive energy storage devices for nighttime and cloudy days. Or you'd need roofs to put them on. Even on the very brightest of days there are not enough roofs on the planet to come even close to fulfilling the current world energy demand. If we start very unpopular and expensive conservation measures we might be able to reduce that demand by 10 or 20% provided that the world's poor agree to remain poor and have fewer children. But if the people of South America and Africa and Asia have any hope of achieving the living standards we enjoy in North America and Europe we'll need at least 10 times as much energy as we use now and probably more. The fact that there is no practical way to store the electricity that solar cells make means that even under the very very best conditions solar cells NEVER work more half the time, and this isn't just a minor detail, it's a deal breaker. Rich people can afford to fantasize about solar energy and wind and bio-fuel, but poor people need something that is cheap and could actually work, and if it isn't nuclear it's going to be coal regardless of how loudly the environmentalists scream. And just how many windmills do you imagine you'd need to run a blast furnace at a steel foundry anyway? By the way I believe PVs are now being developed that work on cloudy days; At about 5% of the output you'd get on a bright day, if it wasn't too cloudy, and you were lucky. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Why is it that the same people who believe that solar energy will get a lot better in the future also believe that the nuclear reactors with 1960's technology that we all use today are as good as nuclear reactors will ever get? Simple, because nuclear reactor technology is not advancing at the geometric rate that Solar PV development technological improvement is. Even though R D spending on new fission ideas has been less than 1% of that spent on solar cells (or even more useless stuff like bio-fuel) we nevertheless now know how to make reactors that are vastly cheaper and safer and more sustainable than the Eisenhower era reactor designs we use today, but people experience a irrational fear whenever they hear the word nuclear, so designs are all we have and nothing is allowed to be actually built. It is because the nuclear sector has yet to solve the long term waste sequestration problem Engineers solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago, but lawyers have not solved it and in our society lawyers are far more important than engineers so nothing gets done. Maybe some day breeders will be able to burn up all those transuranic actinides We don't have to wait for some day, if the lawyers would let us we could burn up all those transuranic actinides right now and make useful electricity from them, after that those highly radioactive spent fuel rods that have been made in old fashioned reactors would be no more radioactive than natural Uranium ore. And a uranium reactors makes lots of transuranic actinides because Uranium 238 only needs to absorb one neutron to make Plutonium, but Thorium 232 (the only natural isotope of thorium) would need to absorb 7 neutrons to do the same thing; as a result the amounts of transuranic actinides a modern Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would produce would be almost unmeasurable. as things stand today the spent rods are sitting in tight pack configurations in SFPs all across the world And a LFTR has no fuel rods because its fuel is in liquid form. You can't have a nuclear meltdown disaster either because the fuel is supposed to be melted. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Agnostic. Is the possibility of such a orbiting teapot large enough that it would alter your behavior in any way? If not then you're a teapot atheist. You never know. Are you sure about that? Are you a never know atheist or a never know agnostic? your analogy does not work, because the notion of god is not that clear-cut. That's not important. Most intelligent educated people long ago abandoned the notion of God, the important thing is not the idea the important thing is the English word G-O-D; even though it no longer means anything people such as yourself just refuse to abandon those 3 letters if they are in that sequence. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: we are the narrators of our minds
On 6/26/2014 4:17 AM, LizR wrote: Yes, according to this view we are just along for the ride. Isn't that going to be true of any model that explains us in terms of something simpler we can understand, whether it's strings or arithmetic? It seems that the only kind of explanation people intuititively like is one that makes them mysterious. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/26/2014 6:10 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Spot on, Liz. Actually, we can consider both or either to be such fictions, in terms of their mutual reducibility to some (exhaustive and assumptively irreducible) basement level (string, anyone?). My point is that the fundamental tenet of any 3p reductionism is bottom-up all the way down. If that leads to inconvenient consequences (not to mention a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance) don't blame me, blame the assumptions. I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 6/26/2014 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this can only create a confusion. Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Agnostic. You never know. I agree that with such a teapot, and what I believe, I would say that it highly non plausible. Yet your analogy does not work, because the notion of god is not that clear-cut. Exactly what I said, that your distinction between atheist and agnostic, /I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference./ was to simplistic, because it depends on the meaning of g. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
PGC, Brent, et all (Liz? with Dawkins quoted) - the word is *GOD-LIKE * what I object to. Like WHAT god of the past 20,000 years? the one imagined as the Big Baer, or the 'author' behind the Abrahamic Scripture, or Bruno's Univ. Machine? The Greek socials, or the Nordish brutes? I missed Bruno's definition of atheist and agnostic and my own is poorly formulated. I THINK (my) *atheist* (I) is *not to include* a human-like person as a factor for the 'creation' etc., *with *human attributes and deficiencies, rather leaving it to *Nature(?*) to evolve as it goes. *Agnostic*, however, is a person (me) who BELIEVES that the Everything includes lots of unknown and still unknowable items in unknowable qualia and relations beyond any inventory we so far ever assembled about *Her*. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to Conscience Mécanisme I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference. It's more complicated than that. It depends on what you mean by g. Is it the god of theism, who is a person who created the world, answers prayers, and judges humans in an afterlife. Or is it the god of deism who created the world but doesn't act in it. Or is it one of the gods of mystics who is a principle or nature or an unnameable and unknowable something. Literally atheist is one who is not a theist, one who fails to believe in the god of theism. Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist because he believed in the god of deism. This use with Jefferson as example is particular. Atheism in most contexts is more broad, roughly the sense belief in non-existence of god/deities; where the kind of god matters less. Unless of course, this is some kind of US linguistic use/habbit or domain bound jargon. But if this is how you've always understood the term, then this explains why we've disagreed here before. ~[]g and []~g is independent of the kind of g. PGC 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. -- 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 - SPACE
Who knows. Youmay be correct. I may be correct. Maybe we will find out one day. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell? The universe is not a shell. Rather it is a toroid that turns in on itself such that radiation can go around the entire universe but not escape from it. What lies beyond the universe is the Metaverse which contains a number of similar universe. Read all about the metaverse here: http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard I just answered your second question. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-) If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. Unless I missed it, you haven't answered my question about why we don't observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe. -- 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: Selecting your future branch
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: We use the usual sense of self defined by the yes doctor. Nobody does that, even you don't do that to define yourself except when you're arguing philosophy on the internet. ? ! We use that all the time. I do it just now to reply to you. As I said, even you don't do that to define yourself, except when you're arguing philosophy on the internet. There is no choice, if probability is to be derived its got to be iterated, and no matter how often you iterate it Mr. You ALWAYS sees Moscow only AND Mr. You ALWAYS sees Washington only; This contradicts 2^n - 1 diaries It most certainly does NOT, because MR. YOU HAS BEEN DUPLICATED! The W-john Clark will be force to change its mind, Only if John Clark is a dimwit, I don't think he is but opinions vary. unless he confuse him [...] Quotation marks don't help, who the hell is Mr. Him ? him as the owner of this or that particular diary. Then Mr. Him is not the same as Mr. You, the original question was about Mr. You so why even talk to Mr. Him. Both the W-person and the M-person are the H-person, Yes, but the W-person is not the M-person. In the 2 slit experiment it's always crystal clear who Mr. You is, I don't see that. In Everett, if I put you in the state M+W [...] That's a cool superpower you have there, but how do I know it's real? You claim to have done something spectacular but I still only see one person around here that looks like me, that's why in everyday life personal pronouns cause no problems and never will until duplicating machines are actually invented. you can't Who can't? predict with certainlty the unique city you will see The city who will see? The 2 slit experiment is about what a observer will see, Bruno's thought experiment is about the sense of self of the observer. Wrong. It is about what an observer will see. You push a button, and open a door, and note which unique city you see Wrong. What the observer sees changes the sense of self, seeing Moscow is the one and only thing that changed the Helsinki man into the Moscow man and is the only thing that differentiates him from the Washington man, he saw a different city. Not that predictions are of the slightest importance in this matter but if we're talking about the Helsinki Man (aka the man currently seeing Helsinki) and the Helsinki Man is destroyed after the duplication then the correct prediction about what the Helsinki Man will see would obviously be absolutely nothing. that would contradict step one, and step 0, which you have accepted. Fortunately I've long ago forgotten what step 0 is but if Mr. Helsinki is the guy currently seeing Helsinki and you destroy the guy currently seeing Helsinki then obviously Mr. Helsinki is now seeing absolutely nothing, although Mr. You is doing just fine and is seeing Washington AND Moscow. If on the other hand we're talking about what Mr. You will see (and yes from Mr. You's first person perspective) then the correct prediction would be Moscow AND Washington and perhaps Helsinki. Not from the 1-view. The? Who's 1-view? I do provides the nuances needed (notably the 1/3 distinction) to avoid any ambiguity. Then why is Bruno Marchal so addicted to personal pronouns, why is Bruno Marchal incapable of expressing a single idea without the liberal use of them? And as I explained Bruno Marchal must already believe that both Mr. M and Mr. W are both Mr. You, otherwise there would be no point in interviewing them. Yes. this has been clear all long, and makes my point. That is why we have to interview them both. That makes no sense. If you want to answer the question are there any red marbles in this black bag? and you reach into the bad and pull out a red marble then it is not necessary to reach in again to answer the question. If the Moscow Man is Mr. You then the probability Mr. You will see Moscow is 1.0, and if the Moscow Man is not Mr. You then there is no point in asking him about anything. making them impossible to predict which one in particular, they will actually see. Which one?? Beforehand there is only one. The Moscow Man only becomes the Moscow Man when he sees Moscow, before that he was the Helsinki Man, therefore I predict the Moscow Man will be the Moscow Man. I'll bet my prediction will turn out to be correct. And if you ask I'll give you my prediction about the Washington man. Mr. You has written W in Mr. You's diary AND Mr. You has written M in Mr. You's diary; and if you don't believe me I can prove it, both diaries are right here. Exactly. It makes my point. None write W and M. Absolutely false, Mr. You wrote W and M plane as day and I've got the diaries to prove it. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts of the perception and cognition we are seeking to explain; no doubt, in the best cases (e.g. computation), of great generality and power, but nonetheless, ex hypothesi, incapable of adding anything effective to the bottom-up ontological hierarchy. If so, we seem to have arrived at the position of attempting to found the aetiology of perception and cognition on nothing more than its own fictions! But since these fictions immediately degenerate, ontologically speaking, to the basement level, it should be apparent that they are capable of offering rather less independent ontological support than the smile of the Cheshire Cat. David -- 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: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/26/2014 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote: This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM. 1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation. Bohm gave it a certain interpretation different from Bohr's, but mathematically they must be the same. ? Bohm added a potential obeying a quite special equation, in addition to the SWE. It's not in addition. He just divided the SWE into an amplitude and phase part. The quantum potential term just comes from the solution of the amplitude part. http://www.nhcue.edu.tw/~jinnliu/proj/Device/BP.pdf Bohm gave a non collapse QM, but a quite different theory than QM. But it's non-collapse because he supposed that particles have some initial distribution and then follow the guiding field to definite events. That potential has to act non locally and physically. Also. (of course by Bell theorem). In fact that move mirrors the adding of primitive matter and primitive physical laws to arithmetic. In this everything-list we are supposed to dislike adding equation, or axioms, to make things judged ugly disappear. Hmmm. I didn't know we had a dogma? Brent Bruno Brent 2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand up). EI gives rise to a Level 1 multiverse which makes the MWI's multiverse redundant, in a sense. 3. It DOESN'T explain how the universe formed spontaneously from nothing, however! It explains how a patch of false vacuum or whatever which obeys the Wheeler-deWitt equation could have generated an expanding space-time, and given 2. there is no need for anything to appear from nothing - we have a steady state cosmos, on the largest scale. On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been discussed here or not. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/ed7ed0f304a3 -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 27 June 2014 06:51, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Agnostic. Is the possibility of such a orbiting teapot large enough that it would alter your behavior in any way? If not then you're a teapot atheist. Surely Atheist means 100% sure, so 99.9% is still agnostic? As long as you've stated that you are only very slightly uncertain, you've stated your position anyway so the label's (kind of) irrelevant. You never know. Are you sure about that? Are you a never know atheist or a never know agnostic? Never know is agnosticism. Sure that X is untrue is atheism. your analogy does not work, because the notion of god is not that clear-cut. That's not important. Most intelligent educated people long ago abandoned the notion of God, the important thing is not the idea the important thing is the English word G-O-D; even though it no longer means anything people such as yourself just refuse to abandon those 3 letters if they are in that sequence. Could still be a useful concept, e.g. in godlike intelligence (see above). -- 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: we are the narrators of our minds
On 6/26/2014 9:28 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR Yes, according to this view we are just along for the ride. One way of looking at it. However it seems to me more apt to think of ourselves as the loci of the consensus of our brain/minds; to view ourselves as the dynamic manifestation of a consensus quorum, which is the wellhead of our coming into being. We are in some sense operators as well in this neural consensus network, influencing its vast number of constituent neurons with what we feel, believe, conclude and so on. However all this “feeling”, “believing”, “concluding” is actually happening in the brain/mind and mediating through what we sense as being ourselves back through the quorum network (that I suspect is operating beneath our conscious selves) looping back to us as “doubt”, “certainty”, new thoughts or focus of attention or whatever beautiful or ugly turn our mind’s eye takes. In my view our common view of ourselves, of our “I” is incomplete. We are more than we are conscious of being and the part of ourselves, of which we are conscious – IMO -- is the narrating loci of the executive decisional consensus network that I am arguing is our actual “self”…. Even though we are unaware of the existence of by far most of its constituent activity. I quite agree. Conscious thought is only a small part of our thinking in the more general sense of information processing, problem solving,... It seems to be the part associated with language and visualization. If I were designing a Mars rover and I provided it with memories to use in learning I would want to filter out the rovers sensor data and store it only succinct chunks that can be easily found by association. And I'd only want to store one that indicated something different, something the rover didn't already know. So I'd have it continually look at new data and compare it with what it would have predicted based on old data. Only new data that was not easily predicted would get filed in memory. I think this would instantiate consciousness in the rover. Of course this could be at different levels depending on how much the rover itself was in its predictive models. It might be only aware of it's position, temperature, battery charge,... Or is might also be aware of its relation to JPL, its predictive algorithms, its learning algorithms, 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: Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought
Interesting hypothesis with major implications if he is correct. Read more at: Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than t... (Phys.org) —Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland has captured the attention of the physics community by posting an article to the peer-... View on phys.org Preview by Yahoo -- 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 - SPACE
On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't make it a fiction. If our perceptions and cognition are successfully modeled by some theory whose ontology is atoms or arithmetic, then that is reason to give some credence to that ontology. But I see no reason to say the perceptions and cognitions are now untrue and useless as a basis for inference simply because they are derivative in some successful model? Brent of the perception and cognition we are seeking to explain; no doubt, in the best cases (e.g. computation), of great generality and power, but nonetheless, ex hypothesi, incapable of adding anything effective to the bottom-up ontological hierarchy. If so, we seem to have arrived at the position of attempting to found the aetiology of perception and cognition on nothing more than its own fictions! But since these fictions immediately degenerate, ontologically speaking, to the basement level, it should be apparent that they are capable of offering rather less independent ontological support than the smile of the Cheshire Cat. David -- 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/26/2014 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:23, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this can only create a confusion. Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Agnostic. You never know. I agree that with such a teapot, and what I believe, I would say that it highly non plausible. Yet your analogy does not work, because the notion of god is not that clear-cut. Exactly what I said, that your distinction between atheist and agnostic, *I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that difference.* was to simplistic, because it depends on the meaning of g. One property of g here, independent of cultural/spiritual background, is transcendence. If your g is not at least transcendent, then why are we even employing the category or talking this way? So g is not justifiable, which is why this is not overly simplistic/bound to modal logic exclusively, but appropriate to describe even the confusion that leads to this discussion. Most agnostics I suppose, would even weaken ~[]g, and admit we don't even know that. But that some transcendent principle g is provably negated (note my post on the Greek root; just inversion of θεότης with negating prefix ἀ) with no partial tricks; is what makes []~g unconvincing. Like how can you negate the existence of something that by definition, you don't understand? So sure, you can take ~[]g too literally, not decide anything and die of thirst/starvation ;-) But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational, and I think Neil Degrasse Tyson, based on his reasoning and terms in the Atheist/Agnostic video linked above, would agree. PGC 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.
Re: American Intelligence
Richard, sure. But the laws are not evenly enforced and the IRS has admitted that this was done. Its not a matter of opinion, but a matter of what actions were done. The IRS was just ordered to pay the American Family Association for violation of the enforcement regulation by a fine of 50,000. I apologize ahead for this by presenting this news item, but it looks like the folks that side with the president have spiked, coverage, of this settlement. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/24/irs-agrees-to-5-settlement-in-leaking-conservative-group-donor-records/ You do not seem to realize that it is illegal for any group to be tax exempt if they are political. Richard -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 2:00 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Richard, that's a one to many situation you have dug up. The audits by IRS against conservatives are deliberate and politically motivated. Your side is out to defeat it's political enemies, just as Nixon tried to so many years ago. Spud, You do not seem to realize that it is illegal for any group to be tax exempt if they are political. Richard http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/irs-tea-party-conservative-groups-scandal-now-center-19182163 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/irs-gave-progressives-a-pass-tea-party-groups-put-on-hold/2159983/ The FBI used by BHO and company- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/doj-fox-news-james-rosen_n_3307422.html http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0520/Obama-administration-targets-Fox-News-reporter-in-chilling-echo-of-AP-probe-video NSA Spying on everyone, especially Americans- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/30/no-more-nsa-spying-obama-not-true https://www.aclu.org/secure/sem-reclaim-your-privacy-stand-aclu-today?s_src=UNW140001SEMms=gad_SEM_Google_Search-VerizonNSA_na_national%20security%20agency%20spying_b_42474621982 Militarizing of US Federal Agencies? Why does EPA or USDA need a SWAT team? Who are these teams and weapons and ammo being saved for, a Bolivian invasion? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments# http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-21/why-is-the-post-office-buying-bullets My comments were cause and effect, Richard, and not howling emotions. I used to be a Democrat, till I feared for US survival. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:24 am Subject: Re: American Intelligence Spud: Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. RR: Untrue. As of last year the only org to lose their tax exempt status was a liberal org from Maine http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/ On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:11 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence, as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with a feeling. This is years of observing the actions of your side. It's purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say to each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the president and his loyal press cannot bury. Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. Its' the use of the FBI, deliberately, ordered to spy on a conservative report for Fox. It's the enormous expansion of the NSA and its spying capabilities, It's also the spiking of news by all the presidents' loyal press, which gets first reported on, say, Fox, and then after the elections, the news comes out anyways, because they can no longer look good to themselves, psychologically. What I am speaking about is the Benghazi cover up, which got 4 people killed, when our fearless leader could have saved them. Motivations for not acting? Military action would weakened support from his fellow, lib voters, for the 2012 election, and also, and this is just my guess, he was rocking the ganj in the whitehouse with some girfriend. Look to Michelle's quietude, to Hillary Clinton's quietude, to Jacqueline Kennedy's quietude on marital dalliances, as a solid history. I suppose sex in the whitehouse has some charm for some women. My point is BHO didn't want to be
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:51:51AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2014, at 17:55, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Dr. Marchal, do you ever get in conversations with your fellow academician, Clement Vidal? He's a philosopher at your University? Do you ever get into the Evo-Devo view? I don't know him. I don't know Evo-Devo view. You might say more on this perhaps. He's an ALife guy. I've seen him at some of the conferences. Other than that, I don't know much about him. He's googlable, of course. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
Sure, but if one is pushed to try to put out fires that progressives are lighting around the world, and, or enabling jihadists to do so, one can develop the Manichean attitude. It's unwise to light fires during a dry spell and this is what progressives do, because its how they feel. Or feel is right. I could fly into a rage, or pretend to, and shriek, how dare you typify me as a tea bagger..yadda yadda yadda. But it clarifies nothing and presents no way forward. I am just presenting news items from the US presidents own troops, the mainstream media, who find it difficult to ignore some of the things he's fowled up. To his view, nothings wrong, nothings broken, its all good. Now that is a point of beliefs, ideologies, and values. I don't think his side see's this as negotiable, so hence the Manichean bilateralism. Comrade Stalin was fascinating, historically in the same sense that the bubonic plague was. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 9:19 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:56 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Perchance! I have just observed, on occasions, your points of view and it adds up to the progressive mind set, more or less. The act of your deciding that I have a more or less progressive mindset leads you to conclude that I therefore hate America or some such silly Tea Party labeling of all who do not conform to the Tea Party line. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. Chris Feel free at any time to define your own positions that diverge from all that. As for what goes on in the world, in mine own land yet, this kind of thing, brought forth from the left has sort of messed things up here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html There's also this- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/obama-nsa-spying_n_5028736.html and this- http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/20/nation/la-na-fbi-reporter-20130521 and this of course- http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/meast/iraq-photos-isis/ and this too- http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/u-s-economy-contracted-almost-3-percent-first-quarter-n140336 The political cards do not now auger well for the US now, and sad to say, even under Bush 43, things did not seem as gloomy. Look at the economy and now the politics in France under Hollande, the US president's brother, so to speak. Neither guys are pragmatists and both ideologues, of the neo-Marxist persuasion. Neomarx don't seem to work well except for the very rich and very poor. A pragmatist would know better. As far as defining you, just remember the great, French philosopher, Jacque Derida who invented desconstructionism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction Zoot! Alours! Trifle with me, and I shall deconstruct you a-gain! Mon Deiu! Whose side is my side? A-hole you don’t know me yet you feel you have some kind of entitlement to define me. Do you have a God complex perchance? -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:53 pm Subject: RE: American Intelligence From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence, as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with a feeling. This is years of observing the actions of your side. Whose side is my side? A-hole you don’t know me yet you feel you have some kind of entitlement to define me. Do you have a God complex perchance? It's purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say to each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the president and his loyal press cannot bury. Specifically, it's the use of auditing conservative groups, using the US IRS, and never, not once, auditing liberal groups; and this by the admission of the heads of the IRS. More BS – as others have shown. And as I can see from
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:05:55PM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: For me, your analogy (which has been heard before of course) is simple to satisfy. The Peoples Republic of China, upon hearing John Clark's philosophical challenge, and diverts its lunar rover to the planet Uranus. All this to the chagrin of Mr. Clark, who yell's Not fair! Never the less, the space probe deposits a Ming dynasty teapot into lagrangian orbit. Clark's screams, and condition satisfied. Here's another way looking at things, to Mr. Aquinas's displeasure. There are many minds in the Hubble Volume, one of them is God, and it is the smartest and oldest mind. In fact this mind, developed the universe into a place that is occasionally fit for types of life, one of them carbon-water life. Say hello to God, Mr. Clark. Or to quote, Richard Dawkins, Yes, I can imagine there are god-like intelligences in the universe. Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Sure. All three. Technically, those are demigods, of course. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
Indeed, Professor, like Hercules, but gods are a higher paygrade, and have tenure. Still, it would be interesting to have a chat with the purported mind that created or altered all this region. Advice would be nice, perhaps a tweet now and then? Technically, those are demigods, of course. -Original Message- From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 8:46 pm Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:05:55PM -0400, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: For me, your analogy (which has been heard before of course) is simple to satisfy. The Peoples Republic of China, upon hearing John Clark's philosophical challenge, and diverts its lunar rover to the planet Uranus. All this to the chagrin of Mr. Clark, who yell's Not fair! Never the less, the space probe deposits a Ming dynasty teapot into lagrangian orbit. Clark's screams, and condition satisfied. Here's another way looking at things, to Mr. Aquinas's displeasure. There are many minds in the Hubble Volume, one of them is God, and it is the smartest and oldest mind. In fact this mind, developed the universe into a place that is occasionally fit for types of life, one of them carbon-water life. Say hello to God, Mr. Clark. Or to quote, Richard Dawkins, Yes, I can imagine there are god-like intelligences in the universe. Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Sure. All three. Technically, those are demigods, of course. -- 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. -- 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: American Intelligence
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:44 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Sure, but if one is pushed to try to put out fires that progressives are lighting around the world, What fires are progressives starting. Did progressives lead America in the Iraq war debacle that has bankrupted this country (thre trillion dollars and counting) Or was that war begun by neocons in the Bush administration -- using the self same clash of civilizations rhetoric you employ all the time. The same goes for the American war in Afghanistan. Who was it begun by? Under what administration? and, or enabling jihadists to do so, one can develop the Manichean attitude. How exactly are progressives enabling jihadists? You almost make us sound traitorous -- employing the typical rhetoric of war mongering folk. It's unwise to light fires during a dry spell and this is what progressives do, because its how they feel. More BS -- the big recent wars (the ones that have resulted in by far most death and injury and that have drained the US treasury were all begun under the Bush administration. Or feel is right. I could fly into a rage, or pretend to, and shriek, how dare you typify me as a tea bagger..yadda yadda yadda. I think it is pretty evident why I typify you as a Tea bagger -- your rhetoric comes straight out of their playbook.. Cheers, Chris -- 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: we are the narrators of our minds
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb On 6/26/2014 9:28 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Yes, according to this view we are just along for the ride. One way of looking at it. However it seems to me more apt to think of ourselves as the loci of the consensus of our brain/minds; to view ourselves as the dynamic manifestation of a consensus quorum, which is the wellhead of our coming into being. We are in some sense operators as well in this neural consensus network, influencing its vast number of constituent neurons with what we feel, believe, conclude and so on. However all this “feeling”, “believing”, “concluding” is actually happening in the brain/mind and mediating through what we sense as being ourselves back through the quorum network (that I suspect is operating beneath our conscious selves) looping back to us as “doubt”, “certainty”, new thoughts or focus of attention or whatever beautiful or ugly turn our mind’s eye takes. In my view our common view of ourselves, of our “I” is incomplete. We are more than we are conscious of being and the part of ourselves, of which we are conscious – IMO -- is the narrating loci of the executive decisional consensus network that I am arguing is our actual “self”…. Even though we are unaware of the existence of by far most of its constituent activity. I quite agree. Conscious thought is only a small part of our thinking in the more general sense of information processing, problem solving,... It seems to be the part associated with language and visualization. I agree – and one reason I like the term “narrator”. It seems to me that the evolution of sophisticated language processing in our species will be found to be linked with the rise of a self-aware aspect of our much larger minds that has perhaps gone far beyond its original purpose of being the focus of the linguistic stream. Perhaps having a multitude of competing voices in the head just drove people mad… schizophrenics suffer from this. Perhaps – unlike say the considerable amount of processing done on the various sensorial streams in order to reify them into our experience of reality, all of which is efficiently performed in a highly parallelized fashion – evolution arrived at the understanding that the language center of the mind had to represent the (wide area) networked consensus of the whole. Or perhaps language hooked into pre-existing decisional areas and for this reason is so closely linked to the sensation we experience as being ourselves. But it seems evident to me that our minds are engaged in a long running daily conversation with themselves… the internal dialog. Hard to write a single sentence without the act being accompanied by an internal dialog. I can think of non-verbal thoughts much more easily without engaging this inner voice in producing the narration of my mind… for example musical or visual thinking (even of a technical nature too.. like a blueprint) As soon as the mode of thought involves language the narration center of my mind spins up and the words appear (as if “I” had thought them up out of thin air) If I were designing a Mars rover and I provided it with memories to use in learning I would want to filter out the rovers sensor data and store it only succinct chunks that can be easily found by association. Agreed, and I believe much of what the brain is doing is dumping unimportant stuff (or what the mind’s decisional algorithms decide is unimportant) from the in-coming sensorial stream in order to render in higher definition that which the quorum based decisional algorithms decide is of higher order importance for the individual entities survival. Our minds filter out stuff to an outstanding degree, especially when we are engaged in some task. Experiments, for example with test subjects engaged in complex two order tasks (where they must pay attention to say both the shape and the color of randomly appearing objects in various locations of their screen of view) that show a surprising number of individuals being functionally blind during these tests (where they are highly focused on the task) to men dressed in gorilla suits walking clearly through their field of view. And I'd only want to store one that indicated something different, something the rover didn't already know. So I'd have it continually look at new data and compare it with what it would have predicted based on old data. Only new data that was not easily predicted would get filed in memory. Nice compression strategy. Reducing the search space and the noise level is especially important when dealing with vast amounts of incoming data in near real time mode. I think this would instantiate consciousness in the rover. I think
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational If you read it as In every possible world g is false and g=Some God, it's irrational (unless g entails a contradiction). But that isn't atheism. An atheist says g doesn't exist and that's prefectly rational if g=Yaweh or g=Zeus or g=Baal or... Which is why I said it depends on g. If g is some mystic unifying principle then I'm agnostic about g. If g is some vain despotic theist god, then I'm an atheist about g. 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: American Intelligence
Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Sure, but if one is pushed to try to put out fires that progressives are lighting around the world, and, or enabling jihadists to do so, one can develop the Manichean attitude. It's unwise to light fires during a dry spell and this is what progressives do, because its how they feel. Or feel is right. I could fly into a rage, or pretend to, and shriek, how dare you typify me as a tea bagger..yadda yadda yadda. But it clarifies nothing and presents no way forward. I am just presenting news items from the US presidents own troops, the mainstream media, who find it difficult to ignore some of the things he's fowled up. To his view, nothings wrong, nothings broken, its all good. Now that is a point of beliefs, ideologies, and values. I don't think his side see's this as negotiable, so hence the Manichean bilateralism. Comrade Stalin was fascinating, historically in the same sense that the bubonic plague was. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 9:19 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence -- *From:* spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:56 PM *Subject:* Re: American Intelligence Perchance! I have just observed, on occasions, your points of view and it adds up to the progressive mind set, more or less. The act of your deciding that I have a more or less progressive mindset leads you to conclude that I therefore hate America or some such silly Tea Party labeling of all who do not conform to the Tea Party line. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. Chris Feel free at any time to define your own positions that diverge from all that. As for what goes on in the world, in mine own land yet, this kind of thing, brought forth from the left has sort of messed things up here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html There's also this- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/obama-nsa-spying_n_5028736.html and this- http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/20/nation/la-na-fbi-reporter-20130521 and this of course- http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/meast/iraq-photos-isis/ and this too- http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/u-s-economy-contracted-almost-3-percent-first-quarter-n140336 The political cards do not now auger well for the US now, and sad to say, even under Bush 43, things did not seem as gloomy. Look at the economy and now the politics in France under Hollande, the US president's brother, so to speak. Neither guys are pragmatists and both ideologues, of the neo-Marxist persuasion. Neomarx don't seem to work well except for the very rich and very poor. A pragmatist would know better. As far as defining you, just remember the great, French philosopher, Jacque Derida who invented desconstructionism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction Zoot! Alours! Trifle with me, and I shall deconstruct you a-gain! Mon Deiu! Whose side is my side? A-hole you don’t know me yet you feel you have some kind of entitlement to define me. Do you have a God complex perchance? -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:53 pm Subject: RE: American Intelligence *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com?] No, its not a psychological thing. A psychological thing would be avoidence, as in ignoring what people say and do and just going with a feeling. This is years of observing the actions of your side. Whose side is my side? A-hole you don’t know me yet you feel you have some kind of entitlement to define me. Do you have a God complex perchance? It's purely, observing speeches and behavior, and borrowing from old, Claude Shannon (who worked for the OSS from 1942-45) you observe what people say to each other, of their own persuasion, and also what they do not say. For example, in my country, there is now a big scandal, that the
Re: we are the narrators of our minds
On 6/26/2014 8:28 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Given enough parallelism and time (between reboots) to evolve and build a memory, I suspect a ghost would eventually emerge within the robot (given enough processing depth and breadth), as… at some fuzzy threshold it began to develop some analogue of the brain’s mirror neurons. I am quite certain that this is what DARPA is now trying to do…. To build intelligent self-aware, self-learning machines. ...and give them weapons. OOPS! 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: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. Cheers, Chris -- 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: American Intelligence
On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 27 June 2014 10:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't make it a fiction. If our perceptions and cognition are successfully modeled by some theory whose ontology is atoms or arithmetic, then that is reason to give some credence to that ontology. But I see no reason to say the perceptions and cognitions are now untrue and useless as a basis for inference simply because they are derivative in some successful model? Well my original phrase was *convenient* fiction and it was only intended to be considered relevant in a context of what is and isn't fundamental / primitive. Obviously the convenient fictions ARE very convenient, for example I prefer to be thought of as Liz rather than a collection of 10^24 atoms (or an infinite sheaf of computations as the case may be). -- 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: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. No doubt that is the plan to balkanize the Middle East and propel it into bloody ethnic and sectarian tribalism; wonder about the blowback though. War breeds monsters – it really does; this stuff will not be so easily contained as some may believe. And it really also depends on a clear statement of what is truly in our national interest versus certain sectors private interests. Can we continue to afford the trillions of dollars that our nation has been bleeding when our infrastructure is collapsing and our children keep falling further and further behind? What is really in the interest of America should be building a strong and prosperous America – first and foremost. And how would you measure their morality? Morality is a tricky subject for sure, but the degree of murderous intolerance of those Wahabi/Salafi dogs of war qualifies them for the docket in a war crimes court of law. The world should get some isolated piece of desert somewhere and set it aside for all the various crusaders, jihadists and so forth to go have it at each other – with clubs, knives and chains. It would be a form of beneficial Darwinism, and help the survival of our species to have the dogs of war kill each other off utilizing primitive weapons that would not do collateral harm. As a teenager I lived and witnessed the reality of what war does to people.. and lived through the total collapse of a country; that experience has marked my life and evolution as a person. I am opposed to war; it should remain a last resort option. Almost always, in almost all circumstances there exist better ways of achieving acceptable outcomes. 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.
Re: American Intelligence
On 6/26/2014 9:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: The world should get some isolated piece of desert somewhere and set it aside for all the various crusaders, jihadists and so forth to go have it at each other – with clubs, knives and chains. Let's call it Mesopotamia - home of the three great theist religions. 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: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 8:34 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational If you read it as In every possible world g is false and g=Some God, it's irrational (unless g entails a contradiction). But that isn't atheism. An atheist says g doesn't exist and that's prefectly rational if g=Yaweh or g=Zeus or g=Baal or... Which is why I said it depends on g. If g is some mystic unifying principle then I'm agnostic about g. If g is some vain despotic theist god, then I'm an atheist about g. Nicely put distinction between… degrees of ‘g’s 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.
RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 9:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: The world should get some isolated piece of desert somewhere and set it aside for all the various crusaders, jihadists and so forth to go have it at each other – with clubs, knives and chains. Let's call it Mesopotamia - home of the three great theist religions. Hehe… okay, but then shouldn’t it be called Abrahamia. Also – on an aside, got to give copyright dues to Persian Zoroastrianism that provided a lot of the dogma scaffolding for the later Abrahamic monotheisms. 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.
