Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 7/10/2014 10:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 11 juil. 2014 02:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 7/10/2014 5:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's my example and ex hypothesi they do go through the same states, they're just *about* different things. Either both are the same computation and goes through the same state computing the same thing But same thing is ambiguous. They may both compute 2.76 but in one case I know it means degrees Kelvin and in the other it's parts-per-million. I don't care what the computation means to you. And I don't care what you assert without support. If they go through the same states, they're the same computation. OK, they can't be conscious of anything on pain of ambiguity. What you do or not with the output if any is of no concern for that. In which case I'm the external world providing the referents. In case of a conscious computation, it is it that provides the meaning. OK, was it conscious of computing a temperature or a density? 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
2014-07-11 8:10 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/10/2014 10:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 11 juil. 2014 02:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 7/10/2014 5:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's my example and ex hypothesi they do go through the same states, they're just *about* different things. Either both are the same computation and goes through the same state computing the same thing But same thing is ambiguous. They may both compute 2.76 but in one case I know it means degrees Kelvin and in the other it's parts-per-million. I don't care what the computation means to you. And I don't care what you assert without support. What ??? A computation compute weither you ascribe meaning to its ouput (if any)... So it's you who are asserting false thing without any support. If they go through the same states, they're the same computation. OK, they can't be conscious of anything on pain of ambiguity. What you do or not with the output if any is of no concern for that. In which case I'm the external world providing the referents. In case of a conscious computation, it is it that provides the meaning. OK, was it conscious of computing a temperature or a density? Ask it !! Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
2014-07-11 8:48 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/10/2014 11:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-07-11 8:10 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 7/10/2014 10:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 11 juil. 2014 02:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit : On 7/10/2014 5:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: It's my example and ex hypothesi they do go through the same states, they're just *about* different things. Either both are the same computation and goes through the same state computing the same thing But same thing is ambiguous. They may both compute 2.76 but in one case I know it means degrees Kelvin and in the other it's parts-per-million. I don't care what the computation means to you. And I don't care what you assert without support. What ??? A computation compute weither you ascribe meaning to its ouput (if any)... So it's you who are asserting false thing without any support. If they go through the same states, they're the same computation. OK, they can't be conscious of anything on pain of ambiguity. What you do or not with the output if any is of no concern for that. In which case I'm the external world providing the referents. In case of a conscious computation, it is it that provides the meaning. OK, was it conscious of computing a temperature or a density? Ask it !! Per your version of CMT it must give the same answer in either case. ?? What ??? No my version of the CTM (it's not mine, it's just your version is not CTM at all, I even wonder if you actually know what a program is and how a computer works) for a conscious program it's that it is it that gives meaning to its input (weither internal or external). If it calls a subprogram in a context of computing a temperature it will certainly ascribe temperature meaning, it it calls it in a context of counting appless, it will ascribe a counting value of apples... You're totally non-sensical here. Quentin 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 11 July 2014 17:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2014 10:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 July 2014 06:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2014 12:59 AM, LizR wrote: Without claiming to be a wiser head, I will still say that you don't use 747s in a green economy! You use airships... And you reduce air traffic by getting almost everyone to telecommute. The trouble with airships is that they slow and they can't handle bad weather. The Shenandoah and the Akron were destroyed stormy weather within 3yrs of being built. The Macon suffered a structural failure mainly due to a design fault. Only the Los Angeles, of the Navy's big airships, served eight years and was decommissioned. The Los Angeles was built by Zepplin and it took 81 hrs to fly from Germany to New Jersey. The Hindenburg, which was the same size but used hydrogen instead of helium for buoyancy, had a crew of 61 and carried 36 passengers. So a ticket was very expensive. Is this still true of airships built using modern technology? I'm sure there are improvements, but I think those two problems remain. It's obvious that large airship will be hard to control in a storm and they can't fly over them like airliners. They're not going to be much faster, so long distance flights will still require a lot of food and water and passenger support with lot fewer turn arounds per week - so the cost much go up proportionately. This is true, however I think a green economy should not involve a lot of passenger air travel by any method. -- 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports to show that computation still exists with minimal or zero physical activity - it evaucates the physics and keeps the computation. For heaven's sake, Brent! This is what you originally said to Liz. What you're referring to is Maudlin's argument. It's the *opposite* of my understanding of the MGA, which seeks to show how physical action can be preserved unchanged even in cases where the original computational relations have been completely disrupted. I spent several paragraphs describing this with additional examples. You then commented this with I agree with all you wrote, which led to some further discussion based (as I thought) on this understanding. Your comment above now leaves me hopelessly confused. I would be grateful if you would review our recent discussion and clarify what you do or do not agree with in my analysis. 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.
Fwd: [SSE] Call for Papers - May 2015 conference in Europe
FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: ncabre...@yahoo.com [SSE] s...@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM Subject: [SSE] Call for Papers - May 2015 conference in Europe To: s...@yahoogroups.com International Congress of Conscientiology (Consciousness Science)ICC 2015 Promoting a multidimensional paradigm for the study of the consciousness The http://www.iacworld.org/ is pleased to announce the first *International Congress of Conscientiology (ICC)*, to be held at the IAC Research Campus in the beautiful country area of Alentejo, Portugal, from *22nd to 24th of May 2015*. This congress shall serve as a global forum for an open exchange and debate on study and research centered upon the consciousness. http://icc.iacworld.org/the-icc/submitting-papers/ __._,_.___ -- Posted by: ncabre...@yahoo.com -- Reply via web post https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SSE/conversations/messages/9638;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaWM1Z285BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Mjk3NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MjY3MgRtc2dJZAM5NjM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTQwNTA2NDQ5OQ--?act=replymessageNum=9638 • Reply to sender ncabre...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20Call%20for%20Papers%20-%20May%202015%20conference%20in%20Europe • Reply to group s...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Call%20for%20Papers%20-%20May%202015%20conference%20in%20Europe • Start a New Topic https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SSE/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZXVoOTM4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Mjk3NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MjY3MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0MDUwNjQ0OTk- • Messages in this topic https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SSE/conversations/topics/9638;_ylc=X3oDMTM1MHBwOGI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Mjk3NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MjY3MgRtc2dJZAM5NjM4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTQwNTA2NDQ5OQR0cGNJZAM5NjM4 (1) Visit Your Group https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SSE/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYzdxcWZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1Mjk3NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MjY3MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MDUwNjQ0OTk- [image: Yahoo! Groups] https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZGw4MGZlBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE1Mjk3NTgyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4MjY3MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQwNTA2NDQ5OQ-- • Privacy https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html • Unsubscribe sse-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe • Terms of Use https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/ . __,_._,___ -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
Normally I avoid trolling but I can't stop myself mentioning that Kristin Hersh (of Throwing Muses) has an autobigraphy out. The non-American title is Paradoxical Undressing. The American title is Rat Girl :-) With your bright yellow gun You own the Sun... -- 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: RE: American Intelligence
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Normally I avoid trolling but I can't stop myself mentioning that Kristin Hersh (of Throwing Muses) has an autobigraphy out. The non-American title is Paradoxical Undressing. The American title is Rat Girl :-) With your bright yellow gun You own the Sun... Not trolling. I would know as head troll of PGCHQ. Evidence submitted to the court includes: 1) no straw men, 2) no coarse ad hominems/labelling 3) presence of substance and relevance 4) no bickering about splitting hairs in hyper analizalitical police way to teach the world 5) no going all bitchy berserk for small stuff that doesn't matter in some reasonable frame of responsibly poisoned and smutty mind Verdict: Even seven star self-appointed troll general like myself has something to aspire to here. Your average street troll wouldn't grasp this because it's beyond our nature. PGC -- 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On 7/11/2014 12:12 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 July 2014 17:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2014 10:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 July 2014 06:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/10/2014 12:59 AM, LizR wrote: Without claiming to be a wiser head, I will still say that you don't use 747s in a green economy! You use airships... And you reduce air traffic by getting almost everyone to telecommute. The trouble with airships is that they slow and they can't handle bad weather. The Shenandoah and the Akron were destroyed stormy weather within 3yrs of being built. The Macon suffered a structural failure mainly due to a design fault. Only the Los Angeles, of the Navy's big airships, served eight years and was decommissioned. The Los Angeles was built by Zepplin and it took 81 hrs to fly from Germany to New Jersey. The Hindenburg, which was the same size but used hydrogen instead of helium for buoyancy, had a crew of 61 and carried 36 passengers. So a ticket was very expensive. Is this still true of airships built using modern technology? I'm sure there are improvements, but I think those two problems remain. It's obvious that large airship will be hard to control in a storm and they can't fly over them like airliners. They're not going to be much faster, so long distance flights will still require a lot of food and water and passenger support with lot fewer turn arounds per week - so the cost much go up proportionately. This is true, however I think a green economy should not involve a lot of passenger air travel by any method. Right. And it's moved that way a lot. In the '70s and '80s I used to fly to conferences and business meetings five to ten times a year. In the late '90s we got video conferencing and cut back on travel. With the ubiquity of computers it turned out that the video wasn't that useful and we started to do almost all meetings by phone+computer. Now about the only air travel I do is to visit my mother in Texas once or twice a year. A fast train would probably do as well for me. 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I wonder where the 140MW factoid comes from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28power%29 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: Selecting your future branch
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the teleporter question. No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over and over and over again. If you disagree with my reasons then fine but don't act as if I've never responded to them before. 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: Selecting your future branch
Le 11 juil. 2014 19:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit : On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If the MWI is correct, the electron spin question is equivalent to the teleporter question. No it is not and I've given my reasons why it is not over and over and over and over again. If you disagree with my reasons then fine but don't act as if I've never responded to them before. It is and your doppelganger argument is just playing dodgeball in kindergarten. Quentin 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. -- 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: Atheist
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Agnostic - there *could* be a teapot orbiting the Sun, although I consider it highly unlikely Agnostic: Somebody who has enough brains to know that a china teapot is not in orbit around the planet Uranus but who likes the sound of the word that Thomas Huxley invented in 1869 better than the sound of the older English word atheist. Atheist - there definitely isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun. Atheist: Somebody who thinks that the question of china teapots orbiting Uranus is too silly to waste valuable brain cells on. 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:41, David Nyman wrote: On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports to show that computation still exists with minimal or zero physical activity - it evaucates the physics and keeps the computation. For heaven's sake, Brent! This is what you originally said to Liz. What you're referring to is Maudlin's argument. It's the *opposite* of my understanding of the MGA, which seeks to show how physical action can be preserved unchanged even in cases where the original computational relations have been completely disrupted. I spent several paragraphs describing this with additional examples. You then commented this with I agree with all you wrote, which led to some further discussion based (as I thought) on this understanding. Your comment above now leaves me hopelessly confused. I would be grateful if you would review our recent discussion and clarify what you do or do not agree with in my analysis. I think that it will help to define perhaps more precisely what is a computation. I will reread the thread (many posts) when I have more time, and make only one comment. We have a computation when a universal machine compute something. We have an intensional Post-Church thesis 'which follows from the usual Post-Church-Turing thesis), which makes possible to translate universal machine compute something in term of numbers addition and multiplication + one existential quantifier. Now, when are two computations the same? If we fix a base phi_i, we might define a computations by sequences of step of the universal base computing some phi_k, that is the nth steps phi_k(j)^n of the computation by the base of the program k on the input j, with n = 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. But now that very computation will recure infinitely often, and not always in (algorithmically) recognizable way. You can conceive it might not be obvious that the evolution of a game of life pattern (GOL is Turing-universal) is simulating a Fortran interpreter simulating a Lisp program computing the ph(j)^n above. That is exactly why our computations, with and without (and in between) their environment (with and without oracles) recurre infinitely often in the sigma_1 truth (UD*). So two computations can be the same at some level of description, and yet occurs in quite different places in the UD*. Comp says that there is a level of description of myself such that those computation *at the correct level carries my consciousness. But Brent, and Peter Jones, adds that the computation have to be done by a real thing. This is a bit like either choosing some particular universal number pr, and called it physical reality, and add the axioms that only the phi_pr computations counts: the phi_pr (j)^n. Well, this would just select (without argument) a special sub- universal dovetailing among (any) universal dovetailing. The only force here is that somehow the quantum Everet wave, seen as such a phi_pr do solve the measure problem (accepting Gleason theorem does its job). But just choosing that phi_pr does not solve the mind-body problem, only the body problem in a superficial way (losing the non justifiable parts notably). Or they make that physical reality non computable (as comp needs, but they conjecture that it differs from the non (entirely) computable physics that we can extract from arithmetic (with comp). But then it is just a statement like your plane will not fly. Let us make the test, and up to now it works. I agree with Brent, and I think everybody agree, when he says that reducing does not eliminate. But we can't use that to compare consciousness/neurons to temperature/molecules-kinetic. In that later case we reduce a 3p high level to a 3p lower level. And indeed, this does not eliminate temperature. But in the case of consciousness, we have consciousness which is 1p, and neurons which are 3p. Here, the whole 3p, be it the arithmetical or physical reality fails (when taken as a complete explanation). The higher level 1p notions are not just higher 3p description, it is the intimate non justifiable (and infinite) part of a person, which wonderfully enough provably becomes a non-machine, and a non nameable entity, when we apply the definition of Theaetetus definition to the machine. Interesting! We are at the crux of the crux! I see that Gerson(*) follows Socrates, and take the Theaetetus definition ([]p p) as a description of knowledge, but the universal machine can understand that this is not true when applied on machine (ironically enough). The modal []p p can define knowledge without providing any description or code. Worst (but this is why this strategy works!), not only []p p definition does not provide a description of the knower, but it is constructively immune against all descriptions. The apparently little
Re: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 7/11/2014 12:41 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports to show that computation still exists with minimal or zero physical activity - it evaucates the physics and keeps the computation. For heaven's sake, Brent! This is what you originally said to Liz. What you're referring to is Maudlin's argument. It's the *opposite* of my understanding of the MGA, which seeks to show how physical action can be preserved unchanged even in cases where the original computational relations have been completely disrupted. I spent several paragraphs describing this with additional examples. You then commented this with I agree with all you wrote, which led to some further discussion based (as I thought) on this understanding. Your comment above now leaves me hopelessly confused. I would be grateful if you would review our recent discussion and clarify what you do or do not agree with in my analysis. You're right. I'm confused. I'll re-read MGA and Maudlin. I think the confusion comes from them being reductio arguments. When you find the conclusion absurd then you have several choices of which premise to blame. 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: Apologies to Telmo
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Russell Brand: After last night I can only enjoy football matches where a nation is forced to reexamine its entire identity and way of life. I think we should aim higher: nation forced to reexamine its theological identity to the extent that it affects national doughnut production. Proof: http://imgur.com/73QBAcf ;-) PGC -- 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
Now, I take some rest by answering an easy an rather clear post. On 10 Jul 2014, at 21:40, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I assume comp Well good for comp. I will push on the button, and I know I will not find myself in both city. Exactly. Only in one from my future first person perspective, There are 2 future first person perspectives. Exactly. If there are two (and there are) why didn't Bruno Marchal ask what cities John Clark will see from *a* 1p? That is the 3p view *on* the future 1-views. The? why not *a* future 1-view? Because as you just agree above, there are 2 futures first person perspectives, which both feel to be in front of one city. Are you not just contradicting yourself. The answer will be W and M. But that is specifically not what is asked to the guy in Helsinki. He is John Clark hates pronouns! Come on. He refers to the guy in Helsinki, in the preceding sentence, and of course at the moment he makes the asked prediction, and thus before he pushes on the button. questioned about what he John Clark hates pronouns! expects from his John Clark hates pronouns! future experience, as he knows John Clark hate pronouns! that he will not die, John Clark hates pronouns! in this case the future of the unique first person in Helsinki splits in two, and thus is indeterminate from its first person point of view. If it is asked Is this unmeasured electron spin up or spin down John Clark understands the question but it can't ve answered because before it is measured the electron's spin is indeterminate, but in this case John can't answer what city you will see because John doesn't understand the question. It is claimed that Bruno has discovered something called first person indeterminacy that makes it impossible to answer a certain question. Well, what is that question? John Clark needs to know EXACTLY because John Clark is willing to concede that a ambiguous question can not be answered, but Bruno wasn't the first to figure that out. The question is not ambiguous at all. We have agree on all the use of pronouns. As you believe in comp, you know that when you push on the button, you will survive in only ONE city, even if you will surivive in olny one city, in two cities at once *from a third person view. But yopu know that none of the copies have telepathoc power making hem aware of their doppelganger reconsistution, and can only imagine that third person view, as for both of them, they did get one bit of information. The following exercise is no more ambiguous. I repeat the WM- duplication 1000 times, evaluate your chance of having the first person experience of having been to Moscow 400 times exactly. And speaking of predictions John Clark predicts that when Bruno Marchal states the question in the next post it will be filled with words that are ambiguous in a world with duplicating machines, words like I and he and you. John Clark further predicts that it will contain phrases like the Helsinki Man without having made clear if that means remembering being a man in Helsinki or if it means a man currently experiencing Helsinki. Unfair remark. I told you since the begining that the prediction is asked to the Helsinki man, when he is in Helsinki, and the confirmation of success of the prediction is asked to each copies (that is, the helsinki man, when he arrive at Moscow). Only you have added ambiguity on this. It is already clean and clear in all my papers, that you insist not reading. The pronouns used are entirely clarified by the 1p and 3p distinctions, that only you eliminate and then complains about ambiguities. if I interview a sample of copies, the vast majority will confess not finding any prediction algorithm That's because no known algorithm can figure out exactly what the question was. The algorithm is only asked to find a predictive algorithm on its first person experience. We already know that even if it does not know the protocol, the majority of the copies answers will be No algorithm found or random or white noise. And if the algorithm is Löbian, he can even justifies that there is no algorithm for predicting the first person experience in self-duplication experience. You are only insulting yourself, John. You convince everybody only of your bad faith, or of your inability to dovetail a little bit in the mind of the two copies, enough to see that one will write W ~M, and the other will write M ~W in the respective diaries. if your read the next steps 4, 5, ... you should understand that we are lead to a precise and non ambiguous mathematical problem, albeit difficult. Then the thesis itself is mainly a partial solution to that problem. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are
Re: Atheist
Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist 'requires' SOME concept of 'a' (any) god as a target. - MY - agnostic, however, does not find any such 'target' reasonble so the totality has to be built on some different basis. Who knows on what kind of? I call it an infinite complexity, not on arithmetical basis as Bruno advised, since arithmetic ways of thinking are HUMAN logic and the totality is much much wider than what such restrictive boundaries would allow. Since 'a' god does not fit into my agnosticism, no bible could have been written by it. Scripture etc. is a nice remnant of times when people had too much time on their hand and a fantasy-world with very few restrictive items. Then power usurped the general belief of the public and exploited it. We are still living within such. Please add to every one of my sentences in ( - ) I dunno. JM On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 7:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: It sounds like you are describing an agnostic. An atheist seems to be against (often some specific collection of) gods. An agnostic just says I don't know anything about that, and until some evidence comes up I won't consider the possibility worth discussing. Hence Agnostic - there *could* be a teapot orbiting the Sun, although I consider it highly unlikely Atheist - there definitely isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun. Sorry to re-re-re-repeat myself, as you say it's a well worn subject. PS could it be Brent quoting Bruno? PPS their initials are suspiciously similar. I remain agnostic on whether they are really the same person (but consider it highly unlikely). -- 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
On 7/11/2014 11:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2014, at 09:41, David Nyman wrote: On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports to show that computation still exists with minimal or zero physical activity - it evaucates the physics and keeps the computation. For heaven's sake, Brent! This is what you originally said to Liz. What you're referring to is Maudlin's argument. It's the *opposite* of my understanding of the MGA, which seeks to show how physical action can be preserved unchanged even in cases where the original computational relations have been completely disrupted. I spent several paragraphs describing this with additional examples. You then commented this with I agree with all you wrote, which led to some further discussion based (as I thought) on this understanding. Your comment above now leaves me hopelessly confused. I would be grateful if you would review our recent discussion and clarify what you do or do not agree with in my analysis. I think that it will help to define perhaps more precisely what is a computation. I will reread the thread (many posts) when I have more time, and make only one comment. We have a computation when a universal machine compute something. We have an intensional Post-Church thesis 'which follows from the usual Post-Church-Turing thesis), which makes possible to translate universal machine compute something in term of numbers addition and multiplication + one existential quantifier. Now, when are two computations the same? If we fix a base phi_i, we might define a computations by sequences of step of the universal base computing some phi_k, that is the nth steps phi_k(j)^n of the computation by the base of the program k on the input j, with n = 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. But now that very computation will recure infinitely often, and not always in (algorithmically) recognizable way. You can conceive it might not be obvious that the evolution of a game of life pattern (GOL is Turing-universal) is simulating a Fortran interpreter simulating a Lisp program computing the ph(j)^n above. And is it not the case that there will exist a mapping to a different base such that this same evolution of the GOL is simulating a Python interpreter computing some different phi. This why I have trouble with the concept to two computations being in the same state. ISTM that same state is relative to the enumerated basis functions and the functions cannot be recognized from any finite sequence of states. That is exactly why our computations, with and without (and in between) their environment (with and without oracles) recurre infinitely often in the sigma_1 truth (UD*). So two computations can be the same at some level of description, and yet occurs in quite different places in the UD*. Is there a canonical level of description at which they are the same, or are you just saying there exists some mapping which makes them the same over a finite number of steps? Comp says that there is a level of description of myself such that those computation *at the correct level carries my consciousness. There's where I agree with JKC. You keep fudging what comp means. The above is *not* the same as betting that the doctor can give you a physical brain prosthesis that maintains your consciousness. But Brent, and Peter Jones, adds that the computation have to be done by a real thing. This is a bit like either choosing some particular universal number pr, and called it physical reality, and add the axioms that only the phi_pr computations counts: the phi_pr (j)^n. I think Peter, like me, questions the existence of numbers as any more than elements fo language. So it is not like choosing a universal number, it's saying that some things exist and some don't. Well, this would just select (without argument) It's based on observation not axiomatic inference. a special sub-universal dovetailing among (any) universal dovetailing. The only force here is that somehow the quantum Everet wave, seen as such a phi_pr do solve the measure problem (accepting Gleason theorem does its job). But just choosing that phi_pr does not solve the mind-body problem, only the body problem in a superficial way (losing the non justifiable parts notably). Or they make that physical reality non computable (as comp needs, but they conjecture that it differs from the non (entirely) computable physics that we can extract from arithmetic (with comp). But then it is just a statement like your plane will not fly. Let us make the test, and up to now it works. Yes, I'm willing to accept your argument as an hypothesis. But it seems to me that it proves that consciousness and physics necessarily complement one another. Starting from arithmetic you must solve both the mind problem and the body problem at the same time. I don't see that you've made psychology more
Re: How dangerous is radiation?
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:54 AM Subject: Re: How dangerous is radiation? On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:06 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:22 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You did not read the study I posted did you? No, and I'm quite certain you didn't either, Actually I did Ivery much doubt that, skimmed it maybe. We can quibble whether I read your post or not, but does it matter. The series of examples you have been presenting are they all from a single study you are referencing? Do you have a link to a paper I could read that makes the case you are making? Whether you believe me or not I am interested in this and in reading more on this particular subject. Chris low dosages of Radon gas over a long period of time do lead to significant increase of risk for death by cancer. High concentrations of Radon most certainly cause cancer, nobody doubts that, but what about lower dosages? The difference in Radon concentrations between a well ventilated house near the ocean and a poorly ventilated house in a region rich in heavy metal ores can vary by a factor of 20,000; and in mine shafts Radon concentration can be even higher than that, a lot higher. low dosages of Radon gas over a long period of time do lead to significant increase of risk for death by cancer. Until recently in some poorly ventilated mines the levels of Radon were GARGANTUAN, spend one year working in one of them and you'd receive more radiation than any Hiroshima survivor. It's been known for hundreds of years that workers in some mines suffered from a strange wasting disease, we know now it was radiation poisoning. It just seemed to me that you were suggesting that a low dose environment is not dangerous when spread over time. I want to know if twice the radon causes twice the cancer. The largest source of natural background radiation is Radon. Places with twice the background radiation (like the mountain states verses the gulf states of the USA) don't have twice the cancer, they actually have less. So it would seem the answer is no. But I don't know why we're even talking about Radon, a well operating nuclear reactor doesn't emit any and even if it did the contamination wouldn't spread far; Radon is an extremely heavy gas that hugs the ground, and it's half life is only 3.8 days. So you can put the blame for ALL Radon related deaths on mother nature not the nuclear power industry. 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. -- 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: How will air travel work in a green solar economy?
Unfortunately air travel is the only way to get around NZ that doesn't involve a LOT of driving or a very, very slow train journey. -- 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.
My hero(ine)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jckm3X5MXo -- 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: What's the answer? What's the question?
Thanks for your response, Bruno. Now, I ask the subjective question, which may not like the truth, or your truth. Does knowing this advance the human condition, in your opinion? Do you think knowing this moves our species in a better direction? This may be like me asking if knowing that Pluto is not technically a planet, reduce unemployment? The two may be unrelated, however, since this is your theology, I figured I better ask you then guess on my own. Sincerely, Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 10:31 am Subject: Re: What's the answer? What's the question? On 09 Jul 2014, at 21:52, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: You may have written exhaustively on this before, but, one more time please. No problem. I'm always happy if I can clarify. How do you build a theology based on mathematics. I don't see Pythagoras as being a source of happiness for most earthlings. Of yourself, I have no doubt! The whole idea of doing science consists in trying hard to not be influenced in wishful thinking, which of course is part of many popular religion. I can understand that some philosophy search happiness, that is nice, but it might have nothing to do with the theological reality. So, how to study that theological reality, and why mathematics can help. First, please notice that I am using the term theology in his initial sense defined by Plato, and which means ultimate truth or theory of everything including the visible, like proton and galaxies, and the invisible, like numbers, consciousness, math, and who knows which possible alien, perhaps divine, entities. At the start it is better to have the less prejudices and be the most open as possible, given that the field is rather sick very often (the most fundamental science is always under the threat of abuse of power (not just theology, biology and cosmology were often perverted too). Then as theological assumption, I use the computationalist hypothesis/theory, which basically assume that the brain operation are Turing emulable, up to preserve my life and identity in case I substitute my biological brain for an artificial (and Turing emulable) device. This is not a strong hypothesis for a materialist or naturalist, as we don't know in nature any non Turing emulable phenomena. But it *is* a strong hypothesis in theology, and it implies a form of reincarnation, both in rich physical universe and in arithmetic. This leads to the mathematical comp measure problem. The solution of that problem has already been given at the propositional logic level, and the result suggests that people like Plotinus, the neoplatonists and the mystics have a discourse which is easy to interpret in arithmetic. Indeed arithmetic contains all computations, and we can interview the machine in arithmetic about their first person expectancy. In particular, the arithmetical truth plays the role of (neoplatonist) God: it has no name, is transcendent, is responsible for all beliefs and knowledge (and realities); the 'theaetetical' knower/soul or inner God, already used by Plotinus, works very well in that setting too, as it happens non nameable too (cf Ramana Maharshi and the koan who am I?), it obeys Brouwer intuitionist logic, with an addition of a temporal nuance, which structure the space of accessible conscious states. Then Plotinus' matter (inspired from Aristotle, but corrected with respect to Plato) gives the skeleton of the space on which we can handle the measure problem, at the place where both Plato and Plotinus intuited the need of a bastard calculus (their term). How could Plotinus, and the mystics intuits what took many years to mathematicians to find out? Well, the mathematicians just describes what *any* entity can prove (and not prove) about itself, and this only suggests that Plotinus, by honesty and serious research inward, get close to that ideal machine self-referential correctness, so it is hardly a coincidence. I hope this helped. Ask any precision. Keep in mind that by theology, I mean the greek science, not the religious institutionalization which have followed it and have mixed with popular religious legends and ad hoc fairy tales, in place of assumption/theory, to prevent progresses and questions instead of promoting them. Also, maybe the God of the Bible all came from Lucid Dreaming. Lucid dreaming might have played a part, and is indeed a very interesting notion, and experience. The original long version of my PhD thesis contains a full chapter on lucid dream neurophysiology, including an appendice with a sample of my own lucid dream experiences. Of course, the content of the experiences are not used in the reasoning, but the reports illustrate well some psycho and theo-logical notions. Lucid dreams, and above all contralucid dreams (dreams in the narration of
Re: My hero(ine)
Jeez what a dweeb. Glenda would have him for breakfast. Well, OK, she could keep the rest in the freezer for later. On 12 July 2014 10:07, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Funny you should mention this. Here is my hero, a many of the people! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCtaZibVa6w -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 5:54 pm Subject: My hero(ine) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jckm3X5MXo -- 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: My hero(ine)
-- 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.
