Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
On 26 Dec 2014, at 03:43, meekerdb wrote: On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: In paper Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm) the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it. That seems backwards for Bruno's idea. If memories are outside the brain then they should survive destruction of the brain. But not of the *generalized brain, which in this case might be in the hologram. But as I understand Bruno's idea one's soul survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't. In the computationalist thought experience, we suppose that the generalized brain is the biological brain, and we survive with our memories unchanged. Then, for death, I said that there is an inflation of type of survival possible, some with partial or total amnesia, and others with the complete memory of lifetime staying preserved. Of course we cannot evaluate the probabilities without extracting the (quantum) measure from the material hypostases. (There has been recent progresses, but this is really a program of research for the centuries to come). I might add that with salvia, I understand better that our deep identity is indeed not in our memories, but in our universality, so that you can already understand you are immortal, simply because you realize that you are already Peano Arithmetic (say). In that case we are all the same person, just put in different context. This can have positive ethical consequences as you can develop more empathy toward others. 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: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
If the memories aren't in the brain, then what physical causes enable a positive or negative recognition of the photo of a person's face? It seems to me that this would require some extra-physical interaction beyond all known physical laws. If this excess storage area could be tapped, could we build computers of infinite memory and storage capacity by storing these bits into the ether and overcome the information/volume limits of quantum mechanics and the holographic principle? Jason On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: In paper Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm) the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it. The suggestion of the medieval physician Avicenna that the brain ‘cupboard’ is bare, – i.e. the brain is a perceptual, not storage, organ – is consistent with a mysterious ‘universe as holograph’ model. Charles Darwin spent much time setting out various combinations of 26 units in linear order on paper. Yet, that each cell of an organism might contain similar digital information, now known as DNA, was beyond his conceptual horizon. Likewise, many today compute using remote information storage yet are unlikely to countenance the possibility that their own brains might functioning similarly. Best wishes, Evgenii -- 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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: DO you even know what the term “tight oil” means technically? Yes. Tight oil is just another name for shale oil, it's light oil in kerogen rich shale deposits that needs hydraulic fracking to be extracted economically. There is a enormous amount of tight oil in the Earth but until just a few years ago it might as well have been on the moon for all the good it did us, but things change and sometimes very very rapidly. Technology marches on. Kerogen IS NOT OIL! But when heated to about 150 degrees centigrade in the absence of oxygen kerogen releases crude oil, and when heated to 200 degrees it releases natural gas. Kerogen bearing shale is a very different kind of resource Huh? Very different from what? that has proven uneconomical And yet this uneconomical resource has caused the oil production of the USA to skyrocket. And in July 2008, well before this uneconomical process was implemented, the worldwide price of West Texas Intermediate Crude oil was $147 a barrel, but today on December 25 2014 West Texas Intermediate crude oil is selling at $56 a barrel. I don't think the word uneconomical means what you think it does. Shell Oil has just recently abandoned its kerogen extraction attempts For christ's sake, if you're wildcatting for conventional oil or shale oil you're always going to run into dry holes from time to time, it's part of the price of doing business. So back in 2013 Shell oil announced they were abandoning one minuscule 30 million (that's million with a m) dollar shale oil pilot project. Big deal. On the very same day they said there were going to build a HUGE 12.5 billion dollar plant (that's billion with a B) in Louisiana to turn natural gas into diesel and jet fuel And as I've said existing technology can only exploit about 25% of it, but that's more than enough to change the economy of the world. I bet you just pulled that 25% figure out of your ass John. Then I guess I have a well educated ass because the Paris based IEA says there are 3.7 trillion barrels of shale oil in the USA but only 1 trillion can be economically recovered with existing technology. You do the arithmetic. The very EIA (and IEA) numbers you keep siting are under attack They are under attack by you and by some environmentalists, but as I've said before most environmentalists are not serious people, they are very silly people. To make any difference in your lifetime the numbers would have to be off by at least a order of magnitude, and the energy Department doesn't think they are, nor Paris based IEA, nor any reputable professional organization of geologists. There is no informed consensus – outside of shale oil boosterism circles – about the fact that by far most of these resources ARE NOT reserves. [...] Just because the EIA and IEA (both captive organizations staffed by a revolving door system with insider vested fossil and nuclear interests) say something does not make it the word of God! And it looks like even Wikipedia is part of this evil conspiracy of disinformation lies and mendacity because it says: Global technically recoverable oil shale reserves have recently been estimated at about 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (450×109 to 520×109 m3) of shale oil, with the largest reserves in the United States, which is thought to have 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels (240×109–410×109 m3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil#Reserves_and_production In that same article it says: In March 2011, the United States Bureau of Land Management called into question proposals in the U.S. for commercial operations, stating that *There are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes*. Also in March 2011 there is a article in Forbes magazine about economist Nouriel Roubini who must have agreed with the United States Bureau of Land Management, and a lot of oil traders must have agreed with them too: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/03/07/roubini-predicts-oil-will-hit-150-per-barrel-traders-betting-on-200/ The headline of the article is *Roubini Predicts Oil Will Hit $150 Per Barrel, Traders Betting On $200* . Remember that was March 2011, yesterday December 25 2014 oil was selling at $56 a barrel. So go ahead keep calling me a tree hugger if that makes you feel better OK. Nobody is disputing that the global spot price for oil has gone down; And there must have been a reason for such a gargantuan economic event. OPEC did not increase production but the USA increased oil production enormously, do you think that maybe just maybe that had something to do with it? And how did the USA increase production, it can't be shale because you tell me the oil companies are abandoning it, and yet the USA somehow managed to dramatically increase production. What's the secret? you keep trumpeting it like it had some magical hidden
Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
On 12/25/2014 11:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Kim Jones *Sent:* Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:46 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal On 26 Dec 2014, at 1:43 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: In paper Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm http://post.queensu.ca/%7Eforsdyke/mind01.htm) the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it. That seems backwards for Bruno's idea. If memories are outside the brain then they should survive destruction of the brain. But as I understand Bruno's idea one's soul survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't. Brent Don't forget this is about long-term memory. How long is long-term? I would say beyond the life of the individual. Seen like that, there has to be some kind of library or lookup table which in no way correlates to anything to do with human brain size, the authors conclude. Certain of these very-long-term memories do get encoded somehow to survive destruction of the brain, as in Jung's 'racial memory' or collective unconscious' - the original engrams or patterns of recognition (archetypes) some of them terrifyingly inexplicable and probably arising in dreams and recorded as revelations. Folklore is the racial memory of homo sapiens. We still churn it out. What we cannot remember exactly we plaster over with something else anyway, because HS are natural-born story tellers who cannot pass up a good story. If the shoe fits, we tend to wear it. It's literally in our DNA these authors conclude. This suggests to me that the notion of Junk DNA is perhaps itself junk as the very purpose of DNA is to record ie encode experience at something for the purpose of passing it on. DNA cannot fail at that purpose. Whenever scientists declare something Junk or Dark this just means we are clueless over this so it's time to find the macro-molecular link that allows this almost-Lamarckian effect of racial memory to come about. The term “junk DNA”, itself has been junked a while ago, when it was discovered that a portion of this DNA acts like a kind of OS that switches encoding sections on and off. It is a mistake I believe to look at DNA as a static repository of hereditary information alone. It is this of course, but it turns out to be more complex, dynamic and layered than the simple static model. A lot of the so called “junk DNA” (but not all of it by any means) seems to be involved in this dynamic process. Especially, during the process of embryogenesis, DNA expression is undergoing dynamic highly sequenced and seemingly (somehow) choreographed changes (through methylation and other means). Other parts of this junk DNA, seem to be parasitical in nature; e.g. the selfish DNA hypothesis, and this also seems very likely – IMO. If such DNA “parasite entities” exist, perhaps using viruses as vehicles during their “life-cycle” in order to ride with them on into a hosts DNA and insert themselves into a new happy home, passing copies down for as long as the lineage continues. Perhaps a parasite is “junk” for the host, but from the parasites perspective I am sure the view is different… so even here in this case is it really junk. -Chris But to say that DNA provides long term memory seems like an abuse of terminology, making a metaphor into a factual description. DNA provides memory only in that sometimes parts of it get to reproduce. Genes are more persistent units, but their memory is just get copied to not. There's nothing Lamarckian about it, much less extra-corporeal survival of memories. Memories are necessarily things that are remembered. I don't remember any previous life and I doubt that you do either. 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:49:12 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: zibble...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, December 22, 2014 10:18:55 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: Have you never heard of, or seen, courage in the face of death? Often taken as the true test of manhood! Bruce Bruce, Courage is acting in the face of fear, where the action speaks to virtue. Having no fear is something entirely different. People are born that way sometimes. And sometimes people are temporarily desensitized by events in a theatre or war or a sub-culture gone awry. The dy secret of PTSD is that it is almost always not about what is done to us, but something that we did, or allowed to be done. Answer to your question..I've seen enough. Your characterizations of fear exhibited a disjoint. Al the stuff about oblivion and that fear of death was culturalthis wasn't thought through. That's the best that can be said. But then you gave a very descriptive depiction of fear in a runaway paragraph, that rang very true. One has to be logical and marry up the incongruity best as can. I think it says you've had experiences of fear that you still struggle with. You described your own fear. I don't know what you are talking about. You must be confusing me with something someone else wrote. Bruce oh. Well in that case please excuse my stupid incompetence reading the wrong things by the wrong people. I wish you a merry Christmas, sir, and a happy new year!! -- 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: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 3:23:56 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au javascript: mailto:bhke...@optusnet.com.au javascript: wrote: I wouldn't fear death even then. Then you're either the bravest man who ever lived or you're full of bullshit. I think it's far more likely that you're full of bullshit. A lot of people have faced firing squads with calm dignity. Some may have been dignified but I am quite certain in every single case their heart rate was elevated over what it would have been had they not been facing a firing squad. And no doubt you have played the scene over in your mind but do you really think your musings about what it would be like to face a firing squad have the slightest relation to the reality of actually facing a firing squad? You may be certain how you'd react in a life or death situation, but as I've said being certain and being correct are not the same thing; I don't think we have good simulation software in our brain for that sort of thing and thus nobody can know how they'd behave in such a extreme situation until that it actually happened. I don't think I am particularly brave, You know something, I don't either. but the thought of death itself -- being dead, that is -- does not frighten me in the least. Bullshit. On what basis do you call what I have said, Bullshit? It is the sober truth. If you don't believe me then the problem is yours, not mine. As I said, if you have dependants you would worry about the effect on them. But that does not mean that you would fear for yourself. Well I guess you're just a selfless hero then. Maybe that makes you the craven coward. Bruce Bruce...you surely do appreciate what is the source of the scepticism? None which make your testimony any the less authentic. But because it's...justpossible you are not aware. Perhaps you are relatively new to the Internet Life. I dunnoI'm trying to help here is all I know. OK, so it's not about the sentiments. And it's not about, that every day.every minute of every day...someone, somewhere, does something just so decent and courageous, all who stand in witness of it are different - and better - men from that day forward. It's not about that. It's about making claims in a medium that makes it impossible for those claims to be backed up and verified. It's just one of those things decent people learn with much experience, that perhaps you do not yet have. What we learn is that we don't disrespect ourselves or those others - who have done brave things in this disgustingly cowardly little shithole world. We don't disrespect them, by...we don't make claims about ourselves...even if they are true..that a LIAR could make and get away with. We just don't do it dude. By the way, I'm an ex Artists Rifles nutter bastard. I only make that claim because given what I said above you'd have to conclude it was humour. But actually it ain't. But you still gotta assume it. Artists Rifles. 21 A squadron...Chelsea barracks old boy. We can be heros baby. You and me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgcc5V9Hu3g you and me baby -- 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: Testing MWI
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:15:16 PM UTC, ronaldheld wrote: *arXiv:1412.7352* http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7352 (cross-list from gr-qc) [*pdf* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7352, *ps* http://arxiv.org/ps/1412.7352, *other* http://arxiv.org/format/1412.7352] Title: Testing the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Cosmology Authors: *Aurelien Barrau* http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Barrau_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 5 pages Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) In this brief note, we argue that contrarily to what is still often stated, the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not in principle impossible to test. It is actually not more difficult (but not easier either) to test than most other kinds of multiverse theories. We also remind why multiverse scenarios can be falsified. it's always been testable. The difficulty is that the ways that it is testable, always seem to involve mWI failing the test. -- 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: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
Am 26.12.2014 um 19:55 schrieb meekerdb: But to say that DNA provides long term memory seems like an abuse of terminology, making a metaphor into a factual description. DNA provides memory only in that sometimes parts of it get to reproduce. Genes are more persistent units, but their memory is just get copied to not. There's nothing Lamarckian about it, much less extra-corporeal survival of memories. Memories are necessarily things that are remembered. I don't remember any previous life and I doubt that you do either. From the paper: In the twenty-first century the Hebbian network hypothesis came under attack and attention returned to storage of specific items of mental information as DNA (Dietrich and Been, 2001; Arshavsky, 2006a). Dietrich, A., Been, W., 2001. Memory and DNA. J. Theor. Biol. 208, 145-149. Arshavsky, Y. I., 2006a. ‘The seven sins’ of the Hebbian synapse: can the hypothesis of synaptic plasticity explain long-term memory? Prog. Neurobiol. 80, 99-113. Evgenii -- 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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 9:12:09 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: In the USA oil production rose by more than half a million barrels per day between 2007 and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years, and in that same year the USA exported more gasoline and diesel than it imported for the first time since 1949. And in 2012 USA oil production increased by another 760,000 barrels a day, the largest yearly increase since records about oil production started in 1859. But incredibly 2013 beat even that record, oil production in the United States rose by another 992,000 barrels a day! And in 2014 the USA overtook Saudi Arabia to become the largest producer of oil on planet Earth, it was already the largest natural gas producer in the world and has been since 2010. Yes, so what? So the false projections about the USA becoming the next Saudi Arabia turned out to be true. I was under the mistaken impression that you understood what reserves mean, And I was under the mistaken impression that you understood that historically the proven oil reserves of a country have remained about as constant as the New York Stock Exchange, it changes every time a new oil discovery is made, and even more important, it changes every time a new technology is developed that allows for the economic extraction of oil in places where it had previously been uneconomic. Reserves measure what is in the ground that can be recovered. Reserves measure what is known to be in the ground that can be recovered economically with existing technology. Explain to me how the Saudi's will make more cash when oil is selling at $60 a barrel then it did when it was selling at $130 a barrel. Is this some new form of mathematics? Are you trying to be ironic or cute? Clearly the Saudi's feel they can endure the loss now in order to drive a large portion of the higher cost producers out of business. So your theory is that the price of oil collapsed from $130 to $60 because of some sort of byzantine conspiracy of the Saudi's, but your theory just does not fit the facts. During the time of the oil collapse Saudi Arabia did NOT increase their oil production, they kept on using the same old technology and their production remained constant. However during that time the USA started using a new technology, and they increased their oil production, and did so DRAMATICALLY. And the USA increased its gas production even more. There is no need to invoke sinister plots by James Bond style villains, it's a simple rule of economics that when the supply of commodity X increases the price of commodity X falls. And the free market ensures that the sort of silly conspiracy you're so concerned about could never work. I manufacture 99% of the worlds widgets, you make 1%. I want to drive you out of business, so I figure I'll lower my price until you go broke and then I can jack them up to anything I want. So now you lose money on each widget you sell, the trouble is I do too. I have 99 times as much money as you do, but I'm losing it 99 times faster. Even worse, because the price is very low the demand for widgets is huge, and if prices are to remain low I must build more factories (or oil wells) and increase production. I'm losing money faster and faster, meanwhile you just temporally halt production in your small factory and wait for me to go broke. It won't be a long wait. John K Clark Before I issue...this...perhaps unnoteworthy semi-intoxicated response to the untrained eye. While to others more seasoned, a reply of momentus historic import. How you read and judge it...is known only to theethy training be in the dock here, no less, for what thee say. And ne'er the writer me. Well anyway, if you must know what I was going to say, it was this: Yes sir Chris is one of those left wing creatures of the night. A man should keep his mouth zipped and wear short trousers until he has made his first million. I should say. Hear here. Wot. And you are Johnny Boy. All American kid. Made a fortune in the biotech seed capital business angel's industry. Made a mint my johnny boy oh baby yeah. The drove his way across the USA. On a Harley D they say. Some say Tom Petty wrote this song for Johnny Boy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUTXb-ga1fo But I digress. With all the above said, and a very loving sycophantic 'I Love You' kiss blown...and a merry xmas to you and yours... Yes with all that in place. I was just going to say the Free Market doesn't guarantee anything what you say except in special conditions. Those special conditions existed in times and places in the past. Free market ideology hacks tend to draw on those times and places, at leas tin their minds. The other thing they do, is formulate arguments that are
RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: DO you even know what the term “tight oil” means technically? Yes. Tight oil is just another name for shale oil, it's light oil in kerogen rich shale deposits that needs hydraulic fracking to be extracted economically. There is a enormous amount of tight oil in the Earth but until just a few years ago it might as well have been on the moon for all the good it did us, but things change and sometimes very very rapidly. Technology marches on. Kerogen IS NOT OIL! But when heated to about 150 degrees centigrade in the absence of oxygen kerogen releases crude oil, and when heated to 200 degrees it releases natural gas. The process temperatures you quote are far lower than those I have seen in the studies I have looked at. In those reference studies they speak of the need to slow cook the kerogen at process temperatures of 350 degrees C cooking out most of the oil in about an hour. But even – for the sake of discussion – accepting you low ball numbers -- pray tell me the energy requirements to heat the billions upon billions of metric tons of a kerogen bearing shale formation up to 150 degrees centigrade or whatever the actual (significantly higher) process temperature needs to be? Kerogen bearing shale is a very different kind of resource Huh? Very different from what? From oil. You can make oil from coal – does that mean we start calling coal oil? In the same manner Kerogen IS NOT oil. It needs to be cooked – as I previously pointed out – in earlier posts on this thread (and you probably did not read). Kerogen is a tar-like hydrocarbon (the remnants of ancient algae) embedded in solid sedimentary shale rock. Kerogen is inside the rock itself, it is not a liquid trapped in micro-pores. You can try to insist they are the same as long as you want, and I will continue to call you on this false assumption. that has proven uneconomical And yet this uneconomical resource has caused the oil production of the USA to skyrocket. Again you are bullshitting John, by mixing apples and oranges. In fact, it is by drilling in the sweet spots in tight oil or gas bearing shale formations such as the Eagle Ford, the Bakken or the Marcellus that have produced the recent boom in production. This IS NOT kerogen bearing shale! Kerogen bearing shale is a very different resource that poses much greater energetic and technical challenges and has so far defeated all attempts to produce it (ECONOMICALLY) And in July 2008, well before this uneconomical process was implemented, the worldwide price of West Texas Intermediate Crude oil was $147 a barrel, but today on December 25 2014 West Texas Intermediate crude oil is selling at $56 a barrel. I don't think the word uneconomical means what you think it does. I don’t think you know what you are talking about – because you keep lumping the kerogen bearing shale deposits in with the very much smaller tight oil bearing shale deposits and pretending that they are essentially the same thing WHEN THEY ARE NOT! Shell Oil has just recently abandoned its kerogen extraction attempts For christ's sake, if you're wildcatting for conventional oil or shale oil you're always going to run into dry holes from time to time, it's part of the price of doing business. So back in 2013 Shell oil announced they were abandoning one minuscule 30 million (that's million with a m) dollar shale oil pilot project. Big deal. On the very same day they said there were going to build a HUGE 12.5 billion dollar plant (that's billion with a B) in Louisiana to turn natural gas into diesel and jet fuel A big so what to your transparent attempt at misdirection? What bearing does a natural gas conversion plant have on kerogen extraction? None John. It is an unrelated energy factoid you throw in to confuse the issue. There is no large scale attempt to extract oil from kerogen bearing shale deposits. Shell Oil just abandoned its experimental plant in western Colorado. Even though Shell Oil has been guarded about releasing its EROI figures for its kerogen extraction pilot plant, I am seeing figures around 2.5:1, which is another way of saying that Shell Oil – after years of tweaking its process and trying to maximize its efficiency – discovered they needed something in the order of two and a half times as much energy to cook the oil out of their pilot project kerogen bearing shale than they could recover from the extracted liquid. You don’t like these facts John – they don’t support your cornucopean argument – so you ignore the actual project – that was shut down and that WAS ATTEMPTING to extract oil from kerogen by announcing an utterly unrelated energy investment made by the Shell Oil company. And as I've
Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
On 12/26/2014 11:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 26.12.2014 um 19:55 schrieb meekerdb: But to say that DNA provides long term memory seems like an abuse of terminology, making a metaphor into a factual description. DNA provides memory only in that sometimes parts of it get to reproduce. Genes are more persistent units, but their memory is just get copied to not. There's nothing Lamarckian about it, much less extra-corporeal survival of memories. Memories are necessarily things that are remembered. I don't remember any previous life and I doubt that you do either. From the paper: In the twenty-first century the Hebbian network hypothesis came under attack and attention returned to storage of specific items of mental information as DNA (Dietrich and Been, 2001; Arshavsky, 2006a). Dietrich, A., Been, W., 2001. Memory and DNA. J. Theor. Biol. 208, 145-149. Arshavsky, Y. I., 2006a. ‘The seven sins’ of the Hebbian synapse: can the hypothesis of synaptic plasticity explain long-term memory? Prog. Neurobiol. 80, 99-113. Evgenii I can't get the first paper. The second is nonsense. Arshavsky claims that long-term memory can't be based on network structure because it's not stable - but he doesn't provide any empirical evidence that it's not stable enough. He ignores the fact that very little information is actually retained in long-term memory (do you remember what you had for lunch on this day last month?) and concentrates on the small amount that is. He ignores the studies finding that recalling memories tends to change them. And he does nothing to support his DNA theory except to say DNA is more stable. It would be trivial to look at some brain cells and see whether they have identical DNA or not - which would blow away his theory. 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: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 10:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal On 12/25/2014 11:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:46 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal On 26 Dec 2014, at 1:43 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: In paper Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm http://post.queensu.ca/%7Eforsdyke/mind01.htm ) the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it. That seems backwards for Bruno's idea. If memories are outside the brain then they should survive destruction of the brain. But as I understand Bruno's idea one's soul survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't. Brent Don't forget this is about long-term memory. How long is long-term? I would say beyond the life of the individual. Seen like that, there has to be some kind of library or lookup table which in no way correlates to anything to do with human brain size, the authors conclude. Certain of these very-long-term memories do get encoded somehow to survive destruction of the brain, as in Jung's 'racial memory' or collective unconscious' - the original engrams or patterns of recognition (archetypes) some of them terrifyingly inexplicable and probably arising in dreams and recorded as revelations. Folklore is the racial memory of homo sapiens. We still churn it out. What we cannot remember exactly we plaster over with something else anyway, because HS are natural-born story tellers who cannot pass up a good story. If the shoe fits, we tend to wear it. It's literally in our DNA these authors conclude. This suggests to me that the notion of Junk DNA is perhaps itself junk as the very purpose of DNA is to record ie encode experience at something for the purpose of passing it on. DNA cannot fail at that purpose. Whenever scientists declare something Junk or Dark this just means we are clueless over this so it's time to find the macro-molecular link that allows this almost-Lamarckian effect of racial memory to come about. The term “junk DNA”, itself has been junked a while ago, when it was discovered that a portion of this DNA acts like a kind of OS that switches encoding sections on and off. It is a mistake I believe to look at DNA as a static repository of hereditary information alone. It is this of course, but it turns out to be more complex, dynamic and layered than the simple static model. A lot of the so called “junk DNA” (but not all of it by any means) seems to be involved in this dynamic process. Especially, during the process of embryogenesis, DNA expression is undergoing dynamic highly sequenced and seemingly (somehow) choreographed changes (through methylation and other means). Other parts of this junk DNA, seem to be parasitical in nature; e.g. the selfish DNA hypothesis, and this also seems very likely – IMO. If such DNA “parasite entities” exist, perhaps using viruses as vehicles during their “life-cycle” in order to ride with them on into a hosts DNA and insert themselves into a new happy home, passing copies down for as long as the lineage continues. Perhaps a parasite is “junk” for the host, but from the parasites perspective I am sure the view is different… so even here in this case is it really junk. -Chris But to say that DNA provides long term memory seems like an abuse of terminology, making a metaphor into a factual description. DNA provides memory only in that sometimes parts of it get to reproduce. Genes are more persistent units, but their memory is just get copied to not. There's nothing Lamarckian about it, much less extra-corporeal survival of memories. Memories are necessarily things that are remembered. I don't remember any previous life and I doubt that you do either. Not sure who you are responding to. I was commenting on Kim’s use of the term “junk DNA” and how some of what had been thought of as being “junk” was later discovered to play a role in determining what DNA actually got encoded… and that some of these DNA regions also appear to be “parasitic” (e.g. the selfish gene hypothesis). I could see some instinct-behavioral patterns being encoded in the DNA, but memories I do not see how this would occur. Recording a memory would have to have some measurable effect on the underlying substrate (e.g. the DNA) in which it was being recorded. I see
Re: I signed up to be cryogenically frozen
On 23 Dec 2014, at 5:46 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Stathis: Perhaps, but some may prefer Hell to oblivion, while others try to kill themselves after a minor setback. It depends on the person. Bruce: An odd notion, that: some people might prefer Hell to Oblivion. But that aside, you seem to think that it is only fear of death (and/or Hell) that keeps people from widespread mayhem and self-destruction. I must admit that I have a healthier view of humanity. Bruce A man dies and goes to Hell. He sees all of the expected things, people burning in fire and brimstone, eternal torture and suffering without end. He also sees something else. He sees an obese middle-aged man sitting on a chair with a sexy curvaceous blond sitting on his knee. The man who has just arrived in Hell is astonished and says I thought this was supposed to be Hell!!?? You, however, seem to be having a great time of it Oh, it's Hell alright, the pudgy seated man responds with a grin. You see, I'm her punishment. 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.
William Stanley Jevons
I recently became aware of a book written by William Stanley Jevons that may strike a responsive cord with some members of this list, here are some quotes: Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point at which we can long maintain it?” We are growing rich and numerous upon a source of wealth of which the fertility does not yet apparently decrease with our demands upon it. [...] But long-continued progress in such a manner is altogether impossible — it must outstrip all physical conditions and bounds; and the longer it continues, the more severely must the ultimate check be felt. I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that the rapid growth of our great towns, gratifying as it is in the present, is a matter of very serious concern as regards the future. Suppose our progress to be checked within half a century, yet by that time our consumption will probably be three or four times what it now is; there is nothing impossible or improbable in this; it is a moderate supposition, considering that our consumption has increased eight-fold in the last sixty years. But how shortened and darkened will the prospects of the country appear, with mines already deep, fuel dear, and yet a high rate of consumption to keep up if we are not to retrograde.” The book was written in 1865 and is titled The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines 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: William Stanley Jevons
On 27 Dec 2014, at 12:05 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: I recently became aware of a book written by William Stanley Jevons that may strike a responsive cord with some members of this list, here are some quotes: Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point at which we can long maintain it?” We are growing rich and numerous upon a source of wealth of which the fertility does not yet apparently decrease with our demands upon it. [...] But long-continued progress in such a manner is altogether impossible ― it must outstrip all physical conditions and bounds; and the longer it continues, the more severely must the ultimate check be felt. I do not hesitate to say, therefore, that the rapid growth of our great towns, gratifying as it is in the present, is a matter of very serious concern as regards the future. Suppose our progress to be checked within half a century, yet by that time our consumption will probably be three or four times what it now is; there is nothing impossible or improbable in this; it is a moderate supposition, considering that our consumption has increased eight-fold in the last sixty years. But how shortened and darkened will the prospects of the country appear, with mines already deep, fuel dear, and yet a high rate of consumption to keep up if we are not to retrograde.” The book was written in 1865 and is titled The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines John K Clark Clearly the guy was right. He was right in his day and he will be right at least 50 years hence when the oil really does start to run out. There is a need to be concerned about unfettered growth, yes. Cancer is growth. I'm sure that were I a cancer, I would feel pretty good growing ever larger inside my host. 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: Democracy
Democracy is a concept. It can be implemented in various ways. I like Liz's conceptualisation of it as communist-style sharing of astcronomical wealth and resources among the elites with cockroaches and urine for breakfast for the rest of us (that's what prisoners in North Korea get given for breakfast according to QC Geoffrey Robertson.) No one who gets jugged hare and Beluga caviar for lunch around Pyongyang feels like they exist in anything other than a perfect democracy. You are living in a democracy if you feel free and not necessarily threatened by anyone or anything and can see where your immediate future is coming from. Strangely, many Chinese find themselves living in at least a partial democracy. China urbanises roughly the population of Australia (21 or so million) each year. From the duck farm straight to middle-class suburban democracy. They may not have the same freedoms but by golly they sure have developed the hankering for the jugged hare and the Beluga caviar Kim On 24 Dec 2014, at 10:07 pm, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, you can observe that the terms of the language used by political analysts is feudal: they use loyalities, electoral feuds, baronies to describe what happens in politics because they fit naturally with the true nature of the problem that they are dealing with. They do not realize most of the time that they are using a medieval language. But that´s it. 2014-12-24 11:58 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: The modern man is to politics what the ancient alchemists were to chemistry: Both believe that the final result depends on the shape of the recipient. 2014-12-23 23:14 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: Democracy is an false envelope, a fetish name for a what is the best of the western world. The freedom and innovation is not nor event would be based of democracy. If the idea of democracy - that is the idea that the truth comes from consensus, were the thing that gives freedom and innovation, then herds of sheeps would have been exploring the galaxy millions of years ago. It should not be necessary forme to explain this to you. What gives freedom is the respect for the individual. That does not come from democracy. democracy may be a (maybe wrong) consecuence of the respect for the individual. This respect comes from outside of the political system. It comes from Christianity. it will last for as much as Christianity will endure. And will end in the very moment that Christianity is repressed. I invite you to look at the (frequent) moments of supression of freedom in Europe. 2014-12-22 18:42 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 22 Dec 2014, at 15:42, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Democracy makes it possible to live differently from the mainstream. It is not easy, and democracy is not enough, but it can help better than a tyrant or community enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting them. And what differences Democracy from a tirant or community enforcing arbitrary rules without means of contesting them?. Democracy is a ritualized form of brute force. The root of the democratic idea is the sacralization of numeric force. And the legitimation is, consciously or unconsciously, the realization for everyone, that the majority would win a bloody confrontation. That IS the TRUE legitimization of democracy. In the same way that two deers will not fight if one show bigger horns, since the result of the combat is already know. Each side of a democratic contest does not fight for the same reason. The difference is that in democracy the force comes from the highest pitch for the best short term offer in exchange for the longer term disaster. The coalition that accept that mix of offer and lies is the Tyrant. Well, you will not succeed in breaking my pleasure to see democracy making progress in East-europa and in the middle-east, where it means to just been able to discuss and gossip behind a beer or a coffee without fearing delation from some spy hostage of the power. And today my pleasure is made great with the election of a laic muslim in Tunisia. I even consider that Egypt's democracy has win when people elected the Muslim Brotherhood, and has still win when the same people re-install courageously the military dictatorship once they saw the persecution of jews and christian coming back, and when they understood that a military dictatorship was the only way to save the possibility of a democracy in some middle run, a possibility that the fanatic islamists were threatening. It is easy to criticize democracy in a democacry (even old and sick), but most people living in non democratic regime suffer a lot, and have no hope---except for the ruling minority which can stand for many generations. Would you prefer to live in North Korea or in South Korea? Honestly.
Re: William Stanley Jevons
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Clearly the guy was right. Yes long-continued progress in such a manner is altogether impossible, and that is why the standard of living and total global global economy of the human race reached its peak 50 years after Jevons time in the year 1915. He was right in his day and he will be right at least 50 years hence No matter how far into the future you go William Stanley Jevons will always be right, but only if you go just another 50 years further ahead. 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: William Stanley Jevons
On 27 Dec 2014, at 1:34 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 26, 2014, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Clearly the guy was right. Yes long-continued progress in such a manner is altogether impossible, and that is why the standard of living and total global global economy of the human race reached its peak 50 years after Jevons time in the year 1915. He was right in his day and he will be right at least 50 years hence No matter how far into the future you go William Stanley Jevons will always be right, but only if you go just another 50 years further ahead. John K Clark Tee hee. So you are saying - are you not - that it never makes sense to worry in any naked sense about our tendency to gobble everything up like bacteria in a petri dish and then whinge about the taste of our own shit when we start to suffocate in it? 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.
