date:20150103



On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Kim Jones

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans




On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Animals think like autistic humans

On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:


You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand  
what thinking really is and move beyond our primitive  
anthropocentric views that have come to us from our past. We have a  
long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of  
material to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner  
dialogue is the mind’s (simplified and summarized) narration of a  
deeper and much vaster non verbalized intelligence which is that  
which is doing the individuals *thinking*


OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say that  
the thinking is done by the arithmetical realizations, but that is 3p  
descriptible (even if infinite) so something has gone wrong (we get  
trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the 1p, []p p).




I believe it is better to get past the misconception that the inner  
voice we casually *sense* as being ourselves is the actual  
repository our being.



The inner voice use words, and so miss the []p  p. The conscious  
person lives at the intersection of truth (sense, semantaic, religion,  
infinite, p) and belief (science, syntax,representation, []p). The 1-I  
is the person; it is an abstract well definite, despite unnameable. It  
is not the set of unconscious brain happenings, even if that person  
result in part o those brain happenings.







Well, I suppose you can adopt this attitude to it. The mind is  
infinitely mysterious and like the ocean, we will never get to the  
bottom of it. It all happens inside this black box.


With every year it is becoming less and less of a black box though!  
Are you saying that neuroscience will  never figure out how the mind  
works in the brain? I disagree, it is really hard to try to keep up  
with the pace of what is going on in brain/mind science; at every  
orthogonal level; from ever finer grained knowledge, to the  
incredible advances in available experimental tools.



Betting on levels, sometimes eliminating the person, and presented  
often with a brain/mind identity thesis not compatible with mechanism.


I don't think we can understand the psyche, soul, mind without  
understanding the need to backtrack in theology to Plato.







 Or, alternatively, you could  say that the mind is something that  
is easy to understand when viewed as a pattern-reading and a pattern- 
generating system.


Why must you pose this as an unavoidable alternative; as being an  
either or proposition. That is a Manichean way of viewing things –  
IMO. Seeing the mind a s a pattern recognition; patter generating  
machine is useful *at times* but just because some intellectual tool  
is useful for some tasks does not mean that it must therefore become  
the only metric and means by which we view the mind. To state it in  
those either/or terms is highly limiting.
When you need a hammer, by all means use a hammer, but just because  
a hammer is the best tool for some jobs does not mean a hammer makes  
the best toothpick!


No doubt about this.





Now we can easily see something of benefit: that we are excellent at  
the former but particularly weak at the latter. Here is where we can  
improve our thinking without bothering about the unconscious mind  
and other dirty sewers that we at other times love to thresh around  
in philosophically.


I find it highly curious how you describe the unconscious mind as  
being a dirty sewer – speak for yourself Kim.. where you see a sewer  
I see endless unfolding wonder… an inner kaleidoscope beckoning and  
waiting discovery.


You se something I should explain oneday: the creativity of the  
universal machine, and the productivity of its complement, and of  
truth. (Assuming computationalism, of course). That has been  
discovered by Emil Post, and that is what makes computationalism quite  
plausible. But it is no part of the person itself, it makes only  
richer his/her reality. It is the wonder of the unknown, but you  
eliminate yourself if you identify yourself to any 3p conception of  
that unknown, which is the reductionist trap of the (weak)-materialists.


From below, I guess I should say two words about the theoretical  
computer scientist notion of creative and

Re: Democracy

2015-01-03 Thread Alberto G. Corona

It is like If i insist to call alcoholism as the proper name for
euphoria. The same happens with democracy and freedom.

If truth and freedom were the result of the decission of the majority, then
herds of sheeps would have painted the Chapelle Sixtine and they would be
exploring the galaxy.

So hard is that to be understood?

2015-01-03 15:29 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 02 Jan 2015, at 21:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

First, a reference to wikipedia is everything but an argument.

Second, it looks like the athenian democracy. I just said that this is
not democracy in the modern sense of the word.

From my own research, the USSR has been one of the hardest dictatorship in
human history. Only after the fall of the berlin wall could many refugees
(from USSR and its satellites) see their family again, when still alive.

If you believed that the USSR was democratic, I understand better your
critics on the democratic system!

Bruno

2015-01-02 12:38 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 01 Jan 2015, at 22:28, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

2014-12-30 14:15 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 29 Dec 2014, at 19:27, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

The Soviet union can be formally considered a democracy.

I disagree. Democracy is when there are election, with secret vote,
every four or five years. It allows a formal opposition with some
representation is some parliament or equivalent.

The soviet union had elections and a other parties. It had a parliament .
At least in most of the comunist parties there were a formal opposition.
The constitution of the URSS was ok according to liberal standards. All
that you mentioned were meet as well as it is met by almost every modern
regime

You might give reference. I have never heard of the people being able to
vote.

Just give me a reference of one vote of the people (not just at the top)
in the USSR. Thanks.

Bruno

http://books.google.es/books?id=kNfBCKFB8WMCprintsec=frontcoverhl=es#v=onepageq=sovietf=false

By looking for a true universal classification for political regimes, It
is necessary to raise the level of analysis to metaphysics and theology,
since definitions need to be more and more abstract and precise at the same
time. There is no way to use the external (formal) neither the internal
(self reported) data.

Basically the only possible forms of governments are the ones defined by
the greek phylosophers.

In machine's theology, invoking religion in politics is already a
blasphem.

Theology cannot be political, no more than physics or biology.
Politicians can take into acoount their beliefs and faith, but not in a
public way. Democracy separates religion and state.

Marxism is close to Islam.

I do agree with this, with Islamism instead of Islam. I am astonished
how much the leftists defend the fanatical Islamists and even the
antisemites and the antichristians, those days.

And The soviet Union close to an oriental empire with the King-Priest
that has the unique power to interpret the true meaning of history.

Yes. But that shows how much it is not democratic. Russia has made
progress though. More than we realize in West Europa. But they have still
big progress to do. In the West, we have regressed a lot, and the more I
study how and why, the more I link this to prohibition.

Exercise:
5 years of prohibition of alcohol

Re: Democracy



On 02 Jan 2015, at 21:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy


First, a reference to wikipedia is everything but an argument.

Second, it looks like the athenian democracy. I just said that this  
is not democracy in the modern sense of the word.


From my own research, the USSR has been one of the hardest  
dictatorship in human history. Only after the fall of the berlin wall  
could many refugees (from USSR and its satellites) see their family  
again, when still alive.


Religion was also forbidden and christians, jews and others have been  
deported or executed, in mass. All people I know from there confirmed:  
no elections, except at the top of the hierarchy, like in China. Those  
were atheist dictatorships.


If you believed that  the USSR was democratic, I understand better  
your critics on the democratic system!


Bruno







2015-01-02 12:38 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 01 Jan 2015, at 22:28, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2014-12-30 14:15 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 29 Dec 2014, at 19:27, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


The Soviet union can be formally considered a democracy.




I disagree. Democracy is when there are election, with secret vote,  
every four or five years. It allows a formal opposition with some  
representation is some parliament or equivalent.


The soviet union had elections and a other parties. It had a  
parliament . At least in most of the comunist parties there were a  
formal opposition. The constitution of the URSS was ok according  
to liberal standards. All that you mentioned were meet as well as  
it is met by almost every modern regime


You might give reference. I have never heard of the people being  
able to vote.


A leftist friend of mind was so naive on this that he asked to the  
USSR to accept him as political refugees, during a visit there (well  
before the fall of the Berlin wall). He get imprisonned, suspect of  
being a spy, but eventually succeeded to hide in an embassy, and  
escape. His opinion on the USSR democracy changed.


Just give me a reference of one vote of the people (not just at the  
top) in the USSR. Thanks.


Bruno









http://books.google.es/books?id=kNfBCKFB8WMCprintsec=frontcoverhl=es#v 
=onepageq=sovietf=false


By looking for a true universal classification for political  
regimes, It is necessary to raise the level of analysis to  
metaphysics and theology, since definitions need to be more and  
more abstract and precise at the same time. There is no way to use  
the external (formal) neither the internal (self reported) data.


Basically the only possible forms of governments are the ones  
defined by the greek phylosophers.


Actually I disagree on this, despite my appreciation of the greeks  
philosophers. Plato, and even Plotinus, tried to implement cities  
governed by sage, but this does not work. Cities are better  
governed by opportunist egoists, hoping they are clever enough to  
take into account the suggestion of the people (if only to be  
reelected later).





There is no others possible. The names used in each age vary  
depending on the ideologies that support the state, but that does  
not change the underlying nature. And the ideology that support  
the legitimacy of the regime is a form or religion.  That is in  
what is based the branch of political theory called political  
theology, the deepest branch.



In machine's theology, invoking religion in politics is already a  
blasphem.


Theology cannot be political, no more than physics or biology.  
Politicians can take into acoount their beliefs and faith, but not  
in a public way. Democracy separates religion and state.







 Marxism is close to Islam.


I do agree with this, with Islamism instead of Islam. I am  
astonished how much the leftists defend the fanatical Islamists and  
even the antisemites and the antichristians, those days.




And The soviet Union close to an oriental empire with the King- 
Priest that has the unique power to interpret the true meaning of  
history.


Yes. But that shows how much it is not democratic. Russia has made  
progress though. More than we realize in West Europa. But they have  
still big progress to do. In the West, we have regressed a lot, and  
the more I study how and why, the more I link this to prohibition.


Exercise:
5 years of prohibition of alcohol has given Al Capone.
What has given 75 years of prohibition of cannabis?

Bruno




2014-12-28 11:57 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:

On 27 Dec 2014, at 23:40, Kim Jones wrote:



On 27 Dec 2014, at 11:44 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 27 Dec 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote:

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

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2015-01-03 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Logical positivism in the hard form has been abandoned in favor of a dozen
derivations, but it is a tactical withdrawal in order to protect the
central dogmas: the antimetaphysical standpoint, the acritical adoration of
science understood in the very narrow sense of today. The negation of
innate knowledge. The negation that the mind can know the truth from
inside. The negation of morality as object of study. The negation the most
high of man in which distinguish himself form animals.

Or to summarize: the monstruous contradiction of the negation of Man as
object of study with the aim to divinize it, Or to be exact, to divinize
some men and slave others. That is not possible if morality is objective
and the inherent limitations of every men are accepted No men-gods are
possible then.

The auto-idealized positivist man look at nature not as a part of it, but
as a god that observe nature and submit it to himself trough the knowledge
of his laws by science. And this domination include other men. This Man-god
justified by himself is the childs treasure that tries to preserve the
neo-positivist

2014-12-16 11:42 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:


 On 15 Dec 2014, at 11:22, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 You are projecting metaphisical differences into physical forces at the
 last steps. That does not make sense IMHO. The New Agers do the opposite.

 I think that this is an error typical of people with no education in
 physics and technology that are overexposed to scientific-tecnical terms.

 Your metaphysical reasoning is very interesting. Specially your awareness
 of the logical positivism and your rejection of it, that is refreshing for
 me. The people of this list are logical positivists and they don´t know
 that they adopt this metaphysical standpoint.



 I have no clue why you think that we are logical positivist, which in
 paricular I debunk in detail in many places (forum, papers, books). Then,
 how could machine's theology fit with logical positism? How could
 computationalism, which asks for a consciousness invariance act of faith be
 positivistic?




 I think that the rejection of metaphysics by the logical positivists is an
 ideological trick that closes their mind and inmmunizes them against
 metaphysical reasoning, in the same way that marxists despised anything non
 marxist as bourgeois.


 I think that logical positivism, like behaviorisme in psychology has been
 abandonned by everybody since many decades.

 Bruno


 2014-10-23 9:50 GMT+02:00 Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com:

 Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
 physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental
 question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get
 with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky to try to derive
 fundamental laws of nature in this way. But I think that we can actually
 get quite far with such an a priori method. Now with respect to your
 question, I understand that dark energy is a basically repulsive force
 driving inflation. I don't want to say I can derive dark energy from a
 priori principles (that would be absurd). But I think I can derive a
 duality of attraction and repulsion in that way. The reasoning I emply,
 however, is very abstract, using ideas taken from philosophers like Hegel
 and Heidegger, although on the whole I feel more attracted to the
 rationality of Anglo-American philosophy (and science) than to postmodern
 philosophy (which I think is basically a fraud). Perhaps my reasoning is
 closest to German idealists like Hegel and Schelling who still feld they
 could derive the basic principles of natural science from philosophical
 principles. So here is how my argument goes in nuce, I hope you can make
 sense of it:

 First I argue that nothing is self-negating (for logical arguments see
 the blog piece). Simply put: nothing is nothing to such a degree that it
 isn't even itself! Thus, as nothing negates itself, it produces being, it
 becomes something. Now, since nothing is different from itself, being (as
 the negation of nothing) must be different from something else. This then
 is how I define being: as difference from something else. Now it is easy to
 see that this difference must take two forms. First, being is being because
 it differs from non-being or nothing (let's call this ontological
 difference, following Heidegger). Second, being must also be internally
 differentiated, that is to say: there must be multiple beings differing
 from each other (let's call this ontic difference). Then we can say: a
 being is what it is because of its ontic difference from other beings.
 (Ultimately, I think, this imlies that beings are mathematical, for lacking
 intrinsic qualities of their own, they canly be distinguished in
 quantitative ways, such that it is their position in a quantitative
 structure which determines what they are.) Now we can say: the source (or
 cause) of what beings are is (ontic)

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year



On 02 Jan 2015, at 21:40, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 Define telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing.

No. Buy a dictionary, if you're still confused after that I'll try  
to help you out but first you'll need to define define.


 So we don't have a bet,

I can't say I'm surprised, I've been offering this bet at the  
beginning of the year for over a decade but even the staunchest  
believer in the paranormal always chickens out when asked to put his  
money where his mouth is.


It is just ridiculous. I am pretty sure that no journals will publish  
a confirmation of string theory, but this does not imply that string  
theory is not serious, nor false.


And the frontier of discipline are not an absolute, like the dream  
lucid phenomenon exemplified.






 BTW, why sending this to the list. I have never heard people  
defending para-psy.


Don't you remember Craig Weinberg? And my attack on parapsychology  
upset you so much you called me a bigot.


It was the non validity of your type of argumentation that might have  
upset me.

Here, you confuse ~[]p with []~p.





 most scienstist practice argument of authority, given that they  
believe or not a paper just by the title of a journal


Most scientists believe in reputation and in induction, so even if  
they have not personally duplicated the  exparament they think that  
the numbers published in Science or Nature or Physical Review  
Letters are probably correct. But things would be quite different if  
experimental results were printed on a processed dead tree in a  
fifth rate science journal that nobody has ever heard of, or worse  
just data on a website run by somebody nobody has heard of, or if  
they have wished they hadn't. I know how to type too, I could easily  
start a website saying perpetual motion is possible and even provide  
results of experiments that I say I  have performed supporting my  
claim. It wouldn't take me 20 minutes.


I might add that with the exception of religion, a closely related  
delusion, no area of human activity has been as riddled with as much  
fraud as psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever buzzword is in  
fashion today for that drivel.


So why even talk about them? especially that nobody defend the  
paranormal in this list. Even Craig did not, as far as I remember. He  
might use paranormal in his website, to illustrate some of his point,  
but here we use only logic and reason.






 the interesting question is what is the nature of God: a thing, a  
person, a mathematical reality, etc.


It is none of those things, God is a 3 letter ASCII sequence with  
the binary value of 01000111 0110 01100100. And I have to  
disagree with you, I don't find that very interesting.


If you quoted the whole paragraph, it is clear that one have adopted  
the original general definition, where God is, by definition, the  
thing which makes you conscious in a(n) apparent universe.







 atheists are ally to the institutionalized religion.

And up is down and black is white and atheism is just a slight  
variation of Christianity.


But it is trivial that you illustrate this very well, by being unable  
to change your notion of God, and get stuck on the fairy tale notion,  
like the fundamentalist christians.

And then atheists have the same faith in material substances.

I have also clearly realize that you are really unaware of Plato, and  
its rational attempt to understand the nature of reality.








 You really seem to act that a bishop of religious atheism,

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never  
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.



Then explain me why you defend the idea that God is what the  
fundamentalist christian talk about, and nothing else.


Why don't you mock people for believing in Earth? An infinite flat  
surface is surely a stupid idea.


No, for Earth, you have no problem to accept that the notion evolve.  
Earth is flat. Oh... no, it is round. OK. Why not: God is an  
omniscient person. Oh no God is not omniscient and might be not a  
person. Etc.









  Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical universe? Or are you  
agnostic on this?


I can't answer that until I understand the question. I know what you  
mean by primary, it's a brute fact, the end of a long chain of  
why? questions,


OK. It is what we think need to be assume. With computationalism, we  
know today that we don't need to assume more than the RA axioms,  
making numbers and their basic laws primary.



but I'm a little fuzzy about physical universe, and I don't want  
definitions I want examples.


The key was primary. You can replace universe by space-time,  
concrete solution of Einstein equation, corrected by some quantum  
precision.




Are only nouns part of the physical universe or are adjectives and  
adverbs part of it too?


It is not quite relevant.
Are only 0, s(0), s(s(0)),

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?



On 03 Jan 2015, at 07:17, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:44 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From  
quantum theory to dialectics?


On 1/2/2015 9:05 PM, 'Roger' via Everything List wrote:
Even if the word exists has no use because everything exists, it  
seems important to know why everything exists.  How is it that a  
thing can exist?  What I suggest is that a grouping defining what is  
contained within is an existent entity.  Then, you can use this to  
try and answer the other question of Why is there something rather  
than nothing?.


If everything exists, what doesn't exist?  Nothing.

If nothing existed; would it remain nothing?


Careful not confusing Nothing exists and Nothing exist.

In the first case, something exists. But not necessarily in the second  
case.


Of course not everything exists a priori. There is no divisors of zero  
different from zero, nor is there a cat-dog, nor is there a triangle  
with four sides.


Then with mechanism, we can, assume that what exist are simply the  
numbers 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
Then all the rest, God included, is part of a persistent number  
hallucination, but hallucination should not be used as unreal,  
because the hallucination is real, and is what makes our lives, and  
there is no reason to dismiss them at all.


The math makes this clear too by distinguish the

ontical existence  Ex P(x)  and only 0, s(0), ... exists in that sense

and the many and quite variate rich phenomenological existence: whcih  
are obtained with the modal points of view, like []Ex[]P(x), with []  
being the box of self-reference logic and its many intensional  
variants (which distinguish basicall all science (biology, psychology,  
physics, even theology).



Bruno










-Chris

Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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: Democracy

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:30:24 PM UTC, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Indeed. Popper had a very naive conception of human nature.

 If error correction were the hallmark of democracy, then the keynessian 
 economic measures used now to fight the crisis, that are so convenient for 
 the ruling elite -because they increase the size of the leviatan state- 
 would  never have been used again after the crisis of the 70's.


IMHO: The striking thing about the Soviet system was how quickly it 
succumbed to corruption. It's hard to estimate because it happened so 
quickly. There doesn't seem to be a 'honeymoon'. But then again, it wasn't 
about socialism but brutal genocide. Whatever. 

The corruption factor is still legitimate even so. The Westwas a 
beautiful thing. It ran foroh I don't know the answer to that one. But 
while it ran...wow. Science, checks and balances, a new vision of a 
holistic society. You are right that Christianity was front and centre of 
that world. That world that is gone. 

-- 
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

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:36 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:34 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy

On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

- Forwarded Message -
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy

The Soviet union can be formally considered a democracy. There is nothing 
external or formal that may distinguish a democracy from any other regime. 
Since every modern state has the same elements. All of them use the 
momenclature of the age. The word democracy is the most overused world in 
this century togeter with scientific.

No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word god however.

Yes,  ... and no. 

For the greeks God was just a pointer to the truth we are searching, through 
theories and observation. It led to math and physics, + inquiry about which one 
is more fundamental, and what might still be beyond math and physics. That use 
of God remains in some language expression, like when we say only God knows, 
which means I don't know.

But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was referring to 
modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value system. 

Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend. Well, 
if you forget the superstition, it has some important relation. Monotheism is 
a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.

Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth kether 
(kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet cannot be 
named; the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… that is without 
form or definition yet which fills and animates all things…. The divine spark 
so to speak.

A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral and 
considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who do not 
fear god; 

With some definition, fearing God is a nonsense. 

I find those definitions of God far more palatable than I do the Manichean 
dystopic vision, of a universe divided between the opposing forces of good and 
evil.

We should fear the devil, but not God. 

Or as some spiritual traditions maintain the devil is merely a manifestation of 
our own ignorance and impoverished state of being cutoff form our spiritual 
being. The devil is a paper tiger… not to say that evil does not exist, but 
evil is ultimately a manifestation of profound spiritual ignorance – at least 
amongst some spiritual traditions.

So perhaps if I could re-phrase the phrase above to say that we should be 
mindful of our ignorance, for inner ignorance is what cuts us off from the 
infinite eternal divine infusion of being.

But of course this aspect of the thing is not yet retrieved from arithmetic. 
I hipe it will, but I am not 100% sure. Open problem. How much can e say that 
god is good, like Plato thought? We don't know yet.

Perhaps God evolved.. perhaps the version of reality we exist in evolved from 
earlier renditions and over infinite recursion into previous renditions in this 
hypothesized behind the scenes reality configuration space the holistic 
principle gradually evolved. Why not a Darwinian type process perfecting God 
itself so that our God is the result of a long line of preceding Godheads.

Everything I see both outside myself and when I look within is an evolving 
maelstrom of barely ordered chaos, balancing on that creative knife edge 
between static order and total incoherent chaos. The galaxies, the stars in 
them, the sponge-like riverine mega structures of dark matter upon which 
galaxies ride. The quantum leaps of electrons between electron shells but never 
between. Everything seems a swirl of evolving forms. And so it is within our 
own selves; we are far from static beings (even the dullest amongst us)

whilst by comparison describing a person as being godless is usually a form of 
ad hominem insult. A Godless person is assumed to be (by the God-fearing 
sheeple) of lower moral caliber and someone who cannot be trusted.

I can make sense. No one is Godless. Godless people confuse God and some hero 
of fairy tale.

God is used possessively by most people who use the word to describe some 
special supernatural entity that they know about and will be good to them but 
whom is going to damn everyone else (all those who does not believe as they do) 
to eternal damnation and

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year



On 03 Jan 2015, at 05:23, Jason Resch wrote:



The selective replies to my post tells me all I need to know.



Good point. John Clark systematically ignores the arguments, and his  
strategy consists in mocking excerpts taken out of context.


Bruno




Jason

On Friday, January 2, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com  
wrote:


  So we don't have a bet,


  I can't say I'm surprised, I've been offering this bet at the  
beginning of the year for over a decade but even the staunchest  
believer in the paranormal always chickens out when asked to put his  
money where his mouth is.


  The intention of your bet is unclear.

 My intention was to make $100 however Bruno won't take my bet, but  
you seem to be a big fan of paranormal crap so how about you?


 First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight  
you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi


 They laughed at Galileo, and they laughed at Bozo the clown too.  
Unfortunately there are more Bozos than Galileos. -- 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.


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: A paranormal prediction for the next year


Thanks Kim!

On 03 Jan 2015, at 01:14, Kim Jones wrote:

A brilliant passage by Bruno recently - may have been rendered a bit  
more clearly by the following redaction:



Well, I have discussed this on FB in different groups. I got  
confirmation that strong atheists always use insults, jokes and  
mockery instead of arguing something of substance. Not just at me,  
but toward anyone guilty of nothing more than presenting the  
difficulties of making atheism scientific and avoiding contamination  
by pseudo-religious bigotry.


Many atheists have understood that they are not bigoted atheists,  
but merely agnostic. As atheism is sometimes defined as agnostic I  
add that there is no problem with that larger definition (but I  
suspect this is just a trick by the atheists to bring agnostics into  
their camp).


It took time but eventually mathematicians accepted 0 as a number.  
It simplifies everything to accept a general definition asserting  
that God is at the origin of consciousness and matter, or, the  
appearance of matter. That definition has the advantage of being  
acceptable to religious people of quite different traditions,  
together with the non-religious as well.


The interesting question then becomes what is the nature of God: a  
thing, a person, a mathematical reality etc?


Many atheists believe in a primary universe. What this inescapably  
means is that they believe God = Primary Universe, and conceive of  
it usually as a thing.


This is already theology.

Translation:  We CLAIM something about the personal God:

there are 0 personal gods

They also assert some things about the NATURE OF God: that God is  
non-personal AND it is a physical thing (which in addition does not  
exist...)


This way of talking is usual enough in science! All you need say is  
that ... theology must be confined to the irrational, and confirms  
that atheists are allied to the institutionalized religions.


Strong atheism comports the following religious beliefs:

1) the belief that there is no personal God

2) the belief in metaphysical naturalism: the universe is a god  
(personal or not, but usually not personal). That was Einstein's  
position, although he may have changed his mind near the end of his  
life, thanks to Gödel. But Gödel was closer to me in defending the  
(trivial) fact that we can do theology with a scientific attitude.


He provided a proof of the existence of God to illustrate that fact.

I guess you know of it: what is your opinion of Gödel's proof of the  
existence of God? Note that little errors have been found, and  
corrected (by Scott, I think). Of course this does not prove the  
existence of God, because he used the modal logic S5 in a context  
where Mechanism would impose S4Grz1. Can we construct the proof of  
God in S4Grz1? Open problem (at least for me).


You really seem to act like a bishop of religious atheism, although  
your position on the ontological status of the physical universe  
remains unclear. Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical universe? Or  
are you agnostic on this?


Bruno


Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


I'm not saying there aren't a lot of dangerous people out there. I  
am saying a lot of them are in government - Russell Brand





--
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: Democracy



On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:36 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy


On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:





From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:34 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Democracy


On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List  
wrote:







- Forwarded Message -
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Democracy

The Soviet union can be formally considered a democracy. There  
is nothing external or formal that may distinguish a democracy from  
any other regime. Since every modern state has the same elements.  
All of them use the momenclature of the age. The word democracy is  
the most overused world in this century togeter with scientific.


No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word god however.


Yes,  ... and no.

For the greeks God was just a pointer to the truth we are  
searching, through theories and observation. It led to math and  
physics, + inquiry about which one is more fundamental, and what  
might still be beyond math and physics. That use of God remains in  
some language expression, like when we say only God knows, which  
means I don't know.


But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was  
referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic  
value system.


I think monotheism is only the personal view of the monism of the  
parmenides one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the  
monism of those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a  
pedagogical popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too  
much) mixed with politics.






Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish  
legend. Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some important  
relation. Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.


Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the  
sephiroth kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is  
manifest yet cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of pure  
abstract space… that is without form or definition yet which fills  
and animates all things…. The divine spark so to speak.


I think so.


A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral  
and considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to  
those who do not fear god;


But this fearing of God is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only  
the devil should be feared. (between us). Obviously that are open  
problem in machine theology.








With some definition, fearing God is a nonsense.

I find those definitions of God far more palatable than I do the  
Manichean dystopic vision, of a universe divided between the  
opposing forces of good and evil.



In the theology of the machine, the devil is well played by the notion  
of false. In a sense, like in Plotinus, it simply does not exist, but  
its influence is incarnated in the []f, and [][]f, or even []t,  
which implies logically f, at the star level (in G*), which we cannot  
see, but can intuit. That makes the frontier between good and bad into  
a fractal similar to the Mandelbrot set. But it relates also the bad  
to the harm. The opposing force is nature manicheism, needed to make  
us believe that eating is good and being eaten is bad, which is  
locally useful to live and develop.







We should fear the devil, but not God.

Or as some spiritual traditions maintain the devil is merely a  
manifestation of our own ignorance and impoverished state of being  
cutoff form our spiritual being.


That follows from what I say aboven but not withot some technical  
difficulties. Plotinus get similar difficulties. Pain and suffering  
remains quite complex to analyse. there are still many difficulties.




The devil is a paper tiger… not to say that evil does not exist, but  
evil is ultimately a manifestation of profound spiritual ignorance –  
at least amongst some spiritual traditions.
So perhaps if I could re-phrase the phrase above to say that we  
should be mindful of our ignorance, for inner ignorance is what cuts  
us off from the infinite eternal divine infusion of being.


I will think about this. I am not entirely sure. It is more the  
ignorance of our ignorance which is evil, but that might correspond to  
what you say, because it is the ignorance of ignorance which cut of  
frm the divine source.  Our ignorance itself, when living on the  
terrestrial plane, is our knowledge of God/Truth. To see God is a sort  
of

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote

 I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used
 by shallow people like me.



 I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but


Oh yes, I knew there would be a but.

 when big money depends on some numbers looking good


Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says
something that you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you
wish hard enough that something is not true it isn't.

  Wikipedia is open to corruption


But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We
shouldn't trust Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when
he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.


 You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a
 solar cell is around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the
 cell was not able to capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.


*OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT*, only a fool would count light
that you didn't pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you
do count the self-energy of the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for,
as energy invested when figuring out the EROI to convert kerogen to oil.
So  why the inconsistency, why not use the same imbecilic method for solar
cells that you use for kerogen? Could it possibly be because you like solar
cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

 The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen
 requires huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!


Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the
kerogen itself that is released as heat. Of course that means that the
chemical energy in a pound of kerogen is greater than the chemical energy
in the crude oil that the pound of kerogen produced, and a pound of crude
oil has more chemical energy than the refined  gasoline that came from that
pound of crude oil, but given that  the law of conservation of energy is
what it is a educated person, a smart person, and a honest person wouldn't
expect anything else.


  EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs
 required to produce the energy yield


Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell.


 to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.

If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the
first law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of
ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that
assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of energy is wrong,
Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything.


 so your yadda yadda about all processes being less than
 thermodynamically perfect is mere useless noise

Yes, just like Wikipedia physics is all yadda yadda because when big money
depends on some numbers looking good the first and second laws of
thermodynamics are open to corruption. But we can take solace in the fact
that Chris de Morsella is absolutely incorruptible.

 That would really mess up with your plans for eternal preservation.
 Imagine that your Alzheimer riddled brain preserved forever…. An amusing
 thought for me… so thanks for that little word trigger John.


Hmm, An amusing thought for me, you really are a charming fellow Chris.
You've won the quadruple crown, you are sadistic, you are a scientific
illiterate, you are dumb as dog shit, and you are a coward. Other than that
you're a fine fellow, but I think I've had about enough of you for now,

 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: Democracy


On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of*Bruno Marchal

*Sent:*Thursday, January 01, 2015 3:36 AM
*To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:*Re: Democracy
On 31 Dec 2014, at 20:12, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On 
Behalf Of*Bruno Marchal

*Sent:*Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:34 AM
*To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:*Re: Democracy
On 30 Dec 2014, at 01:38, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:



- Forwarded Message -
*From:*Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com
*To:*everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com

*Sent:*Monday, December 29, 2014 10:27 AM
*Subject:*Re: Democracy
The Soviet union can be formally considered a democracy. There is nothing external or 
formal that may distinguish a democracy from any other regime. Since every modern state 
has the same elements. All of them use the momenclature of the age. The word democracy 
is the most overused world in this century togeter with scientific.

No word comes close to matching the overuse of the word god however.
Yes,  ... and no.
For the greeks God was just a pointer to the truth we are searching, through theories 
and observation. It led to math and physics, + inquiry about which one is more 
fundamental, and what might still be beyond math and physics. That use of God remains 
in some language expression, like when we say only God knows, which means I don't know.
But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was referring to modern 
usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value system.


I think monotheism is only the personal view of the monism of the parmenides 
one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of those who 
believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical popularization, who get 
wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with politics.


But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political because the 
unifying truths are the cultural proscriptions about behavior and values.  God is the 
law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all, and rewards and punishes 
all.  The truths of mathematics and physics and biology are of little relevance.  His 
truths are about procreation and war and ethics and loyalty to the tribe.






Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend. Well, if you 
forget the superstition, it has some important relation. Monotheism is a reflexion of 
parmenides or Plotinus monism.
Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth kether (kether 
means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet cannot be named; the first 
divine emanation out of pure abstract space… that is without form or definition yet 
which fills and animates all things…. The divine spark so to speak.


I think so.


A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral and considered (by 
other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who do not fear god;


But this fearing of God is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the devil should 
be feared. (between us).


Unless you are the devil.  Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to stone adulterers 
and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.


Brent
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God 
hates all the same people you do.

 - Anne Lamott

--
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.

Carlos Castaneda

Here's a mystic who knew the purpose of religion.  I well remember the adulation of 
Castaneda and how even otherwise sensible people thought his stories were true.


Brent



 Forwarded Message 


PatrickHMoore posted: by BJW Nashe Carlos Castaneda’s journey from anthropology student 
to famous author to New Age cult leader makes for a strange tale that is far more 
disturbing than anything found in his bestselling books. At the peak of his career, 
Castaneda crossed over



   New post on *All Things Crime Blog*



http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1 


   Carlos Castaneda’s Sex-and-Suicide Cult, and the Witches Who Disappeared
   
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/

by PatrickHMoore http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1

by BJW Nashe

Carlos Castaneda’s journey from anthropology student to famous author to New Age cult 
leader makes for a strange tale that is far more disturbing than anything found in his 
bestselling books.


At the peak of his career, Castaneda crossed over an invisible line. He turned his back on 
the clear light of humane, rational thought, and stepped into a shadowy realm of 
manipulation, secrecy, and lies. It’s tempting to compare this to the metaphorical leap 
into the abyss that figures so heavily in his writings. Yet Castaneda’s real-life leap had 
consequences that were quite different from the magical escapades depicted in his writing. 
Once he became rich and famous and began facing scrutiny, Castaneda shunned the limelight 
and spent the next two-and-a-half decades pursuing a bizarre alternative lifestyle largely 
hidden from the public. He proclaimed himself a shaman and a sorcerer and assumed the role 
of a mysterious guru surrounded by a group of close followers.


Read more of this post 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#more-29970


*PatrickHMoore http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1* | January 3, 2015 at 7:58 am 
| Categories: Historical Crime 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?taxonomy=categoryterm=historical-crime, True Crime 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?taxonomy=categoryterm=true-crime | URL: 
http://wp.me/p3dI4z-7No


Comment 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#respond 
	See all comments 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#comments 



Unsubscribe 
https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=afc966c0350c3627c0de54e7770ea8d9email=cyclopasaurus%40gmail.comb=LauV%7ETkL%2BMKK8Z7hNejfle-JaHLX%2C17oMpivWvW-Jq4gjaQ%25F%3Dm 
to no longer receive posts from All Things Crime Blog.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions 
https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=afc966c0350c3627c0de54e7770ea8d9email=cyclopasaurus%40gmail.com. 



*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/ 









--
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

2015-01-03 Thread Kim Jones


 On 4 Jan 2015, at 2:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
 But this fearing of God is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the 
 devil should be feared. (between us).


Is the devil not-God? Is it not that fear of the devil is the same as the 
fear of God (in some sense)? 

Who or what IS this devil character anyway? Is such a concept necessary?

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

2015-01-03 Thread PGC



On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:39:18 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

  On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:


  
  But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was 
 referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value 
 system.
 

  I think monotheism is only the personal view of the monism of the 
 parmenides one.
 I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of 
 those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical 
 popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with 
 politics.
  

 But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political 
 because the unifying truths are the cultural proscriptions about behavior 
 and values.  


Not according to the writing. 

If there is one clear thing from Parmenides to Enneads, it is the 
separation between appearance of world affairs and divine reality, with the 
latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze. Divine reality 
is not some political stance, nor is it set of cultural traits. Political 
stance, behavior, laws, and rules we can talk/argue about, but by antique 
definition, one is the simplest of all ideas. So simple as to not permit 
these sorts of facile generalization, or analysis as we know it (and this 
is consistent with inability to break something, which is the ultimate 
simple, down further), so simple as to elude people, try as they might to 
capture it or make it fit some personal agenda. 

The unifying truth is one and it is nameless and without graspable 
attributes and properties. And this is also fits with beings sitting in the 
dark of some cave of forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, 
god etc.
 

 God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all, 
 and rewards and punishes all.  The truths of mathematics and physics and 
 biology are of little relevance.  His truths are about procreation and 
 war and ethics and loyalty to the tribe.


You seem to be treating some projection of yours, as what Bruno references 
is pretty standard Greek mythology. 
 


  
  
  
 
  Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend. 
 Well, if you forget the superstition, it has some important relation. 
 Monotheism is a reflexion of parmenides or Plotinus monism.
  
 Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth 
 kether (kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet 
 cannot be named; the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… 
 that is without form or definition yet which fills and animates all 
 things…. The divine spark so to speak.
   

  I think so. 

  
A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral 
 and considered (by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who 
 do not fear god;
 

  But this fearing of God is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only 
 the devil should be feared. (between us). 
  

 Unless you are the devil.  Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to 
 stone adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.

 Brent
 You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns 
 out that God hates all the same people you do. 
  - Anne Lamott


The very idea of people's relation to god = who we should hate, 
superiority, politics etc. is already too low and worldly to start with, 
that it itself cannot be divine. So those comments and the quote don't seem 
relevant.

Concerning the devil, I think the Yazidis have a noteworthy take on who 
they see as Peacock Angel. It makes one ask whether the vain Peacock 
Angel's tears of remorse would soften the harsh truths or not: e.g. will 
some benevolent future Star Trek force defrost Clark's awesome ice cube 
head or judge that he spammed too much and is taking too much disk space 
for the money he spent?

And thanks Brent for the Castaneda article to show how mystical types are 
all the same. I would say that our naive theological attitude, equating all 
theological questioning with some fear-based cartoon in our heads (instead 
of sincerely trying to parse and test them rationally), is what made the 
western reader ideal prey for this kind of manipulation. Your anti-mystical 
posts, in this regard, repeatedly make this rather irrational point, when 
all it needs is reason: if the western reader had had sufficient mystical 
experience with techniques of trance and ecstasy, that book would have 
never made the bestseller list. People would have thrown it into the trash, 
ridiculing the inept and naive consumption of poisons, as well as the 
experiential results that the book points towards. 

Prohibition helps the false shaman get rich, for never even taking the 
medicine he himself appears to advocate, and people just lack the 
experience to parse that. PGC

Re: Animals think like autistic humans


On 1/3/2015 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2015, at 06:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On 
Behalf Of*Kim Jones

*Sent:*Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:55 PM
*To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:*Re: Animals think like autistic humans

On 1 Jan 2015, at 2:52 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com

mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com]*On
Behalf Of*meekerdb
*Sent:*Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:30 PM
*To:*everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:*Re: Animals think like autistic humans
On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:

You seem to be saying that we can do nothing new about thinking.
No, not that at all. I am saying that first we need to understand what thinking really 
is and move beyond our primitive anthropocentric views that have come to us from our 
past. We have a long heritage of thinking about what thinking is, so lots of material 
to draw from.
The more humbly we come to understand that our self-aware inner dialogue is the mind’s 
(simplified and summarized) narration of a deeper and much vaster non verbalized 
intelligence which is that which is doing the individuals **thinking**


OK, but then you can't stop the descend and you will need to say that the thinking is 
done by the arithmetical realizations, but that is 3p descriptible (even if infinite) so 
something has gone wrong (we get trapped in a cinfusion between the 3p, []p, and the 1p, 
[]p p).


What's wrong with being 3p describable (aside from mystic prejudices)?

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: Democracy



On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:15:47 AM UTC, PGC wrote:



 On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:39:18 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

  On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:


  
  But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was 
 referring to modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value 
 system.
 

  I think monotheism is only the personal view of the monism of the 
 parmenides one.
 I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of 
 those who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical 
 popularization, who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with 
 politics.
  

 But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political 
 because the unifying truths are the cultural proscriptions about behavior 
 and values.  


 Not according to the writing. 

 If there is one clear thing from Parmenides to Enneads, it is the 
 separation between appearance of world affairs and divine reality, with the 
 latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze. Divine reality 
 is not some political stance, nor is it set of cultural traits. Political 
 stance, behavior, laws, and rules we can talk/argue about, but by antique 
 definition, one is the simplest of all ideas. So simple as to not permit 
 these sorts of facile generalization, or analysis as we know it (and this 
 is consistent with inability to break something, which is the ultimate 
 simple, down further), so simple as to elude people, try as they might to 
 capture it or make it fit some personal agenda. 

 The unifying truth is one and it is nameless and without graspable 
 attributes and properties. And this is also fits with beings sitting in the 
 dark of some cave of forms, easily mistaking such forms for reality, truth, 
 god etc.
  

 God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all, 
 and rewards and punishes all.  The truths of mathematics and physics and 
 biology are of little relevance.  His truths are about procreation and 
 war and ethics and loyalty to the tribe.


 You seem to be treating some projection of yours, as what Bruno references 
 is pretty standard Greek mythology. 


PGC baby, I was beginning to think your enemies had got you. I 
praise God and Laws that you return. I've been waiting for you. I believe 
we two have some overlapping bits in our respective destinies. Possibly 
involving a dog's bollocks blown clean off Sci-Fi trilogy with movie and 
merchandising smartly leveraged. 

  

-- 
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.

Evolution of pro-social religions

In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to 
full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them 
about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more 
complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about 
Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that 
it becomes visible for them. 

In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea 
and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the 
matter. 

In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was 
worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after 
mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it 
yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what 
extent they live up to what they aspire to. 

*This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and 
byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of *

*empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) 
generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from 
diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time 
encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for 
exploration and debate.*


*http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf 
http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf*

-- 
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 Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:29:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:



 On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote

  I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used 
 by shallow people like me. 

  

 I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but


 Oh yes, I knew there would be a but.

  when big money depends on some numbers looking good


 Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says 
 something that you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you 
 wish hard enough that something is not true it isn't. 

   Wikipedia is open to corruption


 But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We 
 shouldn't trust Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when 
 he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.
  

 You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a 
 solar cell is around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the 
 cell was not able to capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.


 *OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT*, only a fool would count light 
 that you didn't pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you 
 do count the self-energy of the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for, 
 as energy invested when figuring out the EROI to convert kerogen to oil.  
 So  why the inconsistency, why not use the same imbecilic method for solar 
 cells that you use for kerogen? Could it possibly be because you like solar 
 cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence. 

  The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen 
 requires huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!


 Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the 
 kerogen itself that is released as heat. Of course that means that the 
 chemical energy in a pound of kerogen is greater than the chemical energy 
 in the crude oil that the pound of kerogen produced, and a pound of crude 
 oil has more chemical energy than the refined  gasoline that came from that 
 pound of crude oil, but given that  the law of conservation of energy is 
 what it is a educated person, a smart person, and a honest person wouldn't 
 expect anything else. 
  

  EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs 
 required to produce the energy yield


 Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell. 
  

 to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.

 If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the 
 first law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of 
 ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that 
 assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of energy is wrong, 
 Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything. 
  

 so your yadda yadda about all processes being less than 
 thermodynamically perfect is mere useless noise

 Yes, just like Wikipedia physics is all yadda yadda because when big 
 money depends on some numbers looking good the first and second laws of 
 thermodynamics are open to corruption. But we can take solace in the fact 
 that Chris de Morsella is absolutely incorruptible. 

  That would really mess up with your plans for eternal preservation. 
 Imagine that your Alzheimer riddled brain preserved forever…. An amusing 
 thought for me… so thanks for that little word trigger John.


 Hmm, An amusing thought for me, you really are a charming fellow Chris. 
 You've won the quadruple crown, you are sadistic, you are a scientific 
 illiterate, you are dumb as dog shit, and you are a coward. Other than that 
 you're a fine fellow, but I think I've had about enough of you for now,

  John K Clark


jeez...you two are ripping eachother's balls off verbally. How did things 
get to this? Not I to caste stones in glass houses mind you. Then 
againI never / have never called anyone names like you two to 
oneanother here. I don't name-callI just want to be free to express 
my POV true to myself and being-rational and stuff. Which never involves 
calling no one no damn idiot or fool. not like what you do. SoI gots to 
ask you. How do youyou know? nudge nudge wink wink. Know what I 
mean? How do you pull it off without being vilified and ignored by 
everyone? LikeI might want to move into the invectives and swear-word 
orientated slagging off total put down scene. I'd like to move up and into 
a gig like that...but I need a mentor who can show me how that's done 
without getting perm-ignored and hated on/ 

-- 
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

Re: Intelligence Consciousness



On Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:33:16 AM UTC, zibble...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 22, 2014 6:59:25 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:20 AM, zibble...@gmail.com wrote:

   Something can be conscious but not intelligent, but if it's 
 intelligent then it's conscious. Consciousness is easy but intelligence  


  John - take the amount new knowledge you assert I just the above 
 sentence. From where or what do you acquire this position? 


 I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious 


 But there's no reason to entertain a rock is conscious to begin with. 
 Orchestrating consciousness is a mind-bogglingly complex accompaniment. As 
 conscious beings this is reasonable from observation. 

 We boldy conjecture vast compleixity and stick our necks out in doing so. 
 If no such complexity is therewe are all washed up and falsified . So 
 it's a big risk...but it pays off...because we observe our brains are the 
 most complex objects in the universe ..on some density measure of 
 complexity per cubic cc.

 You've absolutely no rational logical basis for starting with assumption 
 consciousness is something generated any old how. So you spun yourself dizz 
 all a fluster intoxicating potions of specially case Darwinian Natural 
 Selection. You think natural selection has to *see* subjective inner 
 experience? Whyit doesn't have to *see* subjective tree-eye views 
 ecological niches...or *see* the - highly complex computational modes of 
 the Liver. Or Bladder. Never sees the pretty girl. Mirror's reflection. The 
 evil of the psychopathic sadistNS knows evil al the same. 

 In all cases, natural selection sits with the universal principle.the 
 laws of symmetry, the conservation lawsall of which are variations on 
 the concept Energy. The universal principles are always about energy. 
 Natural selection.is just like 'conservation laws', 'symmetry laws', 
 non-creative laws...and so onjust otexts of expression for energy. 
 Natural Selection is simply one further context of energy. 

 The more efficient energetic structure, out endures the lesser. Because 
 they are one and same thingat different points in history. The more 
 efficient gstructure  is the young low entropy epoch. The lesser efficient 
 structure is the structure in its old age. Natural selection is a turn of 
 phrasethe more efficient energetic structure simply will out endure. 

 So all this hocus pocus about consciousness being special and somehow 
 immune from natural selectionreally is a big pile of steaming cock and 
 bull John. Consciousness is the product of millions of small or large 
 efficiency differences, both in terms of itself, and in terms of some 
 abstract problem spacea problem that came to be solved by the invention 
 of consciousness. 



 but because it doesn't behave intelligently I (and you too) assume it is 
 not. And neither of us could function if we thought we were the only 
 conscious being in the universe so we assume that our fellow human beings 
 are conscious too, be not all the time, not when they are sleeping or under 
 anesthesia or dead, in other words when they are not behaving 
 intelligently. 


 No..that's to be resting on a fallacy. We draw on common 
 human understandings for the knowledge being under anesthesia or 
 whatever knocks out consciousness. You've no business adding your arbitrary 
 layer 'in other words not behaving intelligent'. Anyone can add as many 
 layers as they like but it's just redundant. 

  

  

 Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, and lust come 
 from the oldest parts of our brain that evolved about 500 million years 
 ago. About 400 million years ago Evolution figured out how to make the 
 spinal cord, the medulla and the pons, and we still have these brain 
 structures today just like fish and amphibians do, and they deal in 
 aggressive behavior, territoriality and social hierarchies. The Limbic 
 System is about 150 million years old and ours is similar to that found in 
 other mammals. Some think the Limbic system is the source of awe and 
 exhilaration because it is the active site of many psychotropic drugs, and 
 there's little doubt that the amygdala, a part of the Limbic system, has 
 much to do with fear. After some animals developed a Limbic system they 
 started to spend much more time taking care of their young, so it probably 
 has something to do with love too.


 You're going to summarize that with a totally misshapen and confused 
 notion about, why would life do things in this sequence, Yes there it is 
 ...I see it. So you you thinks, if natural did things in that order. The 
 conscious human intellect, in the technological civilization, despite 
 blatently following a completely different sequence than biological 
 evolution...and has access to energy sources and material bioloy never 
 has. And a sequence became defined from

Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy


On 1/3/2015 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote


 I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only 
used by
shallow people like me.

I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but


Oh yes, I knew there would be a but.

 when big money depends on some numbers looking good


Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says something that 
you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you wish hard enough that 
something is not true it isn't.


  Wikipedia is open to corruption


But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We shouldn't trust 
Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when he has absolutely nothing to 
back up his claims.


You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a 
solar cell is
around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the cell was not able 
to
capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.


*OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT*, only a fool would count light that you didn't 
pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you do count the self-energy of 
the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for, as energy invested when figuring out the 
EROI to convert kerogen to oil.  So  why the inconsistency, why not use the same 
imbecilic method for solar cells that you use for kerogen? Could it possibly be because 
you like solar cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence.


 The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen 
requires
huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!


Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the kerogen itself 
that is released as heat. Of course that means that the chemical energy in a pound of 
kerogen is greater than the chemical energy in the crude oil that the pound of kerogen 
produced, and a pound of crude oil has more chemical energy than the refined  gasoline 
that came from that pound of crude oil, but given that  the law of conservation of 
energy is what it is a educated person, a smart person, and a honest person wouldn't 
expect anything else.


 EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs 
required to
produce the energy yield


Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell.

to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.

If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the first law of 
thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. 
Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of 
energy is wrong, Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything.


The difference is that if you treat kerogen as a primary energy source it takes energy to 
get it, unlike sunlight.  So if it takes two units of kerogen to produce enough energy to 
get one unit of kerogen you can't sustain extraction of kerogen.  You can keep extracting 
it using some other source of oil or nuclear power or photovoltaics, but you can't do it 
just using kerogen.  So my understanding of EROI is

EROI = (Usable energy out)/(Total energy used to produce it)

It doesn't matter to the EROI where the denominator comes from, but it matters in the 
sustainability of the source as primary energy. One may well choose to expend more energy 
than you get out because the form of energy out makes it more suitable - that's why we 
extract avgas from crude, but you can't do that as a primary energy source.


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: Democracy

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 1/3/2015 4:15 PM, PGC wrote:

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 11:39:18 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:

On 1/3/2015 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jan 2015, at 09:28, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

But that is how the word was used in the Hellenistic period; I was
referring to
modern usage that has associated it with a monotheistic value system.

I think monotheism is only the personal view of the monism of the
parmenides one.
I think that the theology of the christians and jews reflect the monism of
those
who believe in an unifying truth. The fairy tales is a pedagogical
popularization,
who get wrong when the religion is (too much) mixed with politics.

But it necessarily is mixed with politics, it's main function is political
because
the unifying truths are the cultural proscriptions about behavior and
values.

Not according to the writing.

If there is one clear thing from Parmenides to Enneads, it is the separation between
appearance of world affairs and divine reality,

Bruno was referring to Christians and Jews.

with the latter ultimately escaping our capacity to sort and analyze.

You mean their assertion of that is clear. It's begging the question to say it
is clear.

Divine reality is not some political stance, nor is it set of cultural traits.

That's what you say. It's not what the Pope or the Southern Baptists or the Imam's say.
They all claim that God commands certain political stances.

Political stance, behavior, laws, and rules we can talk/argue about, but by antique
definition, one is the simplest of all ideas.

Why isn't it zero or two.

So simple as to not permit these sorts of facile generalization,

The one is the simplest of all ideas is a facile abstraction.

or analysis as we know it (and this is consistent with inability to break something,
which is the ultimate simple, down further), so simple as to elude people, try as they
might to capture it or make it fit some personal agenda.

I haven't noticed them having any difficult making it fit their personal agendas. It's
vague enough to fit anything.

The unifying truth is one and it is nameless and without graspable attributes and
properties.

So you say.

And this is also fits with beings sitting in the dark of some cave of forms, easily
mistaking such forms for reality, truth, god etc.

Fits with is vague enough to fit with assertion.

God is the law-giver; he's the tyrant writ large who sees all, judges all,
and
rewards and punishes all. The truths of mathematics and physics and
biology are of
little relevance. His truths are about procreation and war and ethics
and loyalty
to the tribe.

You seem to be treating some projection of yours, as what Bruno references is pretty
standard Greek mythology.

Bruno referred to Christian and Jewish mythology. But standard Greek mythology consisted
of supernatural immortal beings contending for power and sexual adventures. Do you believe
in Zeus, Jupiter, Juno, Hermes,... And why are they of any more interest than Ba'al or
Odin or Ahura Mazda?

Which comes from the ONE of the greeks, mixed with the Jewish legend.
Well, if you
forget the superstition, it has some important relation. Monotheism is a
reflexion
of parmenides or Plotinus monism.
Perhaps you are referring to the Jewish mystic concept of the sephiroth
kether
(kether means crown in Hebrew) it is that which is manifest yet cannot be
named;
the first divine emanation out of pure abstract space… that is without form
or
definition yet which fills and animates all things…. The divine spark so to
speak.

I think so.

A few examples “a God fearing” man (or woman) is upstanding, moral and
considered
(by other god-fearers at least) to be superior to those who do not fear god;

But this fearing of God is a mystery to me. God should be good. Only the
devil
should be feared. (between us).

Unless you are the devil. Unless you don't want to obey God's orders to
stone
adulterers and conquer unbelievers and tithe to the priests.

Brent
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns
out that
God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott

The very idea of people's relation to god = who we should hate, superiority, politics
etc. is already too low and worldly to start with, that it itself cannot be divine. So
those comments and the quote don't seem relevant.

Concerning the devil, I think the Yazidis have a noteworthy take on who they see as
Peacock Angel. It makes one ask whether the vain Peacock Angel's tears of remorse would
soften the harsh truths or not: e.g. will some benevolent future Star Trek force defrost
Clark's awesome ice cube head or judge that he spammed too much and is taking too much
disk space for the money he spent?

And thanks Brent for the Castaneda article

Re: Evolution of pro-social religions

2015-01-03 Thread Kim Jones



Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see that 
as being just a little strange?

Anyway I read the paper. The authors' conclusion? That pro-social religion 
(which I understand to mean institutionalised religion is probably here to 
stay. They kind of just elaborate a bit on that theme. I don't detect much meat 
in their sandwich. There is no question that institutionalised pro-social 
religion is here to stay. Look at the amazing harmonising effect that Dawkins 
has had on the atheists. 

I'm sure there were peace-loving and compassionate humans around before Jesus 
appeared. The galvanising effect however, of the leader of the religion is what 
causes any aspiring belief system to cease to be real, authentic religion. They 
don't mention that because they are looking at the social effects of religion 
only, not at whether it is really scientific theology or not. The authors have 
not encountered the concept of personal religion in their work, oddly. I have 
never thought of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. as anything more than 
warring tribal clans - not serious communities of scholars at the interface of 
the phenomenon and the noùmenon. One might say that they have a rather glib 
view of religion if humanity's future MUST necessarily be conditioned by it, 
merely on the basis that it has persisted up to here. So much is what they are 
asserting. But I am clearly distinguishing the 3p version from authority from 
the inner 1p version which is incommunicable anyway.

Kim


 

 On 4 Jan 2015, at 12:14 pm, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to 
 full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them 
 about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex 
 society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone 
 not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for 
 them.
 
 In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea 
 and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the 
 matter.
 
 In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was 
 worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after 
 mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it 
 yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what 
 extent they live up to what they aspire to.
 
 This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct 
 approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of
 empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) 
 generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse 
 disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new 
 research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate.
 
 
 
 http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf
 
 -- 
 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

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark

 

 

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote

 I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used by 
shallow people like me. 

You are an emotional child John… get over your pompous self and grow up… you 
are a little old to be acting so infantile.

 

I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but

 

Oh yes, I knew there would be a but.

 when big money depends on some numbers looking good

 

Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says 
something that you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you wish 
hard enough that something is not true it isn't. 

Apparently you believe anything you read on Wikipedia. It seems patently 
obvious that you lack the intellectual curiosity to do deeper research and fact 
checking when reading controversial subject matter, accepting uncritically what 
is published on a website called Wikipedia that has an open editing and comment 
process that works most of the time but has been demonstrated to be vulnerable 
to concerted efforts by small groups of very interested people. 

That you do not get – and furthermore feel driven to MOCK – this more cautious 
approach and attitude of mine vis a vis any source reputing to provide “facts”, 
“news” or “knowledge” is not something I would loudly trumpet John… think about 
it dude; you attitude is actually rather stupid.

  Wikipedia is open to corruption

 

But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We 
shouldn't trust Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when he 
has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

 

Wrong John it is better to never blindly trust any single source. Always, 
especially for subjects over which there is much controversy and debate, for 
which the facts may not be as solid and clear as they at first seem… always 
seek other references to corroborate any facts.

That you fail to see any wisdom in this approach is rather more a marker of 
your own intellectual poverty than it is insightful on your part.

 

You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a solar 
cell is around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the cell was not 
able to capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.

 

OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT, only a fool would count light that you 
didn't pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you do count the 
self-energy of the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for, as energy invested 
when figuring out the EROI to convert kerogen to oil.  

Very amusing…. In the very same breath in which you call me a brainless twit in 
bold and all caps you go on to demonstrate your own gross misunderstanding of 
what it is EROI measures. 

First off my arrogant fellow it was you yourself Mr. John K Clark who was 
insisting that the non captured portion of incident solar irradiation should be 
counted as energy invested. It was not I who made that idiotic claim that was 
your own ignorant loud mouth that uttered that rich piece of utter ignorance.

Second, as I have patiently tried to explain to you – in the manner one uses 
with a small slow learning child – uncaptured or un-recovered portions of a 
resource have no effect one way or the other on EROI measurements – they are 
not being INVESTED into the process in order to accomplish the goal. The 
non-captured solar energy is just that – uncaptured energy, just as the remnant 
oil or gas left in a depleted field is also an un-captured resource. 

Can you follow me so far John, or is this too complicated for you?

However if a process requires an energy input in order to function – however or 
wherever that input energy is derived from – that necessary required input 
energy IS ENERGY INVESTED – in terms of how EROI defines ENERGY INVESTED.

It makes no difference whether the operator actually had to purchase the enetgy 
inputs off the market or was able to produce these energy inputs by some other 
means – they are and still remain REQUIRED NECESSARY ENERGY INPUTS 

You are trying to re-define EROI to suit your polemic position; and guess what 
John you do not get to do that. I know it sucks doesn’t it; grow up you four 
year old child.

 

So  why the inconsistency, why not use the same imbecilic method for solar 
cells that you use for kerogen? 

The inconsistency here is in your poor understanding of EROI. 

 

Could it possibly be because you like solar cells but don't like kerogen? Nah, 
I'm sure that was just a coincidence. 

Some facts: The global installed capacity for Solar PV in 2013 has reached 
around 140GW of installed producing capacity. Can you, my dear fellow for 
comparisons sake give me the 2013 global production numbers for kerogen derived 
oil? How many millions of barrels? Or is it

RE: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 5:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On 1/3/2015 1:29 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:23 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote

 I thought Wikipedia was consistently wrong about everything and only used by 
shallow people like me. 

I go to Wikipedia quite a bit myself but

Oh yes, I knew there would be a but.

 when big money depends on some numbers looking good

Or when Wikipedia is not in sync with your scientific ignorance and says 
something that you wish were not true. Apparently you believe that if you wish 
hard enough that something is not true it isn't. 

  Wikipedia is open to corruption

But only when Wikipedia says something that you wish were not true. We 
shouldn't trust Wikipedia but we should trust Chris de Morsella even when he 
has absolutely nothing to back up his claims.

You were wrong in trying to maintain that because the efficiency of a solar 
cell is around 20% then the 80% of incident solar energy that the cell was not 
able to capture must therefore be counted as ENERGY INVESTED.

OF COURSE IT'S WRONG YOU BRAINLESS TWIT, only a fool would count light that you 
didn't pay for as energy invested, but you are a fool and so you do count the 
self-energy of the kerogen,  energy that you didn't pay for, as energy invested 
when figuring out the EROI to convert kerogen to oil.  So  why the 
inconsistency, why not use the same imbecilic method for solar cells that you 
use for kerogen? Could it possibly be because you like solar cells but don't 
like kerogen? Nah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence. 

 The process of producing oil (+gas) from shale rock containing kerogen 
 requires huge energy inputs in order to cook all of that rock!

Yes and a large part of that energy comes from the chemical energy of the 
kerogen itself that is released as heat. Of course that means that the chemical 
energy in a pound of kerogen is greater than the chemical energy in the crude 
oil that the pound of kerogen produced, and a pound of crude oil has more 
chemical energy than the refined  gasoline that came from that pound of crude 
oil, but given that  the law of conservation of energy is what it is a educated 
person, a smart person, and a honest person wouldn't expect anything else. 

 EROI is ONLY measuring the ratio of the *measurable energy* inputs required 
 to produce the energy yield

Like the *measurable* amount of solar energy falling on a solar cell. 

to the *energy value* contained in the resultant yielded product.

If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the first 
law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of ANYTHING is EVER 
greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that assumption, do you believe 
the law of conservation of energy is wrong, Wikipedia says it's correct but you 
say they don't know anything. 

The difference is that if you treat kerogen as a primary energy source it takes 
energy to get it, unlike sunlight.  So if it takes two units of kerogen to 
produce enough energy to get one unit of kerogen you can't sustain extraction 
of kerogen.  You can keep extracting it using some other source of oil or 
nuclear power or photovoltaics, but you can't do it just using kerogen.  So my 
understanding of EROI is
EROI = (Usable energy out)/(Total energy used to produce it)

It doesn't matter to the EROI where the denominator comes from, but it matters 
in the sustainability of the source as primary energy.  One may well choose to 
expend more energy than you get out because the form of energy out makes it 
more suitable - that's why we extract avgas from crude, but you can't do that 
as a primary energy source.

Agreed – and much earlier on in this interminable argument with Mr. Clark I 
mentioned this very consideration with regards to producing oil from kerogen – 
that because liquid fuels have such an energy premium – above beyond just the 
raw chemical energy potential they contain – because they are a highly 
concentrated and portable store of energy. This becomes an  especially 
important consideration in the transportation sector.

Because of this it sometimes may make economic sense to invest more energy into 
some potential resource than can be produced from the resulting yield because 
the quality of the yielded energy may be significantly more valuable than the 
quality of the energy source invested into producing the output. 

With Kerogen production – it is possible to argue that if the processing heat 
can be provided by a poor resource (coal for example) – then the resulting 
value of the yielded oil may make sense.

Economic sense perhaps, but not environmental sense. In fact the carbon 
footprint of that oil

RE: Protein partially assembles another protein without genetic instructions

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

Pretty cool piece of news.. kind of pushes the envelope of our grasp of living
systems. It adds yet one more layer (upon layers) to the decisional machinery
of cellular scale life. It is a pure protein executed process, occurring
within a ribosome… no RNA/DNA instructions involved!

From Ray Kurzweil’s newsletter
http://www.kurzweilai.net/protein-partially-assembles-another-protein-without-genetic-instructions?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=954bfc4219-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-954bfc4219-281942553
:

Defying textbook science, amino acids (the building blocks of a protein) can be
assembled by another protein and without genetic instructions, according to a
study published today (Jan. 2) in Science.

It happens just before an incomplete protein is recycled due to an assembly
failure: a protein called Rqc2 prompts ribosomes (which assemble proteins) to
add just two amino acids (of 20 total) — alanine and threonine — over and over,
and in any order, playing a role similar to that of messenger RNA.

The apparently random sequence of amino acids probably doesn’t work normally,
but may serve specific purposes, the scientists suggest. The code could signal
that the partial protein must be destroyed, or it could be part of a test to
see whether the ribosome is working properly.

Evidence suggests that either or both of these processes could be faulty in
neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
(ALS), or Huntington’s.

The senior authors are Peter Shen, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow in biochemistry
at the University of Utah; Adam Frost, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor at
University of California, San Francisco; Jonathan Weissman, Ph.D., a Howard
Hughes Medical Institute investigator at UCSF; and Onn Brandman, Ph.D., at
Stanford University.

The research was supported by grants from the Searle Scholars program, the
National Institutes of Health, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford
University, and the University of Utah.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A paranormal prediction for the next year

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Are only nouns part of the physical universe or are adjectives and
 adverbs part of it too?


  It is not quite relevant.


Not quite relevant?! Is fast and a racing car both part of the physical
universe? Is a brain and a mind both part of the physical universe?  I
can't think of anything more relevant.


  Are only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... primary? or should we also insist that
 addition and multiplication are primary.


You tell me, you're the one who asked Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical
universe?; I can't answer your question if even you don't know what the
question is.

 That needs to be clarified


Then do so, and do it  before you ask me again if I believe  in a primary
physical universe.

 Are quarks or superstrings part of the physical universe? Is information
 part of the physical universe? Are thoughts part of the  physical universe?
 Are the integers part of the physical universe? What about the Real Numbers
 or Complex Numbers? And if all these things are part of the physical
 universe you need to give me at least one example of something that isn't.


  You don't answer the question.


Of course I didn't answer the question, I can't do so because I don't
understand what the question is, and now you've admitted that you don't
understand your question either.

  Personnally I don't see how a complex numbers, or an integer can be
 considered physical at all.  By physical universe, I mean what is described
 in the book of physics.


Both integers and complex numbers are described in physics books, you can't
do physics without them.

  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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 And the thought still cracks me up with laughter… imagine how wrong your
 carefully laid plans could go…. You set up this one way ticket to eternity…
 then, unfortunately you do not die, but instead grow into a vegetative
 Alzheimer riddled sponge of your former pompous loud mouthed self…. And
 only then after your brain has fully and completely rotted into a plaque
 ridden mush does nature finally do the kindness of killing you off – to
 preserve your Alzheimer destroyed brain for all time. It actually cracks me
 up dude… nothing personal, I frankly don’t give a rats ass what happens to
 your precious brain, just find the thought of your so carefully laid plans
 going so totally haywire to be a source of some laughter for me


You sir are a psychopath.

  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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think
 the first law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of
 ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that
 assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of energy is wrong,
 Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything.

   The difference is that if you treat kerogen as a primary energy source
 it takes energy to get it, unlike sunlight.


To convert kerogen to crude oil you must first start to heat it with
outside energy and you have to pay for that energy and so it must be
included in calculating EROEI. However that initial heat causes chemical
changes in the kerogen that also releases a substantial amount of heat, and
that heat came from the chemical self-energy of the kerogen itself, and
that energy you did NOT pay for and so it would be ridiculous to include it
in calculating EROEI.

That is why Wikipedia says:

A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil-shale deposits
as varying between 0.7–13.3. More recent studies estimates the EROEI of oil
shales to be 2:1 or 16:1  *depending on whether self-energy is counted as a
cost or internal energy is excluded and only purchased energy is counted as
input.*

  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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:26 PM, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote:

 jeez...you two are ripping eachother's balls off verbally. How did things
 get to this? Not I to caste stones in glass houses mind you. Then
 againI never / have never called anyone names like you two to
 oneanother here.


Yeah sorry about that, I know it got a bit ugly, but it's over now.  I
began to suspect a few days ago that Chris de Morsella might not be
entirely sane but only today did I realize that he's not just crazy he's
scary crazy.

 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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 8:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 And the thought still cracks me up with laughter… imagine how wrong your 
 carefully laid plans could go…. You set up this one way ticket to eternity… 
 then, unfortunately you do not die, but instead grow into a vegetative 
 Alzheimer riddled sponge of your former pompous loud mouthed self…. And only 
 then after your brain has fully and completely rotted into a plaque ridden 
 mush does nature finally do the kindness of killing you off – to preserve 
 your Alzheimer destroyed brain for all time. It actually cracks me up dude… 
 nothing personal, I frankly don’t give a rats ass what happens to your 
 precious brain, just find the thought of your so carefully laid plans going 
 so totally haywire to be a source of some laughter for me

You sir are a psychopath.

You can dish it out, but you can’t take it? How pathetic, petulant  childish. 

As well as being a vituperative loudmouth A-hole Mr. Clark 

FYI: I also don’t give a rat’s ass what you think I am. 

You have cheese for brains sir and you have shown this, in living color, by 
making repeated asinine assertions about the meaning of EROI, which you quite 
obviously do not understand in the slightest. I have patiently tried to educate 
you, but you prefer the act of being a loud mouth moron… 

Mr. Clark, the caped defender of kerogen…  riding in, to do battle like some 
later day Don Quixote. With you as a champion the kerogen sector is in good 
hands and we can all rest assured that it will keep on producing the big 
nothing at all that it has always produced and that it will continue to be a 
voracious money pit for those who try. $10 billion lost by the DOE; $5 billion 
burned away by Exxon/Mobile.

John, if I have offended you… truth be told, I don’t much care; so by all means 
A-hole, please remain offended, mortified and self-absorbed with outrage. You 
brought this on yourself by being arrogant, rude, obnoxious and worst of all 
stupid. Really, really stupid in fact; surprisingly stupid. 

That you continue to so completely miss the meaning of EROI and insist it 
measures something it does not – at first one can put this down to ignorance, 
but by the third or fourth time John, it just becomes stupid. Truly you 
disappoint me, I mean I already knew you were an abrasive asshole John, but I 
thought at least you had some intelligence. Your EROI kerogen performance has 
convinced me otherwise, I am sad to say.

Suit up, super hero…  John K Clark, the Defender of Kerogen… put your tar 
colored cape on and ride off into the sunset, keeping the world safe for the 
(in reality) non-existent kerogen shale sector. 

-Chris

  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: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 9:13 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Natural gas: The fracking fallacy

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 If that is the correct way to calculate EROI, and assuming you think the 
 first law of thermodynamics is valid please explain how the  EROI of 
 ANYTHING is EVER greater than 1. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that 
 assumption, do you believe the law of conservation of energy is wrong, 
 Wikipedia says it's correct but you say they don't know anything. 

 The difference is that if you treat kerogen as a primary energy source it 
 takes energy to get it, unlike sunlight.  

To convert kerogen to crude oil you must first start to heat it with outside 
energy and you have to pay for that energy and so it must be included in 
calculating EROEI. However that initial heat causes chemical changes in the 
kerogen that also releases a substantial amount of heat, and that heat came 
from the chemical self-energy of the kerogen itself, and that energy you did 
NOT pay for and so it would be ridiculous to include it in calculating EROEI.

What magical exothermic chemical reaction are you speaking of? You cook the 
shale rock bearing kerogen and by doing so you chemically change some of the 
hydrocarbon resource into an oil and also release some gas volatiles. You can 
decide to use some of this cooked out potential energy and BURN it in the 
presence of oxygen (so you first need to get it out of the shale rock matrix 
before you can burn it because burning --e.g. oxidation -- requires oxygen)

There is no magic in situ exothermic chemical reaction going on. A portion of 
the extracted and produced usable energy product can be removed from the net 
yield to be re-invested back into the process in order to keep it sustaining. 
But that invested energy could just as well come from another source of heat as 
well and the valuable liquid hydrocarbon could be sold on the market.

That is a financial business decision and does not alter the fact that the 
extraction process requires considerable Energy investments. It does not change 
the EROI. Calling it “self-energy” is obfuscation; it is energy that has been 
extracted and is being re-invested in order to maintain the extraction process.

-Chris

That is why Wikipedia says:

A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil-shale deposits as 
varying between 0.7–13.3. More recent studies estimates the EROEI of oil shales 
to be 2:1 or 16:1  depending on whether self-energy is counted as a cost or 
internal energy is excluded and only purchased energy is counted as input.

  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: Carlos Castaneda

2015-01-03 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb

 

Here's a mystic who knew the purpose of religion.  I well remember the 
adulation of Castaneda and how even otherwise sensible people thought his 
stories were true.

Then there is…. Ron Hubbard a fairly mediocre sci-fi writer who (reputedly) 
made a bet with Anton LaVay (founder of the Church of Satan) that he could 
found a religion… and so (reputedly) off of this bet, the world was “blessed” 
with Scientology and ultimately of course Tom Cruise, along with a whole slew 
of other Scientology faithful in Hollywood.

-Chris



Brent



 Forwarded Message 




PatrickHMoore posted: by BJW Nashe Carlos Castaneda’s journey from 
anthropology student to famous author to New Age cult leader makes for a 
strange tale that is far more disturbing than anything found in his bestselling 
books. At the peak of his career, Castaneda crossed over 





 



New post on All Things Crime Blog 

  http://s.wordpress.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png 

 




 http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1 


 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/
 Carlos Castaneda’s Sex-and-Suicide Cult, and the Witches Who Disappeared


by  http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1 PatrickHMoore 

by BJW Nashe

Carlos Castaneda’s journey from anthropology student to famous author to New 
Age cult leader makes for a strange tale that is far more disturbing than 
anything found in his bestselling books.

At the peak of his career, Castaneda crossed over an invisible line. He turned 
his back on the clear light of humane, rational thought, and stepped into a 
shadowy realm of manipulation, secrecy, and lies. It’s tempting to compare this 
to the metaphorical leap into the abyss that figures so heavily in his 
writings. Yet Castaneda’s real-life leap had consequences that were quite 
different from the magical escapades depicted in his writing. Once he became 
rich and famous and began facing scrutiny, Castaneda shunned the limelight and 
spent the next two-and-a-half decades pursuing a bizarre alternative lifestyle 
largely hidden from the public. He proclaimed himself a shaman and a sorcerer 
and assumed the role of a mysterious guru surrounded by a group of close 
followers.

 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#more-29970
 Read more of this post

 http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?author=1 PatrickHMoore | January 3, 2015 
at 7:58 am | Categories:  
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?taxonomy=categoryterm=historical-crime 
Historical Crime,  
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/?taxonomy=categoryterm=true-crime True 
Crime | URL:  http://wp.me/p3dI4z-7No http://wp.me/p3dI4z-7No 


 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#respond
 Comment


http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/#comments
 See all comments

 


 
https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=afc966c0350c3627c0de54e7770ea8d9email=cyclopasaurus%40gmail.comb=LauV%7ETkL%2BMKK8Z7hNejfle-JaHLX%2C17oMpivWvW-Jq4gjaQ%25F%3Dm
 Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from All Things Crime Blog.
Change your email settings at  
https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=afc966c0350c3627c0de54e7770ea8d9email=cyclopasaurus%40gmail.com
 Manage Subscriptions. 

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 
 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/
 
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2015/01/03/carlos-castanedas-sex-and-suicide-cult-and-the-witches-who-disappeared-7/
 

 



  
http://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?host=jetpack.wordpress.comblog=47596691post=29970subd=www.allthingscrimeblog.comref=email=1email_o=jetpack
 





 

-- 
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: Carlos Castaneda