date:20150426

On 4/26/2015 9:33 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:55 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 4/26/2015 8:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

Why not move past the denial that some very particular and very specific
notion of
God exists, and test other conceptions to see which one's work and to what
extent
they serve as efficacious theories?

Because (a) I'm not denying a very particular and very specific notion of
God. I'm
denying the general notion of a God that is a person who creates or
influences the
world and is morally good. And (b) I don't "move past this" because this
is the
conception of God that wields political power in the world which I find pernicious.
And (c) why would I look for effacious theories in the writings of ignorant people
who thought the Earth was flat and women had a different number of teeth than men.
I'm glad to look for theories for how the world is and how it came to be that way

and how to predict its evolution. But I see no reason to use the word
"god" for
such theories, since that would just cause confusion with the concepts (a)
and (b)
above which is what is meant in common discourse.

Your answer is to abandon a field because some in that field hold incorrect
ideas,

I said, "I'm glad to look for theories for how the world is and how it came to be that way
and how to predict its evolution." Maybe you think "the field" is fighting over whether
to call this "god" or "science", but I don't.

which is fine as a personal choice but that won't fix anything and won't advance the
field. You need not find efficacious theories in existing texts, but if you find
efficacious theories that bear a resemblance to preexisting ideas in existing religions,
then all the better if your aim is to move more people towards a more correct theology.
No new religion has ever succeeded in getting people to deny god, they've only succeeded
in changing the idea of what god is (even Atheism has only succeeded in changing god to
be the material universe).

That's because you, like Tillich and other theologians, just keep redefining "god". But I
notice that when I expressed doubt that there was any ONE, any single explanation for the
world, Bruno was shocked at such heresy and insisted I must not understand what
explanation means. So even some theologians are not flexible enough to consider multiple
"gods". To bad, they'd better be careful. If they start to have definite concepts they
may find they're wrong.

Brent
Theology is never having to say, "That's not God."

--
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: God

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/26/2015 8:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Why not move past the denial that some very particular and very specific
> notion of God exists, and test other conceptions to see which one's work
> and to what extent they serve as efficacious theories?
>
>
> Because (a) I'm not denying a very particular and very specific notion of
> God.  I'm denying the general notion of a God that is a person who creates
> or influences the world and is morally good.  And (b) I don't "move past
> this" because this is the conception of God that wields political power in
> the world which I find pernicious.  And (c) why would I look for effacious
> theories in the writings of ignorant people who thought the Earth was flat
> and women had a different number of teeth than men.  I'm glad to look for
> theories for how the world is and how it came to be that way and how to
> predict its evolution.  But I see no reason to use the word "god" for such
> theories, since that would just cause confusion with the concepts (a) and
> (b) above which is what is meant in common discourse.
>

Your answer is to abandon a field because some in that field hold incorrect
ideas, which is fine as a personal choice but that won't fix anything and
won't advance the field. You need not find efficacious theories in existing
texts, but if you find efficacious theories that bear a resemblance to
preexisting ideas in existing religions, then all the better if your aim is
to move more people towards a more correct theology. No new religion has
ever succeeded in getting people to deny god, they've only succeeded in
changing the idea of what god is (even Atheism has only succeeded in
changing god to be the material universe).

Jason

-- 
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: God


On 4/26/2015 8:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why not move past the denial that some very particular and very specific notion of God 
exists, and test other conceptions to see which one's work and to what extent they serve 
as efficacious theories?


Because (a) I'm not denying a very particular and very specific notion of God.  I'm 
denying the general notion of a God that is a person who creates or influences the world 
and is morally good.  And (b) I don't "move past this" because this is the conception of 
God that wields political power in the world which I find pernicious.  And (c) why would I 
look for effacious theories in the writings of ignorant people who thought the Earth was 
flat and women had a different number of teeth than men.  I'm glad to look for theories 
for how the world is and how it came to be that way and how to predict its evolution.  But 
I see no reason to use the word "god" for such theories, since that would just cause 
confusion with the concepts (a) and (b) above which is what is meant in common discourse.


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: Origin of mathematics

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> LizR wrote:
>
>> On 23 April 2015 at 13:24, meekerdb > So is chess real?
>>
>> No, chess is an agreed-upon set of conventions invented by the human
>> mind. It didn't exist before people, and it has rules which can be changed
>> without it kicking back (Castling, the pawn's two-square starting move -
>> and hence en passant - were introduced to speed up the game).
>>
>
> So how do you respond to this paragraph from Pigliucci:
>
> The obvious example that is most close to mathematics (and logic?) itself
> is provided by board games: “When a game like chess is invented a whole
> bundle of facts become demonstrable, some of which indeed are theorems that
> become provable through straightforward mathematical reasoning. As we do
> not believe in timeless Platonic realities, we do not want to say that
> chess always existed — in our view of the world, chess came into existence
> at the moment the rules were codified. This means we have to say that all
> the facts about it became not only demonstrable, but true, at that moment
> as well … Once evoked, the facts about chess are objective, in that if any
> one person can demonstrate one, anyone can. And they are independent of
> time or particular context: they will be the same facts no matter who
> considers them or when they are considered” (p. 423).
>
> And how does chess, once defined, differ from mathematics?
>
>
How do other universes we can't see differ from mathematics, or objects in
mathematics?

In both cases, between them: size is incomparable, time is incomparable,
distance is incomparable, communication is impossible, change is impossible
and yet we can prove things about them, simulate them, discover things
about them, think about them, etc. To any self-aware-substructure (SAS) in
that alternate universe we discover and think about/simulate, our universe
would seem just as abstract. In fact, we might simulate a that SAS living
in his world in his universe, and find him to be simulating you on our
planet in our universe. Would that SAS be correct in concluding our
universe is only abstract? We could analyze what his brain does and know
his thoughts, he might even do the same to you and your brain, and find
that you've wrongly concluded that the SAS's universe is only abstract and
not real. How rude you are! Perhaps he changes his mind and credits you
with some degree of concreteness.

Jason

-- 
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: God

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 3:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/26/2015 9:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>   No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.
>>
>>
>>  Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet?  Did he take a
>> survey?
>>
>
>
>  I spoke for no one. I only quoted people from that faith or excerpts
> from their religious scriptures directly. Here is a link to the post for
> those that are new to the list:
>
>  https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/Ua-eNt_vdBE/PV_pwPhvCxcJ
>
>  (Note you may need to click "Show Trimmed Content")
>
>  This same conversation seems to recur every 6 - 12 months, and every
> time Brent and John seem to forget everything that was said from the last
> time it happened. Maybe this time it will be different.
>
>
> Maybe you should remember my rejoinder too.
>
> It was not you who claimed to speak for other people, it was Bruno that
> claimed you did:
>
> Bruno:* Jason Resh shows you that my definition of God is the same as the
> Chinese, Indian, Greeks, *
>
>  Brent:* Are you claiming that all Chinese, Indians, and Greeks agree on
> a canonical definition for "God"?  That would certainly be remarkable
> (especially as "god" is an English word).*
>
>  John Clark: *I already know what most people on this planet mean by the
> word "God" *
>
>
>  Bruno: *No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please. *
>
> Brent: *Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet?  Did he
> take a survey?*
>
> No he didn't take a survey; he cherry picked from ancient texts and
> theologians who agreed with him.  And Jason didn't even go so far as to say
> these were majority opinions or common meanings; only that they were other
> conceptions of "God" consistent with Bruno's mystic ONE or TRUTH.
>

Regardless of whether the ideas I quoted represent majority opinions or
not, you can't deny:

1. There are numerous conceptions of "God" even within the same religions
and same sects of religions
2. Some of these conceptions are not unlike what computationalism might
imply, and thus are plausibly correct (if computationalism is correct)
3. There exust significant similarities between many of these conceptions
despite arising in different cultures and times

Why not move past the denial that some very particular and very specific
notion of God exists, and test other conceptions to see which one's work
and to what extent they serve as efficacious theories?

Jason

-- 
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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:48:40PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> According to the latest Scientific American, Moore's Law stopped working
> about 10 years ago. I'm not sure if or how this affects the
> prognostications for AIs, mind simulation etc, though.

The only thing that stopped 10 years ago was the increase in CPU clock
speed.

That was never Moore's law, though, which refers to density of
transistors for a given price point. That has very much continued to
increase. I can now buy CPUs with 50 cores for the price of a dual
core system 10 years ago. And each core has almost an order of
magnitude performance improvement due to architectural improvements
(eg more cache, hyperthreading, SIMD/vector instructions etc). That's
about 200 x performance improvement over a decade, about double what
Moore's would predict. But its all parallel computing - its not going
the make Microsoft Word any less of a dog.

Cheers

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread LizR

According to the latest Scientific American, Moore's Law stopped working
about 10 years ago. I'm not sure if or how this affects the
prognostications for AIs, mind simulation etc, though.

On 27 April 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite
> > > precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then
> > > it can be calculated to 300 digits precision within finite time. If I
> > > then want it to 600 digits, I can do that also, but very likely it
> > > will 10^300 times as long.
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't it only double the amount of processing time to go from 300 digit
> > precision numbers to 600 digit precision numbers?
> >
>
> Depends on the algorithm. To compute the addition of two numbers, you
> need only double the time for double precision. Multiplication is
> quadratic if I remember my primary school arithmetic correctly (don't
> quote me on this). But computing polynomial approximations to
> transcendental functions takes way longer, as many more terms are
> required to achieve the stated precision.
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> 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: God

2015-04-26 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> I gave you the definition.
>

You said there was no definition for God.

> > Then I gave example, not of God which I would assume, but that some
> people assumed.
>

And now you say the examples of God that you gave are no good. So "God"
like "free will" is just a noise.

> >> Common patterns between arithmetical truth and Allah?
>
>
> > Of course there are.
>

Maybe you're right. Timmy and Bobby are suicide bombers, Allah gives
suicide bombers 72 virgins in the afterlife, so when Timmy and Bobby blow
themselves up they get 144 virgins.

> > You seem to confuse ~[]p & ~[]~p with []p & []~p
>

Now how could anybody possibly confuse ~[]p & ~[]~p with []p & []~p ?

> >> But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete physical
>> process,
>
>
> > Wrong. Computation can be concretized in any universal number, in
> arithmetic.
>

Yes computation can be made real, but not without using energy and
increasing entropy, in other words not without turning to a PHYSICAL
process.

 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: Where are they?


On 4/26/2015 4:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
I wonder how a intelligent conscious being would react if it had full access to its 
emotional control panel. Regardless of how well our life is going who among us would for 
eternity opt out of becoming just a little bit happier if all it took was turning a 
knob? And after you turn it a little bit and see how much better you feel why not turn 
it again, perhaps a little more this time. Maybe drug addiction is the first signs of 
that very dangerous positive feedback loop. During most of human existence this was a 
non-issue but then about 8000 BC alcoholic beverages were invented, but they were so 
dilute you'd really have to work at it to get into trouble. Then about 500 years ago 
distilled alcoholic beverages were invented and it became much easier to become a 
alcoholic. Today we have many drugs that are far more powerful than alcohol. What 
happens if this trend continues exponentially?


> Perhaps at some level of intelligence other things become more important 
than
consuming more and more energy


Perhaps a eternal orgasm will become more important than consuming more and more energy, 
and more important than anything else, and more important than everything else put 
together. Perhaps the world does't end in a bang or a whimper but a groan of mindless 
pleasure.


That implicitly assumes that pleasure is one-dimensional.  One nice thing about orgasms, 
like most pleasures, is that they are satiating.  Having a multi-dimensional pleasure 
space might almost define intelligence.


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: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> This makes it even more important that we don’t blow it on our own little
> world. Or perhaps it is evidence that *we are going to blow it* just like
> every other species has on every other star that has developed
> intelligence. Our current race towards global war certainly seems to
> indicate that the second hypothesis has merit.

Maybe, but the peak danger of a global war being so terrible it caused the
extinction of the entire human race happened in the 1960s and we survived
that, the danger is still not zero but it's a lot less. I hope the
explanation for the Fermi Paradox is just that we're the first in the
observable universe; after all in a finite universe, and the observable
universe is finite, somebody has to be first. But if we're not the first
then some calamity must happen to any civilization when it reaches a
certain level, but I don't think it's war.

I wonder how a intelligent conscious being would react if it had full
access to its emotional control panel. Regardless of how well our life is
going who among us would for eternity opt out of becoming just a little bit
happier if all it took was turning a knob? And after you turn it a little
bit and see how much better you feel why not turn it again, perhaps a
little more this time. Maybe drug addiction is the first signs of that very
dangerous positive feedback loop. During most of human existence this was a
non-issue but then about 8000 BC alcoholic beverages were invented, but
they were so dilute you'd really have to work at it to get into trouble.
Then about 500 years ago distilled alcoholic beverages were invented and it
became much easier to become a alcoholic. Today we have many drugs that are
far more powerful than alcohol. What happens if this trend continues
exponentially?

> Perhaps at some level of intelligence other things become more important
> than consuming more and more energy

Perhaps a eternal orgasm will become more important than consuming more and
more energy, and more important than anything else, and more important than
everything else put together. Perhaps the world does't end in a bang or a
whimper but a groan of mindless pleasure.

> Perhaps at some level of intelligence  growth in energy consumption no
> longer appeals. Why assume that a super advanced civilization would go down
> the route  of creating Dyson spheres around every star in its galaxy, which
> is what the study was surveying for.

I don't worry about ET using less energy but I do worry about him not
havinf any intellectual curiosity and if ET exists he sure doesn't seem
very interested in the universe he lives in. And it's not like it would
difficult,  ET doesn't even need to travel to the stars, ET just needs to
send one Von Neumann probe to one star.

Even assuming ET can't send space probes any faster than we can ( a
ridiculously conservative assumption) then almost instantly from a cosmic
perspective (less than 50 million years) the entire Galaxy would be
unrecognizable. It's not as if this would take some huge commitment on the
part of ET's civilization, in fact even a individual could easily do it. If
Von Neumann probes are possible at all, and I can't think why they wouldn't
be, then they're going to be dirt cheap, you buying a bag of peanuts would
be a greater drag on your financial resources. Even if many or even most
ETs think that sending out a von Neumann probe would be a bad idea there
will always be somebody who disagrees. And it only takes one.

  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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> 
> > Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite
> > precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then
> > it can be calculated to 300 digits precision within finite time. If I
> > then want it to 600 digits, I can do that also, but very likely it
> > will 10^300 times as long.
> >
> 
> Doesn't it only double the amount of processing time to go from 300 digit
> precision numbers to 600 digit precision numbers?
> 

Depends on the algorithm. To compute the addition of two numbers, you
need only double the time for double precision. Multiplication is
quadratic if I remember my primary school arithmetic correctly (don't
quote me on this). But computing polynomial approximations to
transcendental functions takes way longer, as many more terms are
required to achieve the stated precision.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: crime and duplication machines

2015-04-26 Thread Russell Standish

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 01:50:47PM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote:
> indeed. The memory criterion reveals itself to be problematic the moment
> you consider partial transfers. If you transfer all my memories, we've
> decided, per the criterion, that I would wake up at the destination. But
> what if you transferred all but one memory? 75%? 50%? Via the sorites
> paradox, you'd have to conclude that a null transfer still allows you to
> wake up in the new body. Or you could conclude there is some critical
> percentage where you go from not arriving to arriving in the new body,
> which is absurd. 

Why is this absurd? What if all your memories are interlinked into
some sort of network, and if you leave out enough memories, a
percolation threshold is crossed, and your identity falls apart?

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: crime and duplication machines


On 4/26/2015 1:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Along another line of thought, the social construct of my identity is deeply dependent 
on my mind being tied to a body that looks very much like the body it had yesterday. The 
moment that assumption doesn't hold, punishment breaks down. You can no longer tell who 
you're dealing with by looking. Obvious solution 1 is to tightly regulate memory 
transfers. If the government can make them effectively impossible to perform then we can 
stay in dreamland, retaining the social construct of identity.


Ah, so that's why Yaweh, Allah, and those other mesopotamian gods stuck souls in bodies; 
so they could punish them breaking commandments. :-)


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: crime and duplication machines

2015-04-26 Thread Dennis Ochei

Whoops, accidentally hit send. As i was saying, at the mind fingerprinting
the government has to look for criminal memeplexes and render them inert.
For instance let's say a criminal memplex is composed of two major
subunits, the desire to commit the crime and the know-how to commit the
crime. If the government detects them in the same body then one has to be
deleted or modified. Crimes would be attributed to "mind-viruses".

Now, at first glance directly modifying minds seems very 1984ish. But
that's what our criminal justice system is supposed to do *now,* render the
desire component of the criminal memeplex inert. This is just a more
effective version.

Basically we move from a model where we punish people for what the did to
to a model where we disassemble memeplexes for what they might cause people
to do. This effectively means it will be illegal to have certain ideas in
your head.

Of course there is no way the American legal system will be able to keep up
with this, so it's gonna be a field day if and when memory transfers are
possible.

On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Dennis Ochei  wrote:

> indeed. The memory criterion reveals itself to be problematic the moment
> you consider partial transfers. If you transfer all my memories, we've
> decided, per the criterion, that I would wake up at the destination. But
> what if you transferred all but one memory? 75%? 50%? Via the sorites
> paradox, you'd have to conclude that a null transfer still allows you to
> wake up in the new body. Or you could conclude there is some critical
> percentage where you go from not arriving to arriving in the new body,
> which is absurd. Or you conclude only a 100% complete transfer allows you
> to wake in the new body. But that's even worse, when we don't consider
> *gaining* memories equally destructive to identity. Imagine we have a mind
> M at t0 with a certain set of memories. At t1 it gains a new memory. At t2
> it losses that memory. It would mean that M0 = M1, M0 = M2 and M1 != M2.
>
> Instead we have to consider the subjective *illusion* of identity,
> independent of the question of actual identity. Then the answer is clear.
> The more memories I transfer the more the new body will believe it is me,
> the veracity of that belief being an empty question. in the case of a
> complete transfer the illusion will be total and complete. A partial
> transfer will create a weaker illusion. If I transfer just a few memories,
> it will seem to the destination person that they had a dream where they
> where me, but Zhaungzi will realize he is not the butterfly.
>
> Along another line of thought, the social construct of my identity is
> deeply dependent on my mind being tied to a body that looks very much like
> the body it had yesterday. The moment that assumption doesn't hold,
> punishment breaks down. You can no longer tell who you're dealing with by
> looking. Obvious solution 1 is to tightly regulate memory transfers. If the
> government can make them effectively impossible to perform then we can stay
> in dreamland, retaining the social construct of identity.
>
> Barring that, if memory transfers are possible, then there is no way to
> deter *someone* from using them to escape punishment. This is a tenuous
> point, but i think it follows from throwing out the fact of identity while
> retaining the illusion. Call it a conjecture. We'll come back to this.
>
> Now suppose the government did regular memory scans to track who's who.
> Memory finngerprinting. Just overlook how this is the most total breach of
> privacy possible... They would get some sort of similarity measure and use
> that to track closest continuer subjective threads. The problem is that
> it's possible to simply make your subjective thread disappear for some time
> to reappear later. I will use letters to represent bodies and numbers for
> minds. The dash indicates their association
>
> A - 1
> B - 2
> C - 3
>
> Then 2 splits into 4 and 5. 4 is added to A, 5 is added to C, 3 overwrites
> the contents of B.
>
> A - 1,4
> B - 3'
> C - 3, 5
>
> The operation can be reversed at a later date reconstiting 2.
>
> The point im trying to make is that any person can just cease to exist
> only to reappear later.
>
> This is even simpler if we can just write the memories to a hard drive.
> Then there is no need to hide parts of 2 in other bodies.
>
> The second point is that there is always reasonable doubt that you were in
> control of your body when you committed a crime. A1 kidnaps B2, stores 2 on
> a drive. B1' commits a crime (say a kidnapping!) 1 and 1' merge in body A.
> A1 returns 2 to B.
>
> You could say that 2 has no memories of commiting the crime so he'll get
> off. But if that's all it takes for innocence then a criminal can just
> erase his memories of committing a crime.
>
> I mean we could play with this more but I'd rather get to where I'm going
> with this. I want to say that punishing *people* for what they did (for
> deterrence or retributive reasons)

Re: crime and duplication machines

2015-04-26 Thread Dennis Ochei

indeed. The memory criterion reveals itself to be problematic the moment
you consider partial transfers. If you transfer all my memories, we've
decided, per the criterion, that I would wake up at the destination. But
what if you transferred all but one memory? 75%? 50%? Via the sorites
paradox, you'd have to conclude that a null transfer still allows you to
wake up in the new body. Or you could conclude there is some critical
percentage where you go from not arriving to arriving in the new body,
which is absurd. Or you conclude only a 100% complete transfer allows you
to wake in the new body. But that's even worse, when we don't consider
*gaining* memories equally destructive to identity. Imagine we have a mind
M at t0 with a certain set of memories. At t1 it gains a new memory. At t2
it losses that memory. It would mean that M0 = M1, M0 = M2 and M1 != M2.

Instead we have to consider the subjective *illusion* of identity,
independent of the question of actual identity. Then the answer is clear.
The more memories I transfer the more the new body will believe it is me,
the veracity of that belief being an empty question. in the case of a
complete transfer the illusion will be total and complete. A partial
transfer will create a weaker illusion. If I transfer just a few memories,
it will seem to the destination person that they had a dream where they
where me, but Zhaungzi will realize he is not the butterfly.

Along another line of thought, the social construct of my identity is
deeply dependent on my mind being tied to a body that looks very much like
the body it had yesterday. The moment that assumption doesn't hold,
punishment breaks down. You can no longer tell who you're dealing with by
looking. Obvious solution 1 is to tightly regulate memory transfers. If the
government can make them effectively impossible to perform then we can stay
in dreamland, retaining the social construct of identity.

Barring that, if memory transfers are possible, then there is no way to
deter *someone* from using them to escape punishment. This is a tenuous
point, but i think it follows from throwing out the fact of identity while
retaining the illusion. Call it a conjecture. We'll come back to this.

Now suppose the government did regular memory scans to track who's who.
Memory finngerprinting. Just overlook how this is the most total breach of
privacy possible... They would get some sort of similarity measure and use
that to track closest continuer subjective threads. The problem is that
it's possible to simply make your subjective thread disappear for some time
to reappear later. I will use letters to represent bodies and numbers for
minds. The dash indicates their association

A - 1
B - 2
C - 3

Then 2 splits into 4 and 5. 4 is added to A, 5 is added to C, 3 overwrites
the contents of B.

A - 1,4
B - 3'
C - 3, 5

The operation can be reversed at a later date reconstiting 2.

The point im trying to make is that any person can just cease to exist only
to reappear later.

This is even simpler if we can just write the memories to a hard drive.
Then there is no need to hide parts of 2 in other bodies.

The second point is that there is always reasonable doubt that you were in
control of your body when you committed a crime. A1 kidnaps B2, stores 2 on
a drive. B1' commits a crime (say a kidnapping!) 1 and 1' merge in body A.
A1 returns 2 to B.

You could say that 2 has no memories of commiting the crime so he'll get
off. But if that's all it takes for innocence then a criminal can just
erase his memories of committing a crime.

I mean we could play with this more but I'd rather get to where I'm going
with this. I want to say that punishing *people* for what they did (for
deterrence or retributive reasons) is simply intractable in this situation.

Instead, one has to lower their level of abstraction to memes. A memeplex
caused a body to act in a certain way. At the mind
On Friday, April 24, 2015, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Dennis Ochei  wrote:
>
>> Here's the clincher.
>>
>> 1. Suppose I erase my body's memories after. Do I go to jail?
>>
>> 2. Suppose I erase the memories of this body. I find another body (say a
>> laboratory synthesized one with no memories) and download my memories onto
>> it. Does the new body go to jail?
>>
>> 3. I commit a crime and then a buddy of mine, who had no knowledge of the
>> crime decides he wants to experience my memories. He downloads the entirety
>> of my memories while retaining his own. Does he go to jail?
>>
>> 4.  I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download their
>> memories onto my brain, retaining my own. I then delete their memories.
>> Memory transfer technology is at such a stage that it is not possible to
>> transfer or delete selected memories. So it is impossible to remove my
>> memories without removing my victim's. Do I go to jail?
>>
>> 5. I commit a crime, then I kidnap someone and forcibly download my
>> memories onto th

Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread John Mikes

Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh idea.
In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS definitely points to
the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one must perceive the item, in
concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our worldview) *est PERCIPI*.
Difference may be in faith-based religion where ACCEPTANCE is also good
enough.
It may be an extension for the Kantian 'revolution': our entire image of
the WORLD (the Everything, Nature, you name it) is the product of our mind.
(And please, do not ask what I mean by 'mind').

All our 'knowledge' about the WORLD(?) is the reflection of the human mind
on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats available to
the mind.  No justification and no formatting to any 'reality'.
That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well.
(I did not read the paper).
JM

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:

> Dear Brent,
>
> I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the
> paper have to do with human consciousness.
>
> For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to
> Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that
> Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is still actual.
>
> The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
> constructivism.
>
> Evgenii
>
> Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:
>
>> I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
>>  being clear.  For example:
>>
>> /The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
>> warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
>> big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
>> and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
>> flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
>> must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
>> containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
>> systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
>> perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
>> this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
>> sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
>> more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
>> transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
>> ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
>> computational models of object perception./
>>
>> There's no justification for the "mere".  Our perception has gone
>> well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason to
>> suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
>> TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
>> directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
>> unconscious./
>>
>>
>> This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by "conscious".
>>
>> Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
>> consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>>> Enjoy. Evgenii
>>>
>>> Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
>>> Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.
>>>
>>> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  “We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study
>
>> how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such
>>> dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
>>> particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
>>> harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of
>>> conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of
>>> interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret
>>> physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
>>> properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
>>> preexisting physical truths.”
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> 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: God

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 3:10 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/25/2015 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>   A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An atheist
> can agree that "The material reality" plays the role of God,
>
>
> That already assumes that there is such a role.  It's not in my play.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand.
>
>
> I don't think there's a single cause/source of for all of physical
> reality, culuture, ethics, art, mathematics, consciousness...  There is
> circumstance and accident at different levels.
>
>
> We agree on that. But what about the initial assumptions? The TOE?
>
>
> Initial assumptions and TOE's are not everything.  You yourself often
> refer to "geography" as a metaphor for the other accidental stuff; which
> physicists call "symmetry breaking".
>
> I know this list is based on the idea that any "geography" you can't
> explain can be swept under the rug of "everything happens (just not
> here)".  But I think that's just another form of giving up or invoking
> magic, of which you often accuse materialists.
>

It's giving up only in the sense of realizing it was always a fruitless
task. Imagine if there were a lot of dust in the Oort cloud so we couldn't
see anything beyond our solar system. We might wonder, why is the Earth's
orbit and the suns size and radiation level just right to last long enough
for life to evolve without being so low in luminosity that Earth would be a
frozen planet. Entire generations of physicists might search in vain for a
theory that explains why the Suns size has to be exactly the size it is
observed, and why it can be no other way. This is the mistake I think some
physicists make when they think they can mathematically derive (from pure
number theory or similar) the constants of physics or the single realized
set of string theory equations. Is it giving up to lean towards the theory
that there are many suns beyond what can be seen from our position? Sure,
it might dissuade one from searching for a mathematical basis for a single
set of physics, but Kepler wasted a good portion of his time looking for a
geometric explanation for the orbits of the planets. I don't think it
should be framed as giving up vs. not giving up, but rather, which
questions are the most interesting ones to concentrate our time on. The
general trend of evidence has been accumulating to suggest there are
multiple universes with different laws, rather than towards there only
being one allowed set of laws. There will always be Keplers out there who
won't give up, and so there's always room for the possibility of them one
day finding something, but personally I'd rather spend my time consider the
consequences and implications of the view that there are many universes.

Jason

-- 
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: God

On 4/26/2015 9:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.

Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet? Did he take a
survey?

I spoke for no one. I only quoted people from that faith or excerpts from their
religious scriptures directly. Here is a link to the post for those that are new to the
list:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/Ua-eNt_vdBE/PV_pwPhvCxcJ

(Note you may need to click "Show Trimmed Content")

This same conversation seems to recur every 6 - 12 months, and every time Brent and John
seem to forget everything that was said from the last time it happened. Maybe this time
it will be different.

Maybe you should remember my rejoinder too.

It was not you who claimed to speak for other people, it was Bruno that claimed
you did:

Bruno:/Jason Resh shows you that my definition of God is the same as the Chinese, Indian,
Greeks, /

///
///Brent:/Are you claiming that all Chinese, Indians, and Greeks agree on a canonical
definition for "God"? That would certainly be remarkable (especially as "god" is an
English word)./

John Clark: /I already know what most people on this planet mean by the word
"God" /

Bruno: /No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please. /

Brent: /Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet? Did he take
a survey?/

No he didn't take a survey; he cherry picked from ancient texts and theologians who agreed
with him. And Jason didn't even go so far as to say these were majority opinions or
common meanings; only that they were other conceptions of "God" consistent with Bruno's
mystic ONE or TRUTH.

Brent

Re: God


On 4/25/2015 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An atheist can agree 
that "The material reality" plays the role of God,


That already assumes that there is such a role.  It's not in my play.


I am not sure I understand.


I don't think there's a single cause/source of for all of physical reality, culuture, 
ethics, art, mathematics, consciousness...  There is circumstance and accident at 
different levels.


We agree on that. But what about the initial assumptions? The TOE? 


Initial assumptions and TOE's are not everything.  You yourself often refer to "geography" 
as a metaphor for the other accidental stuff; which physicists call "symmetry breaking".


I know this list is based on the idea that any "geography" you can't explain can be swept 
under the rug of "everything happens (just not here)".  But I think that's just another 
form of giving up or invoking magic, of which you often accuse materialists.


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: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


Dear Brent,

I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the 
paper have to do with human consciousness.


For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to 
Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that 
Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is still actual.


The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical 
constructivism.


Evgenii

Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:

I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
 being clear.  For example:

/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
computational models of object perception./

There's no justification for the "mere".  Our perception has gone
well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason to
suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
unconscious./

This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by "conscious".

Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.

Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full




“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study

how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such
dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of
conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of
interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret
physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
preexisting physical truths.”





--
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: Consciousness creates physics

I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in being clear. For
example:

/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere warm up. The next step
in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our
perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of
a flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected,
it is the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental
organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific
mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality./

/
//By this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then the
current Bayesian models of object perception need more than tinkering around the edges,
they need fundamental transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational models of
object perception./

There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has gone well beyond what biology
provided. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the transformation they propose will be
THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH either.

/
//Similarly, most of my mental processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does
not entail that they are unconscious./

This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by "conscious".

Anyway, I'll finish reading it. I think an explanation of consciousness based on
evolution is one useful approach.

Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology,
v. 5, N 00577, 2014.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full

“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception
of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. We show that one particular
object, the quantum free particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents;
particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This allows
us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths.”

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

WMAP was flawed according to the latest sky survey announced recently. The big 
acceleration has long ago reversed and heat death here we come. Tipler's new 
claims are wrapped in his theology, yet can be instructional none the less, 
unless you feel that uploading and antimatter weapons are logically impossible 
forever? Yes, his omega point is over kill, but this was for lots of other 
mindful things aside from resurrection, which is the greater importance to 
humans. There seem to be better ways then the long wait offered by Tipler. One 
way, is to comprehend that at basis, the universe and the info it contains is 
available and transportable, and has evolved this way for a very long time. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 25, 2015 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015  LizR  wrote:   

> The question is whether the you who was a biological entity experiences 
> waking up as the uploaded version.  

If the "you" who woke up this morning is the same "you" that went to sleep last 
night then the answer to the above question is obvious. If the "you" who woke 
up this morning is NOT the same "you" that went to sleep last night then the 
answer to the above question is unimportant. 

> Tipler claims

Tipler's old claims were interesting but later proven to be wrong, Tipler's new 
claims are insane.

> that is guaranteed if you can duplicate - or, apparently, just simulate - the 
> quantum state of your body 

That would be VAST overkill! The quantum state of your body changes about a 
hundred thousand million billion trillion times every second of your life, but 
subjectively it doesn't cause a loss of personal identity, and in a case like 
this subjectivity is far more important than objectivity.

  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: Where are they?

On 4/26/2015 1:18 AM, LizR wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

Nonsense. He was in poor health and he had long suffered drastic swings in mood.
Today he would be diagnosed as bipolar. He also had reason to be depressed because

his ideas were rejected on the Continent. They were considered crazy
because it was
obviously impossible to derive irreversible processes from reversible
physics.

This was correct. Boltzmann smuggled the arrow of time into his calculations via an
assumption concerning whether their velocities were correlated or independent (I forget
the details, but Huw Price explained it very neatly so even I got it, at least at the
time). However, that wasn't a reason to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" -
thermodynamics still works, of course, if you can get a system into a low entropy state
to start with.

Boltzmann's assumption of uncorreleated velocities worked and he got the thermodynamics of
an ideal gas from stat mech precisely because thermodynamics described gases in terms of
pressure and temperature, a description which ignored those correlations. His great
contribution was to see that entropy was the measure of microscopic degrees of freedom
relative to which macroscopic constraints were assumed. If he'd only lived a few more
years he would have seen his ideas vindicated by Planck's application to black body radiation.

Brent

Re: God



On 26 Apr 2015, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.


Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet?  Did he  
take a survey?



I spoke for no one. I only quoted people from that faith or excerpts  
from their religious scriptures directly. Here is a link to the post  
for those that are new to the list:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/Ua-eNt_vdBE/PV_pwPhvCxcJ

(Note you may need to click "Show Trimmed Content")

This same conversation seems to recur every 6 - 12 months, and every  
time Brent and John seem to forget everything that was said from the  
last time it happened. Maybe this time it will be different.


That is what I call faith :)

Thanks for the link. Still not so obvious to navigate there. I still  
miss Escribe.com where one post = one page Why such system disappeared?


Bruno




Jason

--
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: God

On 26 Apr 2015, at 16:47, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>  I don't care I'm not picky it's your choice;  you can't provide  
a definition so just give me a example, any example, of God.

> Arithmetical truth, Analytical truth, Physical truth, The God of  
the Jews, The One of Plotinus The Noùs of Plato, The "great  
architect" of the Timaeus, The "One" of Parmenides, Cantor's Great  
Inkonsistenz (modulo the spelling)

Allah, Krishna,

I asked for one example and just as I expected you gave me more than  
one, you gave me 11 and in this case more is not better.  Except for  
truth being involved in 3 of them (and "truth" seems a better name  
for things that are than "God") I don't see a common theme among the  
others except that they are mysterious big amorphous colorless blobs  
of unknown answers to unasked and unaskable questions. So I guess  
there are 11 Gods not 1 and THE ONE is dead and THE ELEVEN is born

I gave you the definition. Then I gave example, not of God which I  
would assume, but that some people assumed.

The definition I gave was the reason of things.

let me try another one: it is what you still believe in when you lost  
faith in the God you were used too.

I told you, like "number" designates 0 and 1, I use a definition of  
God which makes physicalism (not physics) into a theology: the one  
which assumes that matter is at the origin of your consciousness here  
and now, or that matter is the reason of things.

Then the point is that this leads to epistemological contradictions  
and difficulties once we assume mechanism.

I put the cart on the table, but you do not. You say you are open that  
mathematics is more fundamental than physics, but you still come up  
with the brain-mind identity thesis, at least when you are in good  
period, as those days, you make only rhetorical dismiss showing your  
lack of interest, if not prejudice.

What you said about Proclus and Plotinus is just childish. It is clear  
you have not read them, and have no idea of what they are talking  
about, no idea how serious they are, and no idea of their influence on  
the institutionalized religion including their dissidents.

> there are common pattern in between those notions,

Common patterns between arithmetical truth and Allah;

Of course there are.

common patterns between physical truth and the God of the Jews?

I simplify: the jews were neoplatonist until Maimonides.

I made a conference explaining "machine's theology" (G and G* and the  
intensional variants). Someone told me that this was the theology of  
the jews. I answered that I was not sure about that because if we read  
Maimonides, it seems encouraging more the Aristotle view than the  
Plato one. He answered me something like "Oh! Yes, if you listen to  
Maimonides ...".

Even among Muslims, the (rarer and rarte, alas) scholars who works on  
the subject are aware that the question "universe of not universe" is  
not solved.

I know that some religious scholar does not like this, but I take  
monotheism as a popularisation (and abuse) of the idea of monism. It  
gives a sense to the idea of fundamental science.

Now, Aristotle, monism has tend to materialism, which, for a  
computationalist, is like believing in a special universal number  
program (of the type F=MA, or HPsi = Epsi, or H=0) and assuming some  
"reality"/"god" instantiating one solution of the equation above  
(usually computable), itself described in, and using, some universal  
number or program, like assuming real trigonometrical polynomials, of  
assument just Robinson Arithmetic (which is assumed by all scientists,  
even the ultrafinitists, as Brent made me realize some weeks ago.

I don't think so. Allah's prophet Muhammad didn't even know the  
multiplication table much less have an insight into arithmetical  
truth, and any bright 5th grader knows far more physical truth than  
the God of the Jews.

You show up too much misunderstanding. I talk about the abstract,  
perhaps correct or not, theory of everything. Yes, some Neoplatonist  
Muslims of the eleventh century might be less wrong than some Nobel  
prize in Physics today, and not about physics (that would be  
doubtfull, but about metaphysics or theology, let us the say just the  
"fundamental science" (in the sense of those who are no more sure that  
matter is the primitive reality).

And Cantor's Inkonsistenz says that a statement and its negation  
can't both be true and can't both be false,

? Where?

and yet you said " I do not believe that god is an unintelligent  
blob, nor do I believe it is not an unintelligent blob"

?

It just means that I am agnostic. You seem to confuse ~[]p & ~[]~p  
with []p & []~p

> Yes. Einstein did not believe in a personal God,

I don't either.

I am agnostic about this too, but God can be used as a Nickname for  
any entity knowing all arithmetical truth. Its "arithmetical" (but not  
ex

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


For whatever its worth. David Deustch's solution to grandfather paradox 
eclipses this objection. Time travelers go back to a duplicate universe and 
kill grand dad, or Jack the Ripper, before he can do harm to the people in his 
lifespan. The travelers return to an unchanged world, but they did change 
reality in the universe next door. There's no reason why states cannot be 
duplicated as long as they don't violate Heisenberg's uncertainty rule. If we 
go back to Einstein's GR block universe/frame, you can copy anything in the 
past (light cone?) and duplicate it somewhere else. As long as you can glom 
past info, you can dupe it. Nothing with Einstein's GR, Heisenberg's 
Uncertainty, or Deutsches' Grand dad shot in another universe, prevents duping. 

In Everett's MWI the mulitple "worlds" are just projections of the one 
state-of-the-multivers onto different (approximately) orthogonal subspaces.  
There's no duplicating of states.  And in any case the no-cloning theorem 
doesn't prohibit there being multiple copies of a state, it just prevents you 
from measuring an unknown state completely so that you know you have duplicated 
it.  You can make copies of a state you know (i.e. prepare). And you could 
coincidentally make a copy of an unknown state - you just wouldn't be able to 
know it was a copy. 
  
 Brent 

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 25, 2015 2:52 am
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading


  
On 4/24/2015 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:  
  
  
   

 
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List  
 wrote: 
  
  How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
  
 
 


Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is 
constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are infinite numbers of 
copies of the entire universe's quantum state waiting to differentiate.

   
  
  
 In Everett's MWI the mulitple "worlds" are just projections of the one 
state-of-the-multivers onto different (approximately) orthogonal subspaces.  
There's no duplicating of states.  And in any case the no-cloning theorem 
doesn't prohibit there being multiple copies of a state, it just prevents you 
from measuring an unknown state completely so that you know you have duplicated 
it.  You can make copies of a state you know (i.e. prepare). And you could 
coincidentally make a copy of an unknown state - you just wouldn't be able to 
know it was a copy. 
  
 Brent 
  
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

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

Re: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread Alberto G. Corona

The reasons are wherever. Just hear depressed people or last writings of
suicide people. There are many other social adaptations like this. for
example the wite of the eyes.

b
But at the level of depression or suicide, moral feelings like for example
the self remorse when we do something bad to others and move us to beg
pardon . Or the weight that we carry when do wrong things in general. Only
psychopaths are free from that.

That these are adaptations is self evident. Because the wise people have
know that since the beginning of the time: A society can not work not nor
ever will work without these moral aspects of human nature and these
impulses are universal for all peoples all times.

That the science has'nt studied that in detail tell a lot about how deeply
flawed and biased  the modern science is.

2015-04-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 LizR :

> On 26 April 2015 at 19:43, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
>> What happens with the (unconscious) nominalists is that you fight the
>> details while ignoring the categories. I have the least interest in
>> discussing the life of Boltzmann or anyone. What is important for me is to
>> stress that suicide and depression is a form of social apoptosis.
>>
>> I'm not sure I like the implications of that, especially when you're
> talking about someone like Boltzmann. Do you have a good reason to think
> that suicide and depression evolved to rid the "body of society" of faulty
> cells, rather than just being a spandrel resulting, say, from having a
> complex nervous system?
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > LizR wrote:
> > >
> > >But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated
> > >quantum state is the same as a real one...
> >
> > No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that
> > there is no unitary operator that will enable you to transfer the
> > properties of one unknown quantum state to another.
> >
> > Simulating a quantum state might be another matter. Quantum states
> > are generally described in terms of some basis in Hilbert space. The
> > coefficients of the expansion in that basis are arbitrary complex
> > numbers, subject to the usual normalization conventions for the
> > state. If you want to simulate this state, you have to simulate
> > these coefficients to arbitrary precision. This is not possible in
> > finite time with a digital computer.
>
> Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite
> precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then
> it can be calculated to 300 digits precision within finite time. If I
> then want it to 600 digits, I can do that also, but very likely it
> will 10^300 times as long.
>

Doesn't it only double the amount of processing time to go from 300 digit
precision numbers to 600 digit precision numbers?

Jason

-- 
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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Dennis Ochei 
wrote:

> In the thread discussing comp the topic of whether uploading is possible
> came up. While tangentially related to comp, objections on the grounds of
> practical impossibility miss the point. But! The topic is still very
> interesting.
>
> Is uploading possible?


Yes according to computationalism, the currently-dominant theory of mind.


> If so, when will we have it?
>

I estimate by 2045. It is ultimately a matter of computational power and
storage capacity. Imagine several high resolution microscopes/video cameras
taking high resolution images as a frozen/plastinated brain is ablated (by
laser, thin slicing, etc.) layer by layer. If the video resolution is great
enough then the video recordings of watching the entire brain be destroyed
in this way would provide sufficient information to reconstruct every
neuronal connection. Harvard has a project ATLUM which automates this kind
of brain scanning. As a process subject to information processing, it will
follow the same trajectory of our increasing computing power.

We currently have uploaded worms (nematodes) with 302 neurons: openwork.org

Fruit flies have about 100x as many neurons (around 100,000), we need
roughly 7 more doublings in computing power until we have openfruitfly.org

Mice have 100 times as many neurons as fruit flies, 10,000,000, we need 7
more doublings in computing power to get to openmouse.org

Cats have 100 times as many neurons as mice, 1 billion, we need 7 more
doublings in computing power to get to opencat.org

Humans have 100 times as many neurons as cats 100 billion, we need 7 more
doublings in computing power to get to openhuman.org

So this is a total of 28 doublings away. If computers double in power every
year, we'll have openhuman.org by 2043.


> What fidelity is necessary?
>
>
That's a good question. I would hope knowing every type of neuron and all
the connections between them would be sufficient. If 100 bytes is
sufficient to describe every neuronal connection in enough detail, then it
would take 77 PB to store the roughly 770 trillion connections.


> Will the upload still be you?
>
>
As much as the man who wakes up in your bed next morning is you (assuming
computationalism)


> Would you sign up for a destructive upload? Conservative?
>
>
Yes, if others had gone before me and demonstrated satisfaction with the
results.


> Feel free to toss any other questions into the mix.
>
> For the record, I think uploading is possible, that destructive uploading
> will come way sooner,


Way sooner is relative, when technological growth accelerates
exponentially. If we're talking about post-singularity technological
progress, it might come only a few minutes later.


> I'm uncertain about fidelity, but I do think there could be a functional
> isomorphism that doesn't depend on on a structural one, i.e. 100 simplified
> neurons might be required to capture the behavior of one physical one. The
> substitution level i think is subcellular. I think uploading perserves
> identity and I might actually prefer a destructive upload, when I consider
> the disappointment of the me that wakes up still flesh and bone after a
> conservative upload.
>
>
Nice. See you on the other side. (hopefully).

Jason

-- 
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: God

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.
>
>
> Who elected Jason to speak for most people on the planet?  Did he take a
> survey?
>

I spoke for no one. I only quoted people from that faith or excerpts from
their religious scriptures directly. Here is a link to the post for those
that are new to the list:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/Ua-eNt_vdBE/PV_pwPhvCxcJ

(Note you may need to click "Show Trimmed Content")

This same conversation seems to recur every 6 - 12 months, and every time
Brent and John seem to forget everything that was said from the last time
it happened. Maybe this time it will be different.

Jason

-- 
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: God

2015-04-26 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>  I don't care I'm not picky it's your choice;  you can't provide a
>> definition so just give me a example, any example, of God.
>
>
> > Arithmetical truth, Analytical truth, Physical truth, The God of the
> Jews, The One of Plotinus The Noùs of Plato, The "great architect" of the
> Timaeus, The "One" of Parmenides, Cantor's Great Inkonsistenz (modulo the
> spelling)
> Allah, Krishna,
>

I asked for one example and just as I expected you gave me more than one,
you gave me 11 and in this case more is not better.  Except for truth being
involved in 3 of them (and "truth" seems a better name for things that are
than "God") I don't see a common theme among the others except that they
are mysterious big amorphous colorless blobs of unknown answers to unasked
and unaskable questions. So I guess there are 11 Gods not 1 and THE ONE is
dead and THE ELEVEN is born

> > there are common pattern in between those notions,
>

Common patterns between arithmetical truth and Allah;  common patterns
between physical truth and the God of the Jews? I don't think so. Allah's
prophet Muhammad didn't even know the multiplication table much less have
an insight into arithmetical truth, and any bright 5th grader knows far
more physical truth than the God of the Jews. And Cantor's Inkonsistenz
says that a statement and its negation can't both be true and can't both be
false, and yet you said " I do not believe that god is an unintelligent
blob, nor do I believe it is not an unintelligent blob"

> Yes. Einstein did not believe in a personal God,
>

I don't either.

> > but he was a believer.
>

I'm a believer too, I believe in all sorts of things, it's just that God
isn't one of them.

> > Einstein's intution is correct: it has to do with the things we cannot
> see, believe, know, observe,  and so the science is delicate
>

Delicate indeed! How can you have a science about things you can't observe
or know or even believe?

>> Physics most certainly kicks back no doubt about it, I'm less certain
>> about mathematics.
>
>
> > Think about Church thesis. It is a thesis at the intersection of math
> and philosophy, and it kick back terribly as making non computability
> absolute, and unavoidable.
>

But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete physical process,
so perhaps mathematics is just a language describing what is physically
possible and what is not. Or perhaps not, I don't know.

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: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 26 April 2015 at 02:19, John Clark  wrote:

>> > that is guaranteed if you can duplicate - or, apparently, just simulate
>> > - the quantum state of your body
>
>
> That would be VAST overkill! The quantum state of your body changes about a
> hundred thousand million billion trillion times every second of your life,
> but subjectively it doesn't cause a loss of personal identity, and in a case
> like this subjectivity is far more important than objectivity.

That's right - and you can also undergo far greater changes to your
brain than those and still survive:

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


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness, 
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.


http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full

“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how 
the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. 
We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a 
wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that 
characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are 
vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This 
allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, 
and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as 
preexisting physical truths.”


--
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: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread LizR

On 26 April 2015 at 19:43, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> What happens with the (unconscious) nominalists is that you fight the
> details while ignoring the categories. I have the least interest in
> discussing the life of Boltzmann or anyone. What is important for me is to
> stress that suicide and depression is a form of social apoptosis.
>
> I'm not sure I like the implications of that, especially when you're
talking about someone like Boltzmann. Do you have a good reason to think
that suicide and depression evolved to rid the "body of society" of faulty
cells, rather than just being a spandrel resulting, say, from having a
complex nervous system?

-- 
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: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread LizR

On 26 April 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb  wrote:

> Nonsense.  He was in poor health and he had long suffered drastic swings
> in mood.  Today he would be diagnosed as bipolar.  He also had reason to
> be  depressed because his ideas were rejected on the Continent.  They were
> considered crazy because it was obviously impossible to derive irreversible
> processes from reversible physics.
>

This was correct. Boltzmann smuggled the arrow of time into his
calculations via an assumption concerning whether their velocities were
correlated or independent (I forget the details, but Huw Price explained it
very neatly so even I got it, at least at the time). However, that wasn't a
reason to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" - thermodynamics still
works, of course, if you can get a system into a low entropy state to start
with.

-- 
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: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread Alberto G. Corona

What happens with the (unconscious) nominalists is that you fight the
details while ignoring the categories. I have the least interest in
discussing the life of Boltzmann or anyone. What is important for me is to
stress that suicide and depression is a form of social apoptosis.

2015-04-26 3:07 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :

>  On 4/20/2015 3:51 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> * once day by day survival is solved, people need a meaning.*
>
>
> If it works for them why is it your problem?
>
>
>  That is why modern people put his life at risk in extreme sports and so
> on: short term risk evade from existential vacuum.
>
> 2015-04-20 12:49 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona :
>
>> The amazing thing is how what would happen in 100 trillion years may
>> preoccupy so seriously to some people that would induce to suicide.
>> Boltzman committed suicide in part because his own theories of
>> termodinamical dead of the universe more or less.
>>
>
> Nonsense.  He was in poor health and he had long suffered drastic swings
> in mood.  Today he would be diagnosed as bipolar.  He also had reason to
> be  depressed because his ideas were rejected on the Continent.  They were
> considered crazy because it was obviously impossible to derive irreversible
> processes from reversible physics.
>
>
>>  Other people are influenced equally hard, but unconsciously by very
>> long term perspectives that are beyond his own timespan.
>>
>>  And this tells something very important about the human condition: once
>> day by day survival is solved, people need a meaning. that means that he
>> need to live in a society with a plan and to work for this plan, which is a
>> kind of salvation. This is in the constitution of human beings, induced by
>> evolution if you like, but it is there no doubt. suicide means that the
>> person think unconsciously that it can not contribute.
>>
>
> Yes, I think that is more accurate than suicide over thermodynamics.
> Boltzmann's successor Paul Ehrenfest also committed suicide and also
> suffered severe depression.  Ehrenfest was always very critical of
> himself.  After arranging for the care of his other children, he shot his
> Down syndrome son and then himself.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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: Where are they?

2015-04-26 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Uncertainty is not the same than the certainty of obliteration, as
Boltzmann I suppose that he felt. Freemann Dyson tried to overcome the
Boltzmannian conclussions not for a intellectual exercise, but as a serious
treat to the vital perspectives of people here and now.

Uncertainty is not depressing, it is encouraging. Makes you to be more
alert.  Makes you to bet in some outcomes, fight against the plans of
others.

Commenting in what you say,  Nobody know what will happen. You reach
prepature conclussions based on your local environment, The idea that the
future is to one wold government exist since Atila or since the first
tribeman holded the first stone.

But it seems that very powerful people has endorsed it. If I were
super-powerful and rich and I were the kind of enlightened idiot with
stone-age morality that is very common today, I would consider the planet
as a my yard and would work for maintaining this yard for my own family
intact for generations, with my family in power: clean, ordered and with as
little  populace as possible. I also would fight for a world government
where... Ahem, I would better take the responsibility of caring for you.

2015-04-24 0:36 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes :

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Alberto G. Corona 
> wrote:
>
>> The amazing thing is how what would happen in 100 trillion years may
>> preoccupy so seriously to some people that would induce to suicide.
>> Boltzman committed suicide in part because his own theories of
>> termodinamical dead of the universe more or less.
>>
>> Other people are influenced equally hard, but unconsciously by very long
>> term perspectives that are beyond his own timespan.
>>
>> And this tells something very important about the human condition: once
>> day by day survival is solved, people need a meaning. that means that he
>> need to live in a society with a plan and to work for this plan, which is a
>> kind of salvation.
>>
>
> I agree with this.
>
> The problem is that technological progress invalidates previous social
> constructs. For example, for a long time the concept of nation-state
> provided such a society. The concept of nation-state does not seem able to
> survive modern communication and transportation technologies. Things will
> only get weirder with VR and so on.
>
> What then?
>
>
>> This is in the constitution of human beings, induced by evolution if you
>> like, but it is there no doubt. suicide means that the person think
>> unconsciously that it can not contribute. we are very egoistic in the short
>> term, but in the long term we are like ants. this is too fast but I can
>> argue in detail about all of this
>>
>> 2015-04-20 0:04 GMT+02:00 LizR :
>>
>>> In my opinion extensive Dysonisation will only occur later in the
>>> stelliferous era - in the 100 trillion years when the galaxy (and the few
>>> others still visible in the far distance) glow rose-red from having a
>>> population exclusively made of stellar remnants and M class dwarfs. At this
>>> point some species may have made it through the "evolutionary heritage"
>>> bottleneck (have conquered the desire to consume endlessly and to wipe out
>>> rivals, I mean) - plus, it will be a lot more obvious that the universe's
>>> resources are running low, and conservation is in order.
>>>
>>> Riffing...
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

On 25 Apr 2015, at 17:58, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015  LizR  wrote:

> a destructive upload should be possible, and a conservative upload  
would give you a 50-50 chance of finding yourself uploaded.

Would give who a 50-50 chance of being uploaded?

> If there is something wrong with comp [...]

There is plenty wrong with Bruno's "comp",

You told me that you have never read the paper above step 3.

The only error" you mentioned would be the FPI, that is step 3. But  
you never reply when we show you the error you made, and then made  
again and again, and again.

but there is nothing wrong with computationalism.

You never replied to the explanation that all known form of  
computationalism implies "comp" (the weaker form of it). So, the  
consequence of "comp" applies to all of them.

Bruno

  John K Clark

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

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

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

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?