Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 27 May 2015 at 02:07, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried) This could invalidate the top-down view often reportedly experienced in NDEs, but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people being conscious in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their surroundings.mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information smoe other way? It's not invalidated - those not predisposed to credit the legitimacy of NDEs naturally latch onto this, while those predisposed to believe tend to downplay it. Yeah, this is why I said could. I was just adding my thought to the mix. I really have no idea whether to place any credence in NDEs or not. Confirmation bias. But there are credible explanations for the failure to confirm (so far) via cards - firstly it is difficult to get enough subjects, because one can't organize someone's near death easily, only about 10% of people who come close to death have such an experience, and not all NDEs involve the classic looking down from the ceiling experience. Furthermore, people undergoing a near death experience are not lab rats running a maze - they are typically fascinated by the sight of their own body and the drama surrounding it, so it's plausible that a card stuck to the top of a cabinet simply does not attract their attention. All good points. You should be skeptical of the report of course - extraordinary claims bla bla. But invariably people who presume NDEs 'can't' be legit don't investigate them properly, or read just enough to get to the first skeptical account which then safely confirms their assumptions. Brent's one sentence dismissal is typical, and typically inaccurate. Far from exaggerating and confabulating (though no doubt some people do), NDE experiencers tend to keep their experience secret for fear of ridicule or being thought nuts. And the experience is typically so intense and vivid that it in no way resemble a dream or delirium in which second hand reports or later memories could get confused with the original experience. The particular case I cited was both *highly* accurate and witnessed by multiple persons, including the neurosurgeon who for example stated there was no way she could have heard the conversations she reported - because she was profoundly unconscious according to her EEG, and because she had earphones on at the time that were emitting deafening noise. This has the same problem as all these parapsychological events - they tend to be unrepeatable, some people have a strong bias to believe them, others are the opposite, and so on. Perhaps they are all confabulated, perhaps there is something important going on... but how to judge? (unless perhaps you have one yourself) I don't get into arguments about it because it is boring and frustrating, I just encourage people to look into it for themselves. I have some interest in it because my mother had one which changed her life in a big way. They tend to be life-changing, for sure. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried) This could invalidate the top-down view often reportedly experienced in NDEs, but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people being conscious in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their surroundings.mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information smoe other way? It's not invalidated - those not predisposed to credit the legitimacy of NDEs naturally latch onto this, while those predisposed to believe tend to downplay it. Confirmation bias. But there are credible explanations for the failure to confirm (so far) via cards - firstly it is difficult to get enough subjects, because one can't organize someone's near death easily, only about 10% of people who come close to death have such an experience, and not all NDEs involve the classic looking down from the ceiling experience. Furthermore, people undergoing a near death experience are not lab rats running a maze - they are typically fascinated by the sight of their own body and the drama surrounding it, so it's plausible that a card stuck to the top of a cabinet simply does not attract their attention. You should be skeptical of the report of course - extraordinary claims bla bla. But invariably people who presume NDEs 'can't' be legit don't investigate them properly, or read just enough to get to the first skeptical account which then safely confirms their assumptions. Brent's one sentence dismissal is typical, and typically inaccurate. Far from exaggerating and confabulating (though no doubt some people do), NDE experiencers tend to keep their experience secret for fear of ridicule or being thought nuts. And the experience is typically so intense and vivid that it in no way resemble a dream or delirium in which second hand reports or later memories could get confused with the original experience. The particular case I cited was both *highly* accurate and witnessed by multiple persons, including the neurosurgeon who for example stated there was no way she could have heard the conversations she reported - because she was profoundly unconscious according to her EEG, and because she had earphones on at the time that were emitting deafening noise. I don't get into arguments about it because it is boring and frustrating, I just encourage people to look into it for themselves. I have some interest in it because my mother had one which changed her life in a big way. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Verifiable data is essential for me. On the other hand, Steinhart's Promotion theory consists of a process (humans, biomes,?) being also data pipelines to another region of spacetime, or other universes. This, in some sense resembles the repeated perspectives by many of tunnel's, passages, and the like. Being promoted, as a software process might be occurring-if one holds that this vision is somehow, not, a hallucination? Steinhart, suggests we'd get promoted, as integrated data and history, to another instantiation of yourself. His Revision Theory of Resurrection is not the same as his Promotion, in that the data that you were is merely an improved clone in an improved universe, but no memories pass to the next instantiation. Promotion is the same as Teleportation, or Uploading, where as, Revision is akin to the clone's created by Everett's MWI, although some, MWI's are exact copies with exact memories and identity. It's all just me tossing about Steinhart's and my own ideas, and applying it to this discussion. -Original Message- From: Pierz pier...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 26, 2015 10:07 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried) This could invalidate the top-down view often reportedly experienced in NDEs, but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people being conscious in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their surroundings.mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information smoe other way? It's not invalidated - those not predisposed to credit the legitimacy of NDEs naturally latch onto this, while those predisposed to believe tend to downplay it. Confirmation bias. But there are credible explanations for the failure to confirm (so far) via cards - firstly it is difficult to get enough subjects, because one can't organize someone's near death easily, only about 10% of people who come close to death have such an experience, and not all NDEs involve the classic looking down from the ceiling experience. Furthermore, people undergoing a near death experience are not lab rats running a maze - they are typically fascinated by the sight of their own body and the drama surrounding it, so it's plausible that a card stuck to the top of a cabinet simply does not attract their attention. You should be skeptical of the report of course - extraordinary claims bla bla. But invariably people who presume NDEs 'can't' be legit don't investigate them properly, or read just enough to get to the first skeptical account which then safely confirms their assumptions. Brent's one sentence dismissal is typical, and typically inaccurate. Far from exaggerating and confabulating (though no doubt some people do), NDE experiencers tend to keep their experience secret for fear of ridicule or being thought nuts. And the experience is typically so intense and vivid that it in no way resemble a dream or delirium in which second hand reports or later memories could get confused with the original experience. The particular case I cited was both *highly* accurate and witnessed by multiple persons, including the neurosurgeon who for example stated there was no way she could have heard the conversations she reported - because she was profoundly unconscious according to her EEG, and because she had earphones on at the time that were emitting deafening noise. I don't get into arguments about it because it is boring and frustrating, I just encourage people to look into it for themselves. I have some interest in it because my mother had
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 26 May 2015, at 16:07, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried) This could invalidate the top-down view often reportedly experienced in NDEs, but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people being conscious in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their surroundings.mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information smoe other way? It's not invalidated - those not predisposed to credit the legitimacy of NDEs naturally latch onto this, while those predisposed to believe tend to downplay it. Confirmation bias. But there are credible explanations for the failure to confirm (so far) via cards - firstly it is difficult to get enough subjects, because one can't organize someone's near death easily, only about 10% of people who come close to death have such an experience, and not all NDEs involve the classic looking down from the ceiling experience. Furthermore, people undergoing a near death experience are not lab rats running a maze - they are typically fascinated by the sight of their own body and the drama surrounding it, so it's plausible that a card stuck to the top of a cabinet simply does not attract their attention. You should be skeptical of the report of course - extraordinary claims bla bla. But invariably people who presume NDEs 'can't' be legit don't investigate them properly, or read just enough to get to the first skeptical account which then safely confirms their assumptions. Brent's one sentence dismissal is typical, and typically inaccurate. Far from exaggerating and confabulating (though no doubt some people do), NDE experiencers tend to keep their experience secret for fear of ridicule or being thought nuts. And the experience is typically so intense and vivid that it in no way resemble a dream or delirium in which second hand reports or later memories could get confused with the original experience. The particular case I cited was both *highly* accurate and witnessed by multiple persons, including the neurosurgeon who for example stated there was no way she could have heard the conversations she reported - because she was profoundly unconscious according to her EEG, and because she had earphones on at the time that were emitting deafening noise. I don't get into arguments about it because it is boring and frustrating, I just encourage people to look into it for themselves. I have some interest in it because my mother had one which changed her life in a big way. Very interesting. And at least, assuming comp, for those dismissing the NDE or the mystical experiences by the slogan: all that is in the head, we can remind them that the ideas of brain, and of life and death, are also in the brain. The question is about the semantic, or content of those experiences, and that was all what theology was about initially, with just attempt to theorize on experience, which although not communicable, can still be provoked, using some brain perturbation technic. Nature exploits this already, plausibly through the dream states, but also in some shocked state, to survive in extremely hard situation. Mathematics reflects possible atemporal truths, and mystical experiences reflect something like atemporal consciousness state(s), accessible from inside, and usually related to injury and death. That might makes sense with comp, if the filter theory is confirmed, or at least confirmed in the relevant complexity range where it is conserved, around the universal/Löbian threshold (I think). Of course, we are still in the Aristotelian era, and materialism is still taboo, either in the monist form of the atheists, or in the dualist common theist position. The greek sciences have not yet reborn, above the limit of naturalism. Bruno -- You received this message because you are
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/24/2015 5:34 AM, Pierz wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried), but plenty of information has come back if you're willing to allow experiencers' spontaneous reports as evidence. For instance, the well documented case of a woman who was able to report accurately on the neurosurgery that was performed on her, including describing surgical tools, conversations and detail about procedures she could have had no knowledge of - all while her body was drained of blood, with a flatlining EEG. There are tons of such reports, And tons of them have been found to be confabulated and exaggerated, based on later memories and second hand reports.. Brent and studies have looked at the accuracy of these reports and found that they far exceeded the accuracy of surgery descriptions of patients asked to describe that they *thought* they would have seen if witnessing their own surgery. Yes of course this does not constitute any kind of scientific proof, but to sweepingly say they have not come back with information is also inaccurate. What you /can/ say is attempts to find some kind of information that NDE-ers can report in a reliable, replicable manner have so far been unsuccessful. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried) This could invalidate the top-down view often reportedly experienced in NDEs, but my 13 year old daughter told me the other day that she can easily imagine herself from an outside viewpoint (we weren't talking about NDEs or anything like that) so it is certainly possible for people to do this. Hence people being conscious in some sense during NDEs isn't invalidated by their inability to spot cards hidden on top of cabinets, even if the viewpoint described is. It remains possible that they are aware of their surroundings.mind you I'm also very sceptical of this woman's report, how exact and well testified is it, and could she have picked up the information smoe other way? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. ? Highly debatable! It's true that so far I'm not aware of any experiments in which NDE subjects reported the content of cards put in places only visible from the ceiling (as some researchers have tried), but plenty of information has come back if you're willing to allow experiencers' spontaneous reports as evidence. For instance, the well documented case of a woman who was able to report accurately on the neurosurgery that was performed on her, including describing surgical tools, conversations and detail about procedures she could have had no knowledge of - all while her body was drained of blood, with a flatlining EEG. There are tons of such reports, and studies have looked at the accuracy of these reports and found that they far exceeded the accuracy of surgery descriptions of patients asked to describe that they *thought* they would have seen if witnessing their own surgery. Yes of course this does not constitute any kind of scientific proof, but to sweepingly say they have not come back with information is also inaccurate. What you *can* say is attempts to find some kind of information that NDE-ers can report in a reliable, replicable manner have so far been unsuccessful. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2objectid=11450770ref=nzh_tw Antarctica's Larsen B ice-shelf is on course to disintegrate completely within the next five years, according to a study by US space agency Nasa. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
I will eventually buy the book and let ya know. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 17, 2015 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 17 May 2015 at 06:38, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Here is another out of the box thinker, Telmo, that has published a book of course. He is a prof at Stanford University, with a view unlike anything I can recall covering this topic. Like Lomborg, or Matt Ridley. A WaPo article, none the less! http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html Sadly, it has often seemed to me that this basic idea is correct. WW2 alone gave us radar, the atomic reactor, space travel, not to mention the NHS and a few other worthwhile institutions that try to protect the vulnerable. And no doubt a host of other stuff I can't think of right now. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 15 May 2015 at 23:52, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. Ok, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I only claim ignorance, and ask questions when something looks fishy. That's OK, but bear in mind that lots of vested interests are actively trying to make this subject look fishy - oil companies are trying to do for pollution what the tobacco companies did for smoking until the evidence became overwhelming. I also care about science more than anything else, so arguments around what 97% of the most competent people think mean nothing to me. Well it should if you care about science, because the only way we have to decide these issues. Of course they may all be wrong - all scientists may be wrong - but I don't see people not using cars of computers because they're based on science that may be wrong. For me, that is politician speak. No, that's the people who try to obscure the issue. Scientists publishing papers is about as far as you can get from politicians, although as noted it still isn't perfect by a long shot. Just more perfect than any alternative we've yet invented (like democracy, according to Churchill) Consensus are easy to manufacture, even in science. I care about correct predictions and a good understanding of the mechanisms. What makes these people so competent? Have they created models that led to correct predictions? Yes. Or at least better predictions than anyone else has managed, but since we're dealing with a complex system it isn't too surprising that no one is able to grasp or predict it fully. Bear in mind that this is a system that, if it goes wrong, could kill lots of people (has already killed quite a number, in fact, due to the current 0.8 deg C rise in global temperatures over the last century). When attempting to deal with a potentially lethal situation, what level of confidence do you need before you decide to take the recommendations of the experts? If your doctor is 97% confident that you need an operation, do you have it, or do you question his competency and say he's talking like a politician ? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 17 May 2015 at 06:38, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Here is another out of the box thinker, Telmo, that has published a book of course. He is a prof at Stanford University, with a view unlike anything I can recall covering this topic. Like Lomborg, or Matt Ridley. A WaPo article, none the less! http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html Sadly, it has often seemed to me that this basic idea is correct. WW2 alone gave us radar, the atomic reactor, space travel, not to mention the NHS and a few other worthwhile institutions that try to protect the vulnerable. And no doubt a host of other stuff I can't think of right now. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Here is another out of the box thinker, Telmo, that has published a book of course. He is a prof at Stanford University, with a view unlike anything I can recall covering this topic. Like Lomborg, or Matt Ridley. A WaPo article, none the less! http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make-us-safer-and-richer/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Thanks. The story, as told by him, sound quite appalling. I googled him to see other sides of the story and found this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg Which is just political drivel... Conservatives blah blah blah, shark jump, losing the plot yada yada. These people really like their clichés. However, there's some evidence of cherrypicking on the part of Lomborg: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change On one hand, Lomborg looks a bit shady to me. On the other, the increasing tendency for suppression of dissent in academia is quite troubling (not just on climate issues). Oh well. I guess there's nothing good in this world that politics won't turn into shit. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: here is the article, Telmo, linked by Lomborg's own site. Good reading. http://www.lomborg.com/news/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 02:53 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Crap Telmo, because its WSJ, its a paywall for cut and pastes. Basically Lomborg got dogged because he by some aussie academics, because be went against their holy conclusions. I am and admirer of John Kennedy, even though he made nearly lethal mistakes for the world, in foreign policy. A quote, don't get mad, get even. I hope Lomborg does. He might just have with this unseen WSJ article. I will send a site link which will show the full article. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi! Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... Cheers Telmo. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? I assume that isn't the point - after all, if we followed that logic we'd still be living in caves. If progress depended on planet-wide collective action and consensus, we would surely still be living in caves. We are not living in caves because people look for realistic solutions to the problems they are faced with. There is no planetary we, and I think that's a good thing. In some dystopian scenarios, survival may not be worth it. But then what is the point? The point is to do risk analysis and treat the problem as a trade-off, because cutting CO2 emissions is far from not having potentially catastrophic consequences too. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. Ok, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I only claim ignorance, and ask questions when something looks fishy. I also care about science more than anything else, so arguments around what 97% of the most competent people think mean nothing to me. For me, that is politician speak. Consensus are easy to manufacture, even in science. I care about correct predictions and a good understanding of the mechanisms. What makes these people so competent? Have they created models that led to correct predictions? This is all just intellectual curiosity anyway. My opinion on the matter has no importance whatsoever. I don't even vote. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_a34fccef-8e29-4c62-9f14-1acedd46bb00 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote spanOn 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote spanOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote spanOn 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote span blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div span /span Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. /blockquote /span Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? span /span /div /div /div /blockquote/span Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? /div /div /div /blockquote /span Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? /div /div /div /blockquote /span Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. /div /div /div /blockquote Ok, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I only claim ignorance, and ask questions when something looks fishy. I also care about science more than anything else
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Hi! Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... Cheers Telmo. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. Ok, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I only claim ignorance, and ask questions when something looks fishy. I also care about science more than anything else, so arguments around what 97% of the most competent people think mean nothing to me. For me, that is politician speak. Consensus are easy to manufacture, even in science. I care about correct predictions and a good understanding of the mechanisms. What makes these people so competent? Have they created models that led to correct predictions? This is all just intellectual curiosity anyway. My opinion on the matter has no importance whatsoever. I don't even vote. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/15/2015 2:37 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/15/2015 2:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? How is replacing one energy supply with a different energy supply endangering those people. If the new energy supply was more efficient than fossil, then you would not need incentives or regulation. Fossil would not be able to compete. Since this is not the case, I have to assume that the new energy supply is less efficient, which means that there will be less energy resources. That depends on whether efficiency counts the harm done by global warming. As it is now that is not paid by the emitters of CO2. The loophole in my argument might be fossil fuel subsidising, which sounds like an appallingly bad idea. I am 100% in favor of stopping that. I assume that isn't the point - after all, if we followed that logic we'd still be living in caves. If progress depended on planet-wide collective action and consensus, we would surely still be living in caves. We are not living in caves because people look for realistic solutions to the problems they are faced with. There is no planetary we, and I think that's a good thing. In some dystopian scenarios, survival may not be worth it. But then what is the point? The point is to do risk analysis and treat the problem as a trade-off, because cutting CO2 emissions is far from not having potentially catastrophic consequences too. Nobody is relying on having CO2 to breathe. So replacing the energy has no downsides except economic ones. Which is the same to say that it has no downsides except for human suffering. The economy is just resource allocation. And the climate is one of those resources. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Thanks. The story, as told by him, sound quite appalling. I googled him to see other sides of the story and found this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg Which is just political drivel... Conservatives blah blah blah, shark jump, losing the plot yada yada. These people really like their clichés. However, there's some evidence of cherrypicking on the part of Lomborg: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change On one hand, Lomborg looks a bit shady to me. On the other, the increasing tendency for suppression of dissent in academia is quite troubling (not just on climate issues). Oh well. I guess there's nothing good in this world that politics won't turn into shit. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: here is the article, Telmo, linked by Lomborg's own site. Good reading. http://www.lomborg.com/news/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 02:53 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Crap Telmo, because its WSJ, its a paywall for cut and pastes. Basically Lomborg got dogged because he by some aussie academics, because be went against their holy conclusions. I am and admirer of John Kennedy, even though he made nearly lethal mistakes for the world, in foreign policy. A quote, don't get mad, get even. I hope Lomborg does. He might just have with this unseen WSJ article. I will send a site link which will show the full article. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi! Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... Cheers Telmo. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? Of course it isn't. Such risk analysis has been done, and it appears around 97% of the most competent people available in the field think the risks caused by the rising CO2 levels are more dangerous than the risks of doing nothing about them. Ok, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. I only claim ignorance, and ask questions when something looks fishy. I also care about science more than anything else, so arguments around what 97% of the most competent people think mean nothing to me. For me, that is politician speak. Consensus are easy to manufacture, even in science. I care about correct predictions and a good understanding of the mechanisms. What makes these people so competent? Have they created models that led to correct predictions? This is all just intellectual curiosity anyway. My opinion on the matter has no importance whatsoever
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
I trust Lomborg far more than I trust academics who hold fanatically, not to reason, but to this red-green ideology of theirs. On addressing the problem, even Brent and I are seemingly on the same side in that we both want a massive switch to solar, and the best solution. But, alas, I am but a serf with zero influence. I would make billions and billions available for energy storage engineering, and not a cent to pay crony greens, salaraies, so they can donate to the mafia inc, elitist parties in the US. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 05:52 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_5d2b43db-de9f-4263-b4af-3052ef42ee24 div dir=ltr Thanks. The story, as told by him, sound quite appalling. I googled him to see other sides of the story and found this: a target=_blank href=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg;http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/may/15/how-conservatives-lost-the-plot-over-the-rejection-of-bjorn-lomborg/a Which is just political drivel... Conservatives blah blah blah, shark jump, losing the plot yada yada. These people really like their clichés. However, there's some evidence of cherrypicking on the part of Lomborg: a target=_blank href=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change;http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change/a On one hand, Lomborg looks a bit shady to me. On the other, the increasing tendency for suppression of dissent in academia is quite troubling (not just on climate issues). Oh well. I guess there's nothing good in this world that politics won't turn into shit. /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:58 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex here is the article, Telmo, linked by Lomborg's own site. Good reading. div a target=_blank href=http://www.lomborg.com/news/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors;http://www.lomborg.com/news/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors/a span Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- /span spanFrom: spudboy100 via Everything List a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a /span div div class=aolmail_h5 Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 02:53 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div Crap Telmo, because its WSJ, its a paywall for cut and pastes. Basically Lomborg got dogged because he by some aussie academics, because be went against their holy conclusions. I am and admirer of John Kennedy, even though he made nearly lethal mistakes for the world, in foreign policy. A quote, don't get mad, get even. I hope Lomborg does. He might just have with this unseen WSJ article. I will send a site link which will show the full article. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes a target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div div dir=ltr Hi! div Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... div Cheers Telmo. div On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Crap Telmo, because its WSJ, its a paywall for cut and pastes. Basically Lomborg got dogged because he by some aussie academics, because be went against their holy conclusions. I am and admirer of John Kennedy, even though he made nearly lethal mistakes for the world, in foreign policy. A quote, don't get mad, get even. I hope Lomborg does. He might just have with this unseen WSJ article. I will send a site link which will show the full article. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_e092defb-6ca9-4705-b1db-9c2615ea66e4 div dir=ltr Hi! Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_extra Cheers /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra Telmo. /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). a target=_blank href=http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936;http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936/a span Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- /span spanFrom: Telmo Menezes a target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a /span spanSent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! /span div div dir=ltr div div class=aolmail_h5 div div On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div span blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div span /span Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. /blockquote
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
here is the article, Telmo, linked by Lomborg's own site. Good reading. divhttp://www.lomborg.com/news/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 02:53 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_ab967ffd-fd70-4329-87a3-879ead672718 Crap Telmo, because its WSJ, its a paywall for cut and pastes. Basically Lomborg got dogged because he by some aussie academics, because be went against their holy conclusions. I am and admirer of John Kennedy, even though he made nearly lethal mistakes for the world, in foreign policy. A quote, don't get mad, get even. I hope Lomborg does. He might just have with this unseen WSJ article. I will send a site link which will show the full article. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes a href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a To: everything-list a href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a Sent: Fri, May 15, 2015 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_e092defb-6ca9-4705-b1db-9c2615ea66e4 div dir=ltr Hi! div Most of the article is behind a paywall for me... div class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_extra Cheers /div div class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_extra Telmo. /div div class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_quote On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex Hello from the US. Here is an article by the WSJ, by Bjorn Lomborg, speaking to the climate cult ideology, that pervades acadamia. Like Lomborg, I have to believe in GW, but it ain't climate catastrophe, as the red-greens now choose to label it. Like Lomborg, I believe there are things we can to to mitigate it. In any case, here is a link to Lomborg's article (hoping it works, sans fee). a target=_blank href=http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936;http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-honor-of-being-mugged-by-climate-censors-1431558936/a span Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- /span spanFrom: Telmo Menezes a target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a To: everything-list a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a /span spanSent: Fri, May 15, 2015 07:52 AM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! /span div div dir=ltr div div class=aolmail_aolmail_h5 div div On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn 15 May 2015 at 21:38, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr div div spanOn 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com;te...@telmomenezes.com/a/span wrote: blockquote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/15/2015 2:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? How is replacing one energy supply with a different energy supply endangering those people. I assume that isn't the point - after all, if we followed that logic we'd still be living in caves. If progress depended on planet-wide collective action and consensus, we would surely still be living in caves. We are not living in caves because people look for realistic solutions to the problems they are faced with. There is no planetary we, and I think that's a good thing. In some dystopian scenarios, survival may not be worth it. But then what is the point? The point is to do risk analysis and treat the problem as a trade-off, because cutting CO2 emissions is far from not having potentially catastrophic consequences too. Nobody is relying on having CO2 to breathe. So replacing the energy has no downsides except economic ones. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/15/2015 2:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:07 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2015 at 21:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? Is the idea that we shouldn't do anything because we haven't got a perfect model of the atmosphere? Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence and serious risk analysis before messing with the energy supply chain that keeps 7 billion people alive? How is replacing one energy supply with a different energy supply endangering those people. If the new energy supply was more efficient than fossil, then you would not need incentives or regulation. Fossil would not be able to compete. Since this is not the case, I have to assume that the new energy supply is less efficient, which means that there will be less energy resources. The loophole in my argument might be fossil fuel subsidising, which sounds like an appallingly bad idea. I am 100% in favor of stopping that. I assume that isn't the point - after all, if we followed that logic we'd still be living in caves. If progress depended on planet-wide collective action and consensus, we would surely still be living in caves. We are not living in caves because people look for realistic solutions to the problems they are faced with. There is no planetary we, and I think that's a good thing. In some dystopian scenarios, survival may not be worth it. But then what is the point? The point is to do risk analysis and treat the problem as a trade-off, because cutting CO2 emissions is far from not having potentially catastrophic consequences too. Nobody is relying on having CO2 to breathe. So replacing the energy has no downsides except economic ones. Which is the same to say that it has no downsides except for human suffering. The economy is just resource allocation. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. Of course, I am not suggesting it's anything else. My question is about complex interactions between these several phenomena. Does a change in the composition of the atmosphere affect cloud formation? In what ways? Does temperature? And the vegetation? Don't these things have a role in infraread blocking and sun light refraction/absorption? Vegetation may be less reflective than say snow or bare ground. So, the same as above. I think my question is legitimate given that current models appear to have made incorrect predictions for the last decade. And many other things we might not be thinking about... My point is: who's to say that there isn't some negative feedback loop that keeps the temperature stable? Sure there is. As the Earth gets hotter it's energy loss rate goes up as T^4, so that's what establishes a new equilibrium. The Earth's temperature won't run away like Venus's did. It's not such a silly hypothesis if you think in terms of self-sampling. The Earth must be stable enough to maintain the conditions for uninterrupted biological evolution for almost 4 billion years. It's gone through hotter periods with higher CO2 levels - but not while homo sapiens roamed the Earth. And the rapidity of the rise is faster than anything that can be resolved the paleoclimate record. Fair enough. It's not that the long term temperature rise is so hard to predict, at least within a certain range. What's hard to predict is the effects. There's a lot of focus on sea level rise because that's relatively easy. But there will also be big changes in weather patterns and where which crops will grow. And changes that might be dealt with fairly easily by a rational world government will, in the real world, result in migration, famine, and war. Possibly, but the same is probably true of lowering the energy budget. I understand that fossil fuel production is subsidised, and I think this should stop immediately. Then, alternative energy sources have to be be economically viable, because economically viable just means that they lead to a sustainable allocation of resources. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were in the last 10 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 5.77e-14 Summing we get P = 2.10e-11 A p-value good enough for CERN. But this isn't a very good analysis for two reasons. First, it's not directly measuring trend, it's the same probability you'd get for any 10 of the observed temperatures falling on any defined 13 years. So you have infer that it means a trend from the fact that these are the hottest years and they occur in the 13 at the end. Second, it implicitly assumes that yearly temperatures are independent, which they aren't. If temperatures always occurred in blocks of ten for example the observed p-value would be more like 0.1. But this shows why you need to consider well defined, realistic alternatives. Your alternative was no trend, but no trend can mean a lot of things, including random independent yearly temperatures. A better analysis is to select two different years at random and count how many instances there are in which the later year is hotter. Under the null hypothesis only half should count. This directly counts trends. And this is independent of whether successive years are correlated. There
Re: Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote: Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end? Oops! Shoulda been: http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-world Excellent work! I'm looking forward to trying it when I have an Occulus. Best of luck to him. Telmo. 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: Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Aha, that's more like it. Now I just need something by The Smiths to get me in the right mood... On 13 May 2015 at 21:36, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote: Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end? Oops! Shoulda been: http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-world Excellent work! I'm looking forward to trying it when I have an Occulus. Best of luck to him. Telmo. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/13/2015 2:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I am still worried about the reliability of the temperature values themselves. I would be less worried if the raw data was made public. It is public. But what good does that do. Well it does good, at least for people like me. So people who claim that they are kept secret are lying? I am honestly asking. Is there some place where I can download that data? Go to the NOAA website and type in raw data in the search box. Of course there's no such thing as THE raw data. There's the satellite raw data, the ocean surface raw data, the land station raw data,... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
I disagree. I think this criticisms comes from a misinterpretation of what the p-value means. The p-value estimates the probability of seeing results at least as helpful to the hypothesis as the ones found, assuming the null hypothesis. A high p-value is informative because it tells us that the null is a likely explanation when compared to the hypothesis. A low p-value tells us that the hypothesis merits further investigation. First, you've got high and low mixed up. A low p-value, e.g. 0.05, is considered significant in medical tests, 1e-6 is considered significant in particle physics. No, you misread me. Notice that I was arguing that a result in favor of the null (high p-value) is perhaps more informative than a result in favor of the hypothesis (low p-value), because the method is quite vulnerable to false positives -- you can expect to find the same ratio of false positives as the significance threshold you are using. Thus so many cures for cancer, as you say. The p-value tells us nothing about the probability of any of the hypothesis being true. It's a filter for noise, given the available data. But the trouble is it generates noise. The high value, 0.05, used in medicine with understandably small sample size is the reason the New Scientist can tout a new discovery for curing cancer every 6 months. Yes. And on the other end when you have really big samples, as in the PEAR experiments, you're virtually certain to reject the null hypothesis at 0.001 simply because your testing a point hypothesis against an undefined alternative, i.e. anything else. Also true. Any useful analysis would have to be Bayesian and start with some prior alternative hypotheses one of which would be Prob(temperature goes up|lots of CO2 is added to the atmosphere). That already has a high prior probability based on the analysis of Savante Arrhenius in 1890. If you did Bayesian analysis in this fashion, you would be assuming at the start what you want to test for. Yeah, just as if you did a Bayesian analysis of whether gravity made things fall down: Yep, that one fell. OK, that one fell. Yep, the third one fell... Statistics isn't the best decision process for everything. It's the worse, and should only be used when we don't have anything better. The trouble is that this anything better must take the form of a model capable of making reliable predictions. With gravity you don't need statistics, because the laws of motion can predict the outcome perfectly every single time. It would be silly to use statistics there, as you say. With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were in the last 10 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 5.77e-14 Summing we get P = 2.10e-11 A p-value good enough for CERN. But this isn't a very good analysis for two reasons. First, it's not directly measuring trend, it's the same probability you'd get for any 10 of the observed temperatures falling on any defined 13 years. So you have infer that it means a trend from the fact that these are the hottest years and they occur in the 13 at the end. Second, it implicitly assumes that yearly temperatures are independent, which they aren't. If temperatures always occurred in blocks of ten for example the observed p-value would be more like 0.1. But this shows why you need to consider well defined, realistic alternatives. Your
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/12/2015 12:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I disagree. I think this criticisms comes from a misinterpretation of what the p-value means. The p-value estimates the probability of seeing results at least as helpful to the hypothesis as the ones found, assuming the null hypothesis. A high p-value is informative because it tells us that the null is a likely explanation when compared to the hypothesis. A low p-value tells us that the hypothesis merits further investigation. First, you've got high and low mixed up. A low p-value, e.g. 0.05, is considered significant in medical tests, 1e-6 is considered significant in particle physics. No, you misread me. Notice that I was arguing that a result in favor of the null (high p-value) is perhaps more informative than a result in favor of the hypothesis (low p-value), because the method is quite vulnerable to false positives -- you can expect to find the same ratio of false positives as the significance threshold you are using. Thus so many cures for cancer, as you say. The p-value tells us nothing about the probability of any of the hypothesis being true. It's a filter for noise, given the available data. But the trouble is it generates noise. The high value, 0.05, used in medicine with understandably small sample size is the reason the New Scientist can tout a new discovery for curing cancer every 6 months. Yes. And on the other end when you have really big samples, as in the PEAR experiments, you're virtually certain to reject the null hypothesis at 0.001 simply because your testing a point hypothesis against an undefined alternative, i.e. anything else. Also true. Any useful analysis would have to be Bayesian and start with some prior alternative hypotheses one of which would be Prob(temperature goes up|lots of CO2 is added to the atmosphere). That already has a high prior probability based on the analysis of Savante Arrhenius in 1890. If you did Bayesian analysis in this fashion, you would be assuming at the start what you want to test for. Yeah, just as if you did a Bayesian analysis of whether gravity made things fall down: Yep, that one fell. OK, that one fell. Yep, the third one fell... Statistics isn't the best decision process for everything. It's the worse, and should only be used when we don't have anything better. The trouble is that this anything better must take the form of a model capable of making reliable predictions. With gravity you don't need statistics, because the laws of motion can predict the outcome perfectly every single time. It would be silly to use statistics there, as you say. With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric composition and solar radiance and get a correct prediction of the equilibrium temperature. That's what Arrhenius did in 1890. It's precisely because we do have equations for the energy balance of the Earth and how CO2 affects it, that anthropic global warming is as solid a fact as evolution and nuclear fission. If it were *just* observations there might be room for doubt as to why temperature has gone up. But the mechanism is well known and has been for a century. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric composition and solar radiance and get a correct prediction of the equilibrium temperature. That's what Arrhenius did in 1890. It's precisely because we do have equations for the energy balance of the Earth and how CO2 affects it, that anthropic global warming is as solid a fact as evolution and nuclear fission. If it were *just* observations there might be room for doubt as to why temperature has gone up. But the mechanism is well known and has been for a century. How can we know that the greenhouse effect is the only thing to consider when dealing with something as complex as the earth and its biosphere? Ok, CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back some percentage of the infrared radiation which leads to more solar energy being trapped in the system. But what about the clouds? And the vegetation? Don't these things have a role in infraread blocking and sun light refraction/absorption? And many other things we might not be thinking about... My point is: who's to say that there isn't some negative feedback loop that keeps the temperature stable? It's not such a silly hypothesis if you think in terms of self-sampling. The Earth must be stable enough to maintain the conditions for uninterrupted biological evolution for almost 4 billion years. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were in the last 10 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 5.77e-14 Summing we get P = 2.10e-11 A p-value good enough for CERN. But this isn't a very good analysis for two reasons. First, it's not directly measuring trend, it's the same probability you'd get for any 10 of the observed temperatures falling on any defined 13 years. So you have infer that it means a trend from the fact that these are the hottest years and they occur in the 13 at the end. Second, it implicitly assumes that yearly temperatures are independent, which they aren't. If temperatures always occurred in blocks of ten for example the observed p-value would be more like 0.1. But this shows why you need to consider well defined, realistic alternatives. Your alternative was no trend, but no trend can mean a lot of things, including random independent yearly temperatures. A better analysis is to select two different years at random and count how many instances there are in which the later year is hotter. Under the null hypothesis only half should count. This directly counts trends. And this is independent of whether successive years are correlated. There are 1 possible pairs in a century which is large enough we can just sample it. I got the NOAA data from 1880 thru 2013, so I used a little more than a century. For example taking a sample of 100 pairs gives 86 in which the later year was warmer (I counted ties as 0.5). The null hypothesis says this is like getting 86 heads in 100 tosses, which obeys a binomial distribution. The probability of getting 86 or more heads in a 100 tosses is 4.14e-14. Brent, I tip my hat to you. I was preparing to write some objections after reading your first analysis, but your pair sampling analysis already addresses them. You convinced me that there is, in fact, a global temperature increase trend in the last century. So are you also convinced that increased CO2 is causing it? I am still worried about the reliability of the temperature values themselves.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:22 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric composition and solar radiance and get a correct prediction of the equilibrium temperature. That's what Arrhenius did in 1890. It's precisely because we do have equations for the energy balance of the Earth and how CO2 affects it, that anthropic global warming is as solid a fact as evolution and nuclear fission. If it were *just* observations there might be room for doubt as to why temperature has gone up. But the mechanism is well known and has been for a century. How can we know that the greenhouse effect is the only thing to consider when dealing with something as complex as the earth and its biosphere? Ok, CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back some percentage of the infrared radiation which leads to more solar energy being trapped in the system. One key thing to understand about the physical properties of CO2 dipolar gas molecule is that it absorbs/re-emits IR frequencies(i.e. is opaque) in an IR frequency range that water vapor (e.g. H2O) -- which is the most significant global warming gas there is overall is transparent in. This is critically important in understanding why CO2 gas has such an impact on climate. It is because it closes (partially closes of course) a critical window of transparency, that exists in the H2O infrared frequency absorption profile through which infrared energy -- of that frequency range -- could otherwise escape out from the atmosphere to be re-radiated out into outer space.CO2 does not act alone, its effects are very much a result of its partially closing off this infrared frequency transparency hole or window through which large amounts of infrared energy would have been able to be directly radiated out into the cold sink of outer space.-Chris But what about the clouds? And the vegetation? Don't these things have a role in infraread blocking and sun light refraction/absorption? And many other things we might not be thinking about... My point is: who's to say that there isn't some negative feedback loop that keeps the temperature stable? It's not such a silly hypothesis if you think in terms of self-sampling. The Earth must be stable enough to maintain the conditions for uninterrupted biological evolution for almost 4 billion years. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were in the last 10 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 5.77e-14 Summing we get P = 2.10e-11 A p-value good enough for CERN. But this isn't a very good analysis for two reasons. First, it's not directly measuring trend, it's the same probability you'd get for any 10 of the observed temperatures falling on any defined 13 years. So you have infer that it means a trend from the fact that these are the hottest years and they occur in the 13 at the end. Second, it implicitly assumes that yearly temperatures are independent, which they aren't. If temperatures always occurred in blocks of ten for example the observed p-value would be more like 0.1. But this shows why you need to consider well defined, realistic alternatives. Your alternative was no trend, but no trend can
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Telmo, some long long time ago I was facetious about the climate change (lately I got more converted) and asked: how was the study of a substantial climate change established - say - over the past 30b years? - I meant: ALL of them? How was it for 'other' galaxies - star systems? I just did not want to draw conclusions upon the present millisecond of our little star 'Sun and it's stepchild Earth. My recent (limited?) conversion occurred by acknowledging the human industrial misdeeds over the past ~200 or so years realizing how that might have hurt the bio-balance of our planet. I still don't know how to think about larger cosmic volumes and timeframes. Regards John Mikes On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Yes, I am not questioning these readings. I believe that 2010 was warmer than any year in the previous century, etc. What I am asking is for a robust statistical analysis that shows that it is sufficiently plausible that a temperature increase trend is indeed happening. I am just behaving in the exact same way that any proper scientist would behave when confronted with an hypothesis driven by a set of observations. All serious journals require it. So why not provide it? This, for me, is further evidence that the field of climate research has gone pathological. In non-pathological scientific research, such a request is seen as perfectly normal and not as an attack. In fact, such requests help the cause. If the trend is real, they will only help make the case stronger. If you care so much, why don't you join me in insisting on rigour? Don't you see a problem with trying to demonstrate a trend with a chart that is pre-sorted by increasing temperature? Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote: Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end? Oops! Shoulda been: http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-world 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: Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end? On 13 May 2015 at 09:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2015 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. Does this involve wearing 3D display goggles such as Occulus Rift? Yes. I saw 'Occulus' written on the device, (but not Rift). https://www.oculus.com/ My son has created a video game, Homesick, of the exploration/puzzle genre, which will be available for Occulus. I tried out their goggles and the experience is quite realistic in terms of looking around. In a test at a video game exhibition many people trying them could not bring themselves to step off a virtual cliff. Wonderful! I really would like to buy such Occulus goggles, but more to make amazing experience than playing game. But video-games is the main accelerator in the VR field. Here's a review of the game. http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-w It should be released on http://store.steampowered.com/ by the end of the month. Buy one - he needs the money. :-) He saved up so he could quit his job and take two years to create this game. He did everything but the music, which he contracted for. It'll be available for Oculus later. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 12 May 2015 at 21:53, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, and there's geophysical phenomena to include-in, like the recently discovered active volcano's under antarctic ice. Melt's the underside of the ice shelf, while the top side has expanded. Now, the climate researchers have trouble getting to the antarctic waters that were ice free, last year. Is that the reason of warming? Don't know, but geophysics take precedent over human stuff :-( Pinatubo Volcano in 91, for example. Vesuvius a few years ago. With luck enough volcanoes will erupt to blanket the Earth in ash and stave off insolation for a while, however this is clearly a separate issue to whatever changes we've made via increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. You can't say one takes precedence jsut by vitue of being the one you prefer - very few volcanoes have raised the global atmospheric CO2 by whatever amount it is in such a short time (20% in my lifetime I think) which means so far cars and industry are winning the race to warm up the Earth. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/12/2015 1:01 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: -- *From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:22 PM *Subject:* Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric composition and solar radiance and get a correct prediction of the equilibrium temperature. That's what Arrhenius did in 1890. It's precisely because we do have equations for the energy balance of the Earth and how CO2 affects it, that anthropic global warming is as solid a fact as evolution and nuclear fission. If it were *just* observations there might be room for doubt as to why temperature has gone up. But the mechanism is well known and has been for a century. How can we know that the greenhouse effect is the only thing to consider when dealing with something as complex as the earth and its biosphere? Ok, CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back some percentage of the infrared radiation which leads to more solar energy being trapped in the system. One key thing to understand about the physical properties of CO2 dipolar gas molecule is that it absorbs/re-emits IR frequencies(i.e. is opaque) in an IR frequency range that water vapor (e.g. H2O) -- which is the most significant global warming gas there is overall is transparent in. This is critically important in understanding why CO2 gas has such an impact on climate. It is because it closes (partially closes of course) a critical window of transparency, that exists in the H2O infrared frequency absorption profile through which infrared energy -- of that frequency range -- could otherwise escape out from the atmosphere to be re-radiated out into outer space. CO2 does not act alone, its effects are very much a result of its partially closing off this infrared frequency transparency hole or window through which large amounts of infrared energy would have been able to be directly radiated out into the cold sink of outer space. -Chris Right. And it's also more significant because it doesn't condense out in clouds. There is a kind of last emission zone in the atmosphere where IR photons can go directly to space and it's what is emitted in that zone that affects the energy balance. IR emission below that zone is just part of Earth's internal temperature exchange. Most clouds are well below the last emission zone because water condenses out as it rises and cools. But CO2 doesn't condense out and so plays a bigger role in emission than its concentration would suggest. 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: Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/12/2015 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. Does this involve wearing 3D display goggles such as Occulus Rift? Yes. I saw 'Occulus' written on the device, (but not Rift). https://www.oculus.com/ My son has created a video game, Homesick, of the exploration/puzzle genre, which will be available for Occulus. I tried out their goggles and the experience is quite realistic in terms of looking around. In a test at a video game exhibition many people trying them could not bring themselves to step off a virtual cliff. Wonderful! I really would like to buy such Occulus goggles, but more to make amazing experience than playing game. But video-games is the main accelerator in the VR field. Here's a review of the game. http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-w It should be released on http://store.steampowered.com/ by the end of the month. Buy one - he needs the money. :-) He saved up so he could quit his job and take two years to create this game. He did everything but the music, which he contracted for. It'll be available for Oculus later. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/12/2015 12:22 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change. There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric composition and solar radiance and get a correct prediction of the equilibrium temperature. That's what Arrhenius did in 1890. It's precisely because we do have equations for the energy balance of the Earth and how CO2 affects it, that anthropic global warming is as solid a fact as evolution and nuclear fission. If it were *just* observations there might be room for doubt as to why temperature has gone up. But the mechanism is well known and has been for a century. How can we know that the greenhouse effect is the only thing to consider when dealing with something as complex as the earth and its biosphere? Ok, CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back some percentage of the infrared radiation which leads to more solar energy being trapped in the system. But what about the clouds? Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation. And the vegetation? Don't these things have a role in infraread blocking and sun light refraction/absorption? Vegetation may be less reflective than say snow or bare ground. And many other things we might not be thinking about... My point is: who's to say that there isn't some negative feedback loop that keeps the temperature stable? Sure there is. As the Earth gets hotter it's energy loss rate goes up as T^4, so that's what establishes a new equilibrium. The Earth's temperature won't run away like Venus's did. It's not such a silly hypothesis if you think in terms of self-sampling. The Earth must be stable enough to maintain the conditions for uninterrupted biological evolution for almost 4 billion years. It's gone through hotter periods with higher CO2 levels - but not while homo sapiens roamed the Earth. And the rapidity of the rise is faster than anything that can be resolved the paleoclimate record. It's not that the long term temperature rise is so hard to predict, at least within a certain range. What's hard to predict is the effects. There's a lot of focus on sea level rise because that's relatively easy. But there will also be big changes in weather patterns and where which crops will grow. And changes that might be dealt with fairly easily by a rational world government will, in the real world, result in migration, famine, and war. But if you'd like to actually formulate the alternative hypothesis I might do the analysis. Ok. My alternative hypothesis is that there is no trend of global temperature increase in the period from 1998 to 2010 (as per Liz's chart's timeframe), when compared to temperature fluctuations in the 20th century (as defined by the metric in the chart). OK. Here's one way to do it. The ten warmest years in the century from 1910 to 2010 all occurred in the interval 1998 to 2010, the last 13yrs of the century. Under the null hypothesis, where the hottest year falls is uniform random, so the hottest year had probability 13/100 of falling in that interval. The next hottest year then had probability 12/99 of falling in the remaining 12yr of that interval, given the hottest had already fallen it. The third hottest year had probability 11/98 of falling in that interval, given the first two had fallen in it, and so on. So the probability of the 10 hottest years falling in that 13yr period is P = (13*12*...5*4)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 1.65e-11 To this we must add the probability of the more extreme events, e.g. the probability that the ten hottest years were in the last 12 P = (12*11*...*5*4*3)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 3.81e-12 and that they were in the last 11 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 6.35e-13 and that they were in the last 10 P = (11*10*...*5*4*3*2)/(100*99*...*92*91) = 5.77e-14 Summing we get P = 2.10e-11 A p-value good enough for CERN. But this isn't a very good analysis for two reasons. First, it's not directly measuring trend, it's the same probability you'd get for any 10 of the observed temperatures falling on any defined 13 years. So you have infer that it means a trend from the fact that these are the hottest years and they occur in the 13 at the end. Second, it implicitly assumes that yearly temperatures
Occulus (was Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. Does this involve wearing 3D display goggles such as Occulus Rift? Yes. I saw 'Occulus' written on the device, (but not Rift). https://www.oculus.com/ My son has created a video game, Homesick, of the exploration/ puzzle genre, which will be available for Occulus. I tried out their goggles and the experience is quite realistic in terms of looking around. In a test at a video game exhibition many people trying them could not bring themselves to step off a virtual cliff. Wonderful! I really would like to buy such Occulus goggles, but more to make amazing experience than playing game. But video-games is the main accelerator in the VR field. Bruno Brent In one demo there was a creature, was it real? Those things are relatively real. Like in personal nocturnal dream, or when reading a novel, and with comp, like with physicalism, there is a physical reality, which is a priori different from a machine (as it is a sum of the work of all machine) acting below our substitution level. In arithmetic, one virtual reality is less virtual than all the others, as it has the correct comp bottom. That define a notion of physically real, and most entities perceived in inebriated state are very often not physically real. But they might still be images of important routine operating in the brain of a large class of possible subject, and be entities living on alternate reality planes, but still there by Turing-Universal + FPI. Virtual reality might help people for the thought experiences, and many (new) things. But in the long run, we have to be careful, as the poor might one day not afford visiting a non virtual reality. If we don't think a bit, we might end up all in brains in vats. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 05 May 2015, at 13:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Mitch, On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that its the result of a great program running and producing us as a result. If comp is correct, you need to take the infinities of the programs, to get the lmatter rright. This is all what I explained in this list. Bruno Moreover, our program can be either revised, copied, or both, etc. This is one reason professor, Eric Steinhart's work seems compelling to me. The following summary is available from his book, Your Digital Afterlives, but here is a taste, from Steinhart's website- http://ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html I will have to read this more carefully, but I think I get the gist of it. Most of the ideas are not new to me, and correspond to things that I enjoy thinking about myself. I have gone through several revisions of my belief system about these topics, so it's likely that I can be convinced by good, new ideas. Just in case you don't know, I really enjoyed this book at some point: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Never-Ending-Days-Being-Dead/dp/0571220568 It's mostly a sampler of theories on these topics, and some have already been falsified (like the omega point, I believe). The best of these theories is Promotion, but Steinhart views his own idea as flawed, because he wants it to be progressive rather then regressive. I don't see the logical regression he seemed concerned about, He did come up with Revision theory, as workable, however, these are merely, better-off clones of ourselves, and miss the continuity, that infers identity. Promotion is better, because it does exactly this, via pipelines, processes, data transfers, as well as uploading and teleportation. Ok, I have no problem with any of this stuff. I will try to summarize how my current view of things intersects with these topics. I think immortality is a given. I suspect we are all versions of the same thing (as conscious entities) and that all moments are eternal. I think the perception of a time line arises inside each eternal observer moment. What does not appear possible, at the moment, is to have very long story lines. I cannot be Telmo for a time span of many centuries (disregarding Quantum Immortality issues). It would be nice if we could do that. I think there is potentially great value in having human being that extend their personal development way beyond our biological limitations. So the issue becomes: how to preserve a set of memories and transfer them to another medium, so that we can extend story lines? This could take the form of Promotion, trans-humanism, mind uploading, who know what else... I would just say that the story lines problem is somewhat tangencial to the simulated reality problem. Sorry if I'm rambling, I don't have a lot of time at the moment... This is one reason I want to see if Ben Goetzel has an afterlife- resurrection theory, because they both appeared to have come to the same conclusions, independently, on several other concepts. Steinhart, like Goetzel, is a computationalist (digitalist) - (5 minute video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0 I am mostly ok with this video. My only objection is that time must not exist in the maximally simple universe, so thinking about causality between universes seems problematic. This is part of what attracts me to Platonia and this list: the idea that everything already exists, and what is called causality is just structure. Please let me know if you uncover anything concerning Ben Goetzel's views. Thanks. The AGI conference is going to be in my city in the end of July. I am not sure I will be able to attend, but if I can I will try to ask Ben in person. Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 9:08 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 05 May 2015, at 02:01, meekerdb wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno You can get a Templeton, which is for merging science and religion and is worth more than a Nobel. If I found the time I might submit a paper at a colloqium on mind and machine, organized by CIE and Templeton. I do not forget your text. I got idea, and I think it will be a good test to see if Templeton is open to the greek mode of doing theology, or not. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Yes, and there's geophysical phenomena to include-in, like the recently discovered active volcano's under antarctic ice. Melt's the underside of the ice shelf, while the top side has expanded. Now, the climate researchers have trouble getting to the antarctic waters that were ice free, last year. Is that the reason of warming? Don't know, but geophysics take precedent over human stuff :-( Pinatubo Volcano in 91, for example. Vesuvius a few years ago. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 10, 2015 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Yes, I am not questioning these readings. I believe that 2010 was warmer than any year in the previous century, etc. What I am asking is for a robust statistical analysis that shows that it is sufficiently plausible that a temperature increase trend is indeed happening. I am just behaving in the exact same way that any proper scientist would behave when confronted with an hypothesis driven by a set of observations. All serious journals require it. So why not provide it? This, for me, is further evidence that the field of climate research has gone pathological. In non-pathological scientific research, such a request is seen as perfectly normal and not as an attack. In fact, such requests help the cause. If the trend is real, they will only help make the case stronger. If you care so much, why don't you join me in insisting on rigour? Don't you see a problem with trying to demonstrate a trend with a chart that is pre-sorted by increasing temperature? Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Have you read the weathergate mails? There you can see how the measures and the adjustments are done. taking into account that they systematically DENIED TO GIVE THE RAW DATA, the only thing that they demonstrate is a parapsychological power of so called scientists to influence the past depending on their conveniences. 2015-05-10 23:55 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com: I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 11 May 2015 at 19:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Yes, I am not questioning these readings. I believe that 2010 was warmer than any year in the previous century, etc. What I am asking is for a robust statistical analysis that shows that it is sufficiently plausible that a temperature increase trend is indeed happening. I am just behaving in the exact same way that any proper scientist would behave when confronted with an hypothesis driven by a set of observations. All serious journals require it. So why not provide it? I didn't provide it because I'm not able to, not being an expert in statistics. This, for me, is further evidence that the field of climate research has gone pathological. In non-pathological scientific research, such a request is seen as perfectly normal and not as an attack. In fact, such requests help the cause. If the trend is real, they will only help make the case stronger. If you care so much, why don't you join me in insisting on rigour? I assume the results are rigorous. Why wouldn't they be/ Surely the same peer review, replication and so on applies to climate science as other scientific fields? Don't you see a problem with trying to demonstrate a trend with a chart that is pre-sorted by increasing temperature? If that was what I was trying to do, yes. But the point was only that the warmest 10 years on record had all been since 1998. Since I didn't have a graph with the years in date order, I used that one. Fortunately, Brent has a lot more data available, which so far appears to support mine. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/10/2015 2:55 PM, LizR wrote: I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume). Why is it hard to believe that we can make an estimate of mean global temperatures based on such measurements plus observations of phenomena like shoreline erosion, glacier retreat, methane outgassing, sea level rise, changes in storm intensity and frequency, thinning of arctic ice, etc? I think Al Gore already answered that. It's hard to believe because it is inconvenient to believe it. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Of course adjustments in the weathergate style. I seems that. the degrees celsius units have changed a lot the las 50 years. You receive a lot of tax payer money and you may think that this entitles you to lie as much as you wish. 2015-05-09 22:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: Adjusting data points to correct for procedural or instrumental changes isn't fiddling with the data; it's improving your observations. Booker's claims are just more denier B.S obfuscation. http://skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html Brent On 5/9/2015 8:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rajendra Pachuri, one time head of the UN's IPCC admitted in an interview, of course we do alter the report if a government requests it. Pachuri was, last Feb, dismissed from his UN job, allegedly for skirt chasing aka sexual harassment. I say maybe, or maybe the fix was in to punish a traitor to the progressive cause? What do I think? (Not That It Matters) is that all the crap we put in the air and waters can't be good for us, but technological environmental remediation and better energy tech are the answer. Specifically solar, with greatly, improved storage tech. Storage Tek as a marketplace item Not a news item. If any tech cannot survive the marketplace all on its own-tough shit. No subsidies for manufacture, or price-cost, or ceo's salaries-not a cent! Money for engineering, zip for business people. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 9, 2015 5:10 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Adjusting data points to correct for procedural or instrumental changes isn't fiddling with the data; it's improving your observations. Booker's claims are just more denier B.S obfuscation. http://skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html Brent On 5/9/2015 8:46 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Rajendra Pachuri, one time head of the UN's IPCC admitted in an interview, of course we do alter the report if a government requests it. Pachuri was, last Feb, dismissed from his UN job, allegedly for skirt chasing aka sexual harassment. I say maybe, or maybe the fix was in to punish a traitor to the progressive cause? What do I think? (Not That It Matters) is that all the crap we put in the air and waters can't be good for us, but technological environmental remediation and better energy tech are the answer. Specifically solar, with greatly, improved storage tech. Storage Tek as a marketplace item Not a news item. If any tech cannot survive the marketplace all on its own-tough shit. No subsidies for manufacture, or price-cost, or ceo's salaries-not a cent! Money for engineering, zip for business people. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 9, 2015 5:10 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
There is no dictatorship that can not be erected upon lies and violence. And this one that comes is the worst of all history 2015-05-09 11:09 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Rajendra Pachuri, one time head of the UN's IPCC admitted in an interview, of course we do alter the report if a government requests it. Pachuri was, last Feb, dismissed from his UN job, allegedly for skirt chasing aka sexual harassment. I say maybe, or maybe the fix was in to punish a traitor to the progressive cause? What do I think? (Not That It Matters) is that all the crap we put in the air and waters can't be good for us, but technological environmental remediation and better energy tech are the answer. Specifically solar, with greatly, improved storage tech. Storage Tek as a marketplace item Not a news item. If any tech cannot survive the marketplace all on its own-tough shit. No subsidies for manufacture, or price-cost, or ceo's salaries-not a cent! Money for engineering, zip for business people. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 9, 2015 5:10 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Enthusiastically yes. Remove all subsidies but if we can fund engineering research. In the US, much of the subsidies go into the pockets of boards of directors rather than engineering progects, as with Solyndra, Then the money given is then split off and given back to the PACs of favored politicians. It's a mafia, Liz. And, no benefit to the public, no new tech ever gets to Market. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 7, 2015 10:53 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 8 May 2015 at 13:51, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Let's say I have no objection to anything technical done to remediate AGW except regulation aka serfdom. So you wouldn't be in favour of the government providing subsidies to help renewable or nuclear energy industries, or the removal of existing subsidies, regulations and the other support that currently exists from the fossil fuel industry? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up? Just curious. Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years? How long is the record? What is the p-value for the hypothesis of this being a trend and not a random fluctuation? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Here's my counter argument to this. If solar really worked, nations with more need for less or no fossil fuels would have implemented clean tech already. Sweden, Japan, Israel, Switzerland, etc, would say screw you to oil, and coal, no matter how much the US is owned by Big Petro. So we need basic research, for ourselves for the environment, for the economy on solar storage. Regulations tend to benefit the regulators and hardly ever, Joe Six Pack. See, we are now restricting your hours on the road to reduce damage to the environment, and forestall catastrophic climate change and save your poor unwashed, asses. This will be coming next. But this is the mentality. First lying, then exaggeration, then re-naming, then excuses. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 8, 2015 12:33 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 8 May 2015 at 15:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Better yet, assume some of its true, and move to solar. The only way to move to solar is to create superb storage technology, for night and winter times. Otherwise solar fails. Any demands for regulation of the serfs for their own good, needs to be met with rebellion, because it then is not a fix, but an excuse to impose dictatorship. Solar electric nearly eliminates co2, methane, soot, and thermal release, so therefore, regulations are never needed. The problem - or one of the problems - is that existing govts and corps have got a lot invested in fossil. Hence we may need regulations - or even just the removal of existing regulations - to level the playing field and give solar a chance. Hopefully it will take off anyway, but time may be critical, si as with RAW's ten good reasons to get up in the morning it may be a case of any little thing tippnig the balance. Including govt regulations making things better for investors in solar (say). I'd hate to see the human race go down the tuebs because of ideological oppostition to any form of regulations, should that happen to be the deciding factor. PS I see Elon Musk has some sort of storage thingy in the works, did that already get an airing here? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Color me deeply suspicious. A engineer named Vannevar Bush said, the validity of a science was its ability to predict. Bush also thought that guided missiles carrying hydrogen bombs were decades away, circa 1955. Bush might have been thinking of astronomy, or radio physics, aka how many neutrons does thorium have, etc. The batting average of the climate scientists have been very poor for prediction. So much so that a German climatoligist warned against his fellows acting as spear carriers for the progressives-I am paraphrasing. I think you are familiar with my opinion to head for a solar solution, but I detest being lied to so as to further politicians desire for power via more regulations but no energy change implemented. Do you remember the Hubber Peak of the last 30 years as proposed by spokespersons of the progressives, worldwide, academics, etc?? That too, was an unholy exaggeration, savy?? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 7, 2015 05:47 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_1.2_5331f2a3-d522-4a14-ba82-351647151414 div dir=ltr So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up? div Just curious. img width=562 height=316 src=https://mail.aol.com/webmail/getPart?uid=29967963partId=2saveAs=assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-gallery-GlobalRecapRanking-500x2822.jpg; Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years? div class=aolmail_gmail_extra /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div /div -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 8 May 2015 at 11:59, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Color me deeply suspicious. A engineer named Vannevar Bush said, the validity of a science was its ability to predict. Bush also thought that guided missiles carrying hydrogen bombs were decades away, circa 1955. Bush might have been thinking of astronomy, or radio physics, aka how many neutrons does thorium have, etc. The batting average of the climate scientists have been very poor for prediction. So much so that a German climatoligist warned against his fellows acting as spear carriers for the progressives-I am paraphrasing. I think you are familiar with my opinion to head for a solar solution, but I detest being lied to so as to further politicians desire for power via more regulations but no energy change implemented. Do you remember the Hubber Peak of the last 30 years as proposed by spokespersons of the progressives, worldwide, academics, etc?? That too, was an unholy exaggeration, savy?? All very well, but these only *were* predictions - *now *they're observable facts, unless an awful lot of agencies, researchers, etc, are lying. Climate science appears to have done the same as evolutionary theory - gone from a point where the theory was contentious to a point where the *details* are contentious, but the underlying theory is beyond reasonable doubt. Don't forget, this stuff isn't new. It's had a long, long time to be tested and checked, and if anyone was going to disprove the science, they would have done so lnog ago. The greenhouse effect was postulated in 1824, had become fairly uncontentious by 1900, and its effects have been verified extensively since. (And as a footnote, environmentally minded scientists have been around for just as long - in 1917 Alexander Graham Bell predicted that unrestricted use of fossil fuels would cause the world to warm up, and advocated a switch to solar power. Thomas Edison said something similar in the 1930s, iirc.) -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up? Just curious. Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
The Climate scientists are allied politically with who funds them, Liz. The heat of the hockey stick hasn't happened yet. I was being sarcastic via normal yearly weather, rather then climate catastrophe as the mooks, call it now. Templeton is less political and thus, more interesting. Let's say that even if John Barrow, or Rupert Sheldrake were wrong, they proposed ideas that needed to be tested, for example. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 5, 2015 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 6 May 2015 at 14:34, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Much of the nobel committees even for physics and chemistry seem biased, and subjective. Templeton, is for scientists with intellectual and spiritual leanings, Nobel is best left to academic scientists who tow the socialist line, and are nicely rewarded. Are all career academics like that? No, but not making waves while obtaining government grants, goes a long way to get along, and go along career wise. So you're saying Templeton is less biased and subjective? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know what you think. I don't know much about either of them. (And what was that about 100F summers?) -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Better yet, assume some of its true, and move to solar. The only way to move to solar is to create superb storage technology, for night and winter times. Otherwise solar fails. Any demands for regulation of the serfs for their own good, needs to be met with rebellion, because it then is not a fix, but an excuse to impose dictatorship. Solar electric nearly eliminates co2, methane, soot, and thermal release, so therefore, regulations are never needed. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 7, 2015 06:09 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_1.2_600d12ce-8204-4df7-a753-465ec05eb76f div dir=ltr LizR: div My 1st impact to the 'global warming' fable' (1960-80) was: My termperature-records are incomplete about the years 30 million (billion???) years ago so I cannot formulate an objective opinion. Later on changed position, because of human industrial activities contributing to technological processes that resulted in climate-change. div I am not sceptic, my agnosticism is conditional, includes the bbelief /bof lots of unknown - unknowable terms/factors/facets that exercise their influence upon our 'observable' (to some extent only, of course) worldview and changes. Just to wash my hands. John /div /div /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:47 PM, LizR span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:lizj...@gmail.com;lizj...@gmail.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex div dir=ltr So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up? Just curious. img width=562 height=316 src=https://mail.aol.com/webmail/getPart?uid=29967966partId=2saveAs=assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-gallery-GlobalRecapRanking-500x2822.jpg; Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years? span class=aolmail_HOEnZbfont color=#88 div class=aolmail_gmail_extra /div/font/span /div span class=aolmail_HOEnZbfont color=#88 p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /font/span /blockquote /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 8 May 2015 at 15:14, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Better yet, assume some of its true, and move to solar. The only way to move to solar is to create superb storage technology, for night and winter times. Otherwise solar fails. Any demands for regulation of the serfs for their own good, needs to be met with rebellion, because it then is not a fix, but an excuse to impose dictatorship. Solar electric nearly eliminates co2, methane, soot, and thermal release, so therefore, regulations are never needed. The problem - or one of the problems - is that existing govts and corps have got a lot invested in fossil. Hence we may need regulations - or even just the removal of existing regulations - to level the playing field and give solar a chance. Hopefully it will take off anyway, but time may be critical, si as with RAW's ten good reasons to get up in the morning it may be a case of any little thing tippnig the balance. Including govt regulations making things better for investors in solar (say). I'd hate to see the human race go down the tuebs because of ideological oppostition to any form of regulations, should that happen to be the deciding factor. PS I see Elon Musk has some sort of storage thingy in the works, did that already get an airing here? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Let's say I have no objection to anything technical done to remediate AGW except regulation aka serfdom. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, May 7, 2015 9:40 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 8 May 2015 at 11:59, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Color me deeply suspicious. A engineer named Vannevar Bush said, the validity of a science was its ability to predict. Bush also thought that guided missiles carrying hydrogen bombs were decades away, circa 1955. Bush might have been thinking of astronomy, or radio physics, aka how many neutrons does thorium have, etc. The batting average of the climate scientists have been very poor for prediction. So much so that a German climatoligist warned against his fellows acting as spear carriers for the progressives-I am paraphrasing. I think you are familiar with my opinion to head for a solar solution, but I detest being lied to so as to further politicians desire for power via more regulations but no energy change implemented. Do you remember the Hubber Peak of the last 30 years as proposed by spokespersons of the progressives, worldwide, academics, etc?? That too, was an unholy exaggeration, savy?? All very well, but these only were predictions - now they're observable facts, unless an awful lot of agencies, researchers, etc, are lying. Climate science appears to have done the same as evolutionary theory - gone from a point where the theory was contentious to a point where the details are contentious, but the underlying theory is beyond reasonable doubt. Don't forget, this stuff isn't new. It's had a long, long time to be tested and checked, and if anyone was going to disprove the science, they would have done so lnog ago. The greenhouse effect was postulated in 1824, had become fairly uncontentious by 1900, and its effects have been verified extensively since. (And as a footnote, environmentally minded scientists have been around for just as long - in 1917 Alexander Graham Bell predicted that unrestricted use of fossil fuels would cause the world to warm up, and advocated a switch to solar power. Thomas Edison said something similar in the 1930s, iirc.) -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 8 May 2015 at 13:51, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Let's say I have no objection to anything technical done to remediate AGW except regulation aka serfdom. So you wouldn't be in favour of the government providing subsidies to help renewable or nuclear energy industries, or the removal of existing subsidies, regulations and the other support that currently exists from the fossil fuel industry? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
LizR: My 1st impact to the 'global warming' fable' (1960-80) was: My termperature-records are incomplete about the years 30 million (billion???) years ago so I cannot formulate an objective opinion. Later on changed position, because of human industrial activities contributing to technological processes that resulted in climate-change. I am not sceptic, my agnosticism is conditional, includes the *belief *of lots of unknown - unknowable terms/factors/facets that exercise their influence upon our 'observable' (to some extent only, of course) worldview and changes. Just to wash my hands. John On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up? Just curious. Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. William Gibson felt the same :) https://twitter.com/perrychen/status/579058927511334912 They did it!, said the guy who has been writing and dreaming about this stuff for decades. In one demo there was a creature, was it real? Those things are relatively real. Like in personal nocturnal dream, or when reading a novel, and with comp, like with physicalism, there is a physical reality, which is a priori different from a machine (as it is a sum of the work of all machine) acting below our substitution level. In arithmetic, one virtual reality is less virtual than all the others, as it has the correct comp bottom. That define a notion of physically real, and most entities perceived in inebriated state are very often not physically real. But they might still be images of important routine operating in the brain of a large class of possible subject, and be entities living on alternate reality planes, but still there by Turing-Universal + FPI. Virtual reality might help people for the thought experiences, and many (new) things. But in the long run, we have to be careful, as the poor might one day not afford visiting a non virtual reality. If we don't think a bit, we might end up all in brains in vats. Some economists are already working on this, namely Robin Hanson. He used to be at the center of a very lively discussion about these topics. Maybe you'd like to take a look at his blog when you have time: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ He's an interesting guy, in any case. Telmo. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:59 PM, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:03:50 PM UTC+2, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. So what? No problem, my only dogma is that reality is intelligible -- i.e. it is possible to discover laws that approximate how things work. Beyond the empirical successes of science, I choose this belief because I see no point in believing otherwise (if it's wrong, there is really no point in believing anything). Choosing things to disbelief a priori is unscientific, but of course we are mortal so we guide ourselves by some heuristic. I go in the direction of the things I find more likely to be true and I'm sure you do the same. Not necessarily. I find discovery of universal machine to be more unbelievable than strangeness that is cited in the esoteric-unexplained category, which is close in terms of content to children's fantasies and Star Wars. And yet the latter remains unsupported conjecture while the former is a number relation which exists provably as consequence of arithmetic. I'm not convinced by arguments like I see pattern in this strangeness and can categorize them; and we can see these patterns in science or in the work of so-and-so I think most people, who are untrained in thinking about these topics, have a simple heuristic guided by strangeness. You are more trained, so your heuristic is more sophisticated. You say you find the universal machine more unbelievable than the Star Wars universe, and yet you give it more credence. I would say this just means that you trained yourself to ignore biologically encoded emotional responses when seeking truth. The quacks, instead of encouraging people to improve their reasoning skills, appeal to the fundamental strangeness of reality to peddle whatever snake oil they are interested in selling at a given moment. I need evidence and clear algorithm. If say a Shulgin lays out how precisely to modify some molecule to ingest something that will result in mystical experience with paranormal content, than this is reasonable: If subject x ingest function of some molecule = fuzzy experience with features a,b,c, mystical union or whatever etc. But then you respect empiricism somehow. You must, otherwise how could you have learned to play music? But citing strangeness of unknown without being able to repeat the result or make it repeatable to skeptics is probably advertising again, which tries to sell itself as truth regardless whether in respected journal, obscure blog, TV... Advertising without being genuine about it and masking it as science, without properly situating it in tenable hypothesis = I can find interesting patterns in dog shit and the mud. Don't feel the need to post about it because I feel that too often basic rationality is left at the door for hidden reasons of self-glory of authors. Ok. And I like reasoning about the craziest shit. But I'm too often disappointed by barrages of cheap psychological tricks playing to the unknown, instead of clear reasoning where somebody states a clean, discrete ontology clearly. Yes, I stole this remark above, as you can see. That's why I think a lot of this stuff can be ignored. We're not in realm of explanation and basic rationality is left at the door... which is profitable and self-fulfilling (there will be more weird patterns in the mud to substantiate what I'm saying). With Shulgin type approach as contrast (he also carries extraordinary claim and is attacked as crackpot), we can verify mystical propositions for ourselves because the algorithms of how to get there and build such molecule are accessible and precise enough. PGC But then we are back at an heuristic, and that is unavoidable. The search for knowledge cannot operate blindly, there is just too much stuff to explore. Telmo. -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Hi Mitch, On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that its the result of a great program running and producing us as a result. Moreover, our program can be either revised, copied, or both, etc. This is one reason professor, Eric Steinhart's work seems compelling to me. The following summary is available from his book, Your Digital Afterlives, but here is a taste, from Steinhart's website- http://ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html I will have to read this more carefully, but I think I get the gist of it. Most of the ideas are not new to me, and correspond to things that I enjoy thinking about myself. I have gone through several revisions of my belief system about these topics, so it's likely that I can be convinced by good, new ideas. Just in case you don't know, I really enjoyed this book at some point: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Never-Ending-Days-Being-Dead/dp/0571220568 It's mostly a sampler of theories on these topics, and some have already been falsified (like the omega point, I believe). The best of these theories is Promotion, but Steinhart views his own idea as flawed, because he wants it to be progressive rather then regressive. I don't see the logical regression he seemed concerned about, He did come up with Revision theory, as workable, however, these are merely, *better-off clones* of ourselves, and miss the continuity, that infers identity. Promotion is better, because it does exactly this, via pipelines, processes, data transfers, as well as uploading and teleportation. Ok, I have no problem with any of this stuff. I will try to summarize how my current view of things intersects with these topics. I think immortality is a given. I suspect we are all versions of the same thing (as conscious entities) and that all moments are eternal. I think the perception of a time line arises inside each eternal observer moment. What does not appear possible, at the moment, is to have very long story lines. I cannot be Telmo for a time span of many centuries (disregarding Quantum Immortality issues). It would be nice if we could do that. I think there is potentially great value in having human being that extend their personal development way beyond our biological limitations. So the issue becomes: how to preserve a set of memories and transfer them to another medium, so that we can extend story lines? This could take the form of Promotion, trans-humanism, mind uploading, who know what else... I would just say that the story lines problem is somewhat tangencial to the simulated reality problem. Sorry if I'm rambling, I don't have a lot of time at the moment... This is one reason I want to see if Ben Goetzel has an afterlife-resurrection theory, because they both appeared to have come to the same conclusions, independently, on several other concepts. Steinhart, like Goetzel, is a computationalist (digitalist) - (5 minute video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0 I am mostly ok with this video. My only objection is that time must not exist in the maximally simple universe, so thinking about causality between universes seems problematic. This is part of what attracts me to Platonia and this list: the idea that everything already exists, and what is called causality is just structure. Please let me know if you uncover anything concerning Ben Goetzel's views. Thanks. The AGI conference is going to be in my city in the end of July. I am not sure I will be able to attend, but if I can I will try to ask Ben in person. Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 9:08 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 6 May 2015 at 14:34, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Much of the nobel committees even for physics and chemistry seem biased, and subjective. Templeton, is for scientists with intellectual and spiritual leanings, Nobel is best left to academic scientists who tow the socialist line, and are nicely rewarded. Are all career academics like that? No, but not making waves while obtaining government grants, goes a long way to get along, and go along career wise. So you're saying Templeton is less biased and subjective? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know what you think. I don't know much about either of them. (And what was that about 100F summers?) -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Respectability? You must mean what a majority or a self appointed peer group like in Oslo decide what is acceptable. By the way, how's those 100 degree Fahrenheit summers you have been having for the last 17 years? All the rock in scientists have proclaimed the happy hockey stick-for example. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On 5 May 2015 at 12:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno You can get a Templeton, which is for merging science and religion and is worth more than a Nobel. Do you mean it's worth more in monetary terms, or in terms of kudos, respectability, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 6 May 2015 at 13:49, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Respectability? You must mean what a majority or a self appointed peer group like in Oslo decide what is acceptable. By the way, how's those 100 degree Fahrenheit summers you have been having for the last 17 years? All the rock in scientists have proclaimed the happy hockey stick-for example. I'm having some trouble parsing your reply. I was wondering in what sense the Templeton award was worth more than the Nobel, as Brett said it was, but I can't see that you've answered. I'm not sure what you mean about the 100 degree summers, either (for one thing I can't remember how to convert from Frankenstein to CelsiusI've got a feeling 100 is quite hot, isn't it? But then the boiling point of water is 312 or something weird, so maybe it isn't.) And as for the jolly hockey sticks... -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Much of the nobel committees even for physics and chemistry seem biased, and subjective. Templeton, is for scientists with intellectual and spiritual leanings, Nobel is best left to academic scientists who tow the socialist line, and are nicely rewarded. Are all career academics like that? No, but not making waves while obtaining government grants, goes a long way to get along, and go along career wise. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, May 5, 2015 10:23 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_5e8b2376-c552-4025-af5c-bcfc6a3097a8 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On 6 May 2015 at 13:49, spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arialRespectability? You must mean what a majority or a self appointed peer group like in Oslo decide what is acceptable. By the way, how's those 100 degree Fahrenheit summers you have been having for the last 17 years? All the rock in scientists have proclaimed the happy hockey stick-for example. /font /blockquote I'm having some trouble parsing your reply. I was wondering in what sense the Templeton award was worth more than the Nobel, as Brett said it was, but I can't see that you've answered. I'm not sure what you mean about the 100 degree summers, either (for one thing I can't remember how to convert from Frankenstein to CelsiusI've got a feeling 100 is quite hot, isn't it? But then the boiling point of water is 312 or something weird, so maybe it isn't.) And as for the jolly hockey sticks... /div /div /div p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a. For more options, visit a target=_blank href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout;https://groups.google.com/d/optout/a. /div -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
That looks like a game I wouldn't play even if I played computer games...! -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- 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
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. So what? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that its the result of a great program running and producing us as a result. Moreover, our program can be either revised, copied, or both, etc. This is one reason professor, Eric Steinhart's work seems compelling to me. The following summary is available from his book, Your Digital Afterlives, but here is a taste, from Steinhart's website- http://ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html The best of these theories is Promotion, but Steinhart views his own idea as flawed, because he wants it to be progressive rather then regressive. I don't see the logical regression he seemed concerned about, He did come up with Revision theory, as workable, however, these are merely, better-off clones of ourselves, and miss the continuity, that infers identity. Promotion is better, because it does exactly this, via pipelines, processes, data transfers, as well as uploading and teleportation. This is one reason I want to see if Ben Goetzel has an afterlife-resurrection theory, because they both appeared to have come to the same conclusions, independently, on several other concepts. Steinhart, like Goetzel, is a computationalist (digitalist) - (5 minute video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0 Please let me know if you uncover anything concerning Ben Goetzel's views. Thanks. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 9:08 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. So what? No problem, my only dogma is that reality is intelligible -- i.e. it is possible to discover laws that approximate how things work. Beyond the empirical successes of science, I choose this belief because I see no point in believing otherwise (if it's wrong, there is really no point in believing anything). Choosing things to disbelief a priori is unscientific, but of course we are mortal so we guide ourselves by some heuristic. I go in the direction of the things I find more likely to be true and I'm sure you do the same. Telmo. -- 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.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:03:50 PM UTC+2, telmo_menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. So what? No problem, my only dogma is that reality is intelligible -- i.e. it is possible to discover laws that approximate how things work. Beyond the empirical successes of science, I choose this belief because I see no point in believing otherwise (if it's wrong, there is really no point in believing anything). Choosing things to disbelief a priori is unscientific, but of course we are mortal so we guide ourselves by some heuristic. I go in the direction of the things I find more likely to be true and I'm sure you do the same. Not necessarily. I find discovery of universal machine to be more unbelievable than strangeness that is cited in the esoteric-unexplained category, which is close in terms of content to children's fantasies and Star Wars. And yet the latter remains unsupported conjecture while the former is a number relation which exists provably as consequence of arithmetic. I'm not convinced by arguments like I see pattern in this strangeness and can categorize them; and we can see these patterns in science or in the work of so-and-so I need evidence and clear algorithm. If say a Shulgin lays out how precisely to modify some molecule to ingest something that will result in mystical experience with paranormal content, than this is reasonable: If subject x ingest function of some molecule = fuzzy experience with features a,b,c, mystical union or whatever etc. But citing strangeness of unknown without being able to repeat the result or make it repeatable to skeptics is probably advertising again, which tries to sell itself as truth regardless whether in respected journal, obscure blog, TV... Advertising without being genuine about it and masking it as science, without properly situating it in tenable hypothesis = I can find interesting patterns in dog shit and the mud. Don't feel the need to post about it because I feel that too often basic rationality is left at the door for hidden reasons of self-glory of authors. And I like reasoning about the craziest shit. But I'm too often disappointed by barrages of cheap psychological tricks playing to the unknown, instead of clear reasoning where somebody states a clean, discrete ontology clearly. That's why I think a lot of this stuff can be ignored. We're not in realm of explanation and basic rationality is left at the door... which is profitable and self-fulfilling (there will be more weird patterns in the mud to substantiate what I'm saying). With Shulgin type approach as contrast (he also carries extraordinary claim and is attacked as crackpot), we can verify mystical propositions for ourselves because the algorithms of how to get there and build such molecule are accessible and precise enough. PGC Telmo. -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/4/2015 1:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? In the same sense as mathematics. :-) 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that its the result of a great program running and producing us as a result. Moreover, our program can be either revised, copied, or both, etc. This is one reason professor, Eric Steinhart's work seems compelling to me. The following summary is available from his book, Your Digital Afterlives, but here is a taste, from Steinhart's website- http://ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html The best of these theories is Promotion, but Steinhart views his own idea as flawed, because he wants it to be progressive rather then regressive. I don't see the logical regression he seemed concerned about, He did come up with Revision theory, as workable, however, these are merely, *better-off clones* of ourselves, and miss the continuity, that infers identity. Promotion is better, because it does exactly this, via pipelines, processes, data transfers, as well as uploading and teleportation. This is one reason I want to see if Ben Goetzel has an afterlife-resurrection theory, because they both appeared to have come to the same conclusions, independently, on several other concepts. Steinhart, like Goetzel, is a computationalist (digitalist) - (5 minute video) https://youtube.com/devicesupport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfDB35y-5Z0 Please let me know if you uncover anything concerning Ben Goetzel's views. Thanks. Revision in this schema is copying with improvements. Provided that the changes don't remove big chunks of your memory and personality, why should that affect continuity? -- 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.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 4:19 am Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:19 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Not so surprising... The topic is a string attractor for quacks, for sure. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house Wow, this is a brilliant/terrifying idea! I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Have you seen this? http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.de/2015/03/paranormal-phenomena-nonlocal-mind-and.html Telmo. Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. In one demo there was a creature, was it real? Those things are relatively real. Like in personal nocturnal dream, or when reading a novel, and with comp, like with physicalism, there is a physical reality, which is a priori different from a machine (as it is a sum of the work of all machine) acting below our substitution level. In arithmetic, one virtual reality is less virtual than all the others, as it has the correct comp bottom. That define a notion of physically real, and most entities perceived in inebriated state are very often not physically real. But they might still be images of important routine operating in the brain of a large class of possible subject, and be entities living on alternate reality planes, but still there by Turing-Universal + FPI. Virtual reality might help people for the thought experiences, and many (new) things. But in the long run, we have to be careful, as the poor might one day not afford visiting a non virtual reality. If we don't think a bit, we might end up all in brains in vats. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Stathis, in a tv interview on Closer To the Truth from a few years ago, Steinhart said that this would be an improved version of you, but no memories passing. So a new and better you, with a longer life, and more wealth would surpass this life, this universe, from its inception, with no knowledge of what came before. Revision seems to be reincarnation, with gradual improvements, but perhaps to both of us, its sort of wasteful to begin a new universe, just to recreate better, different, taller, versions of Stathis and Mitch. I feel this was why Steinhart came up with Promotion as a successor theory, that did include the movement of memories and indentities, so the next version of ourselves, can make better use of our learnings and mistakes. Promotion Steinhart seems to bundle in with Uploading to a terrarium, in our universe, along with destructive Teleportation, also to a virtual terrarium. I do agree with your statement that a Revised you, need never exclude your past life. In fact you could better capitalize on your knowledge to make better choices in the new world. Steinharts's philosophy has been educated, by his former computer science background, which, as you can tell gave birth to his Promotion theory. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 05:47 PM Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! div id=AOLMsgPart_2_cfddb740-9c63-4a99-ae95-28df1fc5e300 On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arialSfont size=2tathis, probably, Steinhart would agree with you regarding revision, for me, with the loss of contiguous identity, the succeeding person is merely a clone, as if you could magically clone a person in some of the fantasy films, or even like a clone generated by the Everett-De Witt-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's an copy, but a different person. Now, if either of these processes possessed psychological continuity of the individual, then initially at least, we'd have identical iterations of the same, identical, persons. But this is different than Revision (an earlier proposal). /font/font /blockquote div My reading of revision from the extract is that you would be a copy with improvements, so there would be psychological continuity. blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arialfont size=2 What seems to be a better, more satisfying theory, is Steinhart's Promotion Theory, which entails higher intelligences, especially God (The operating system and hypercomputer of this universe), performing moves, via pipelines, to a higher universe, in essence, Promotion of processes like us. Steinhart is sort of a polytheist, and see's God or God's evolving, Dawkin's - style from a very, very, simple universe. So the whole personality-memory, gets promoted to a different universe. At that point the person is in an improved circumstance, and then because of new experiences, begins to diverge from his or her, old self. We do this now. it's called life. Back to identity, Steinhart also includes Uploading and Teleportation as different means to the same destination to VR environments. Steinhart, calls VR environments, terrariums. And, the Engineers can move, either through Promotion, Uploading, or Teleportation to multiple environments, with multiple copies of You to each new space. So Stathis 1, goes to Middle Earth, 2 goes to Star Trekville, 3 goes to The New Republic, 4, goes to the Age of the Greek Gods, 5, etc... This, collection of You's that diverge to each environment, Steinhart calls a Span. What's the solution to so many versions of us?? Eventually, it could be resolved by Tipler's Omega Point (an idea) in the far, far, future. Copies exist via MWI, so why not a few million more added to the pot? Steinhart definitely, udoes not endorse this fix/u, but I am tweaking his work to suit myself and emotions. /font/font /blockquote -- Stathis Papaioannou p/p -- 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 a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a. To post to this group, send email to a target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a. Visit this group at a target=_blank href=http://groups.google.com
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5 May 2015 at 12:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno You can get a Templeton, which is for merging science and religion and is worth more than a Nobel. Do you mean it's worth more in monetary terms, or in terms of kudos, respectability, etc? -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/4/2015 7:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 May 2015 at 12:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno You can get a Templeton, which is for merging science and religion and is worth more than a Nobel. Do you mean it's worth more in monetary terms, or in terms of kudos, respectability, etc? $$ It's actually specified in the grant establishing the Templeton foundation that the prize shall be bigger than the Nobel prize. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Stathis, probably, Steinhart would agree with you regarding revision, for me, with the loss of contiguous identity, the succeeding person is merely a clone, as if you could magically clone a person in some of the fantasy films, or even like a clone generated by the Everett-De Witt-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's an copy, but a different person. Now, if either of these processes possessed psychological continuity of the individual, then initially at least, we'd have identical iterations of the same, identical, persons. But this is different than Revision (an earlier proposal). What seems to be a better, more satisfying theory, is Steinhart's Promotion Theory, which entails higher intelligences, especially God (The operating system and hypercomputer of this universe), performing moves, via pipelines, to a higher universe, in essence, Promotion of processes like us. Steinhart is sort of a polytheist, and see's God or God's evolving, Dawkin's - style from a very, very, simple universe. So the whole personality-memory, gets promoted to a different universe. At that point the person is in an improved circumstance, and then because of new experiences, begins to diverge from his or her, old self. We do this now. it's called life. Back to identity, Steinhart also includes Uploading and Teleportation as different means to the same destination to VR environments. Steinhart, calls VR environments, terrariums. And, the Engineers can move, either through Promotion, Uploading, or Teleportation to multiple environments, with multiple copies of You to each new space. So Stathis 1, goes to Middle Earth, 2 goes to Star Trekville, 3 goes to The New Republic, 4, goes to the Age of the Greek Gods, 5, etc... This, collection of You's that diverge to each environment, Steinhart calls a Span. What's the solution to so many versions of us?? Eventually, it could be resolved by Tipler's Omega Point (an idea) in the far, far, future. Copies exist via MWI, so why not a few million more added to the pot? Steinhart definitely, does not endorse this fix, but I am tweaking his work to suit myself and emotions. -Original Message- From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, May 4, 2015 2:15 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like the concept, but in a way, it seems too simple, Rather than life being an illusion, let us conceive that its the result of a great program running and producing us as a result. Moreover, our program can be either revised, copied, or both, etc. This is one reason professor, Eric Steinhart's work seems compelling to me. The following summary is available from his book, Your Digital Afterlives, but here is a taste, from Steinhart's website- http://ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html The best of these theories is Promotion, but Steinhart views his own idea as flawed, because he wants it to be progressive rather then regressive. I don't see the logical regression he seemed concerned about, He did come up with Revision theory, as workable, however, these are merely, better-off clones of ourselves, and miss the continuity, that infers identity. Promotion is better, because it does exactly this, via pipelines, processes, data transfers, as well as uploading and teleportation. This is one reason I want to see if Ben Goetzel has an afterlife-resurrection theory, because they both appeared to have come to the same conclusions, independently, on several other concepts. Steinhart, like Goetzel, is a computationalist (digitalist) - (5 minute video) https://youtube.com/devicesupport Please let me know if you uncover anything concerning Ben Goetzel's views. Thanks. Revision in this schema is copying with improvements. Provided that the changes don't remove big chunks of your memory and personality, why should that affect continuity? -- 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. -- 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
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. Ah there you are! And you are not the only one from this list commenting there, it's a small world. My bet on computational after-lives is that we are in one already (an infinity of times), but this is completely transparent to us. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist stuff seems unreliable because people who have NDE's or trances have not come back with information. I would say that the important distinction is between communicable and non-communicable stuff. Science is about communicable stuff, but there is personal value in exploring the internal world -- although it won't get you a nobel prize or even any sort of recognition. This is because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (not mentioning Theology). But you can have the Nobel prize of literature, and some text does indeed quasi-succeed, perhaps, in communication a bit of the uncommunicable. Then you can communicate a part conditionally, like if I am consistent then I can't justify that I am consistent, and the inetnsional variants. Bruno You can get a Templeton, which is for merging science and religion and is worth more than a Nobel. 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. That's a good point. Of course the non-materialist deals with ontological problems. Do entities perceived under the influence of psychoactive drugs exist in some sense? At Iridia, there has been a talk and demo of Virtual Reality. I have been very often disappointed, but this time I have been quite impressed. They have solved the main problems, and the immersion feeling was quite realist, in all direction where you looked, without any screen border, and perfect real time synchronization for any type of the move of your head or eyes. Does this involve wearing 3D display goggles such as Occulus Rift? https://www.oculus.com/ My son has created a video game, Homesick, of the exploration/puzzle genre, which will be available for Occulus. I tried out their goggles and the experience is quite realistic in terms of looking around. In a test at a video game exhibition many people trying them could not bring themselves to step off a virtual cliff. Brent In one demo there was a creature, was it real? Those things are relatively real. Like in personal nocturnal dream, or when reading a novel, and with comp, like with physicalism, there is a physical reality, which is a priori different from a machine (as it is a sum of the work of all machine) acting below our substitution level. In arithmetic, one virtual reality is less virtual than all the others, as it has the correct comp bottom. That define a notion of physically real, and most entities perceived in inebriated state are very often not physically real. But they might still be images of important routine operating in the brain of a large class of possible subject, and be entities living on alternate reality planes, but still there by Turing-Universal + FPI. Virtual reality might help people for the thought experiences, and many (new) things. But in the long run, we have to be careful, as the poor might one day not afford visiting a non virtual reality. If we don't think a bit, we might end up all in brains in vats. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Stathis, probably, Steinhart would agree with you regarding revision, for me, with the loss of contiguous identity, the succeeding person is merely a clone, as if you could magically clone a person in some of the fantasy films, or even like a clone generated by the Everett-De Witt-Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's an copy, but a different person. Now, if either of these processes possessed psychological continuity of the individual, then initially at least, we'd have identical iterations of the same, identical, persons. But this is different than Revision (an earlier proposal). My reading of revision from the extract is that you would be a copy with improvements, so there would be psychological continuity. What seems to be a better, more satisfying theory, is Steinhart's Promotion Theory, which entails higher intelligences, especially God (The operating system and hypercomputer of this universe), performing moves, via pipelines, to a higher universe, in essence, Promotion of processes like us. Steinhart is sort of a polytheist, and see's God or God's evolving, Dawkin's - style from a very, very, simple universe. So the whole personality-memory, gets promoted to a different universe. At that point the person is in an improved circumstance, and then because of new experiences, begins to diverge from his or her, old self. We do this now. it's called life. Back to identity, Steinhart also includes Uploading and Teleportation as different means to the same destination to VR environments. Steinhart, calls VR environments, terrariums. And, the Engineers can move, either through Promotion, Uploading, or Teleportation to multiple environments, with multiple copies of You to each new space. So Stathis 1, goes to Middle Earth, 2 goes to Star Trekville, 3 goes to The New Republic, 4, goes to the Age of the Greek Gods, 5, etc... This, collection of You's that diverge to each environment, Steinhart calls a Span. What's the solution to so many versions of us?? Eventually, it could be resolved by Tipler's Omega Point (an idea) in the far, far, future. Copies exist via MWI, so why not a few million more added to the pot? Steinhart definitely, *does not endorse this fix*, but I am tweaking his work to suit myself and emotions. -- 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.
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Spooky! On 3 May 2015 at 12:03, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. That would just mean the terminology isn't very good. It would be more accurate to say you do (or don't) believe in ghosts. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- 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: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Hi Telmo, I have tried the Other Side stuff for a bit, and found it wanting. Steinhart, said he had some experiences but decided they were not that significant to himself. He is more buzzed, he said, but the beauty of mathematics, emotionally. Here is a crowd funded 3D augmented reality game, due out next year, called Night Terrors, so much for the paranormal, yes? We maybe, could, have the paranormal adventure any time we choose. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/01/survival-horror-augmented-reality-game-night-terrors-maps-your-house I cross-posted a message to Ben Goetzel on his Multiverse website, as well as on Guilio Prisco's Turing-Church website sight concerning Goetzel's non-response, to my question to him, about afterlife ideas, if any? He seemed to touch on this in a recent article, as well as his 2006, The Hidden Pattern, which I had downloaded, a couple of months ago. Any data or opinion on Goetzel's view on all this? Mitch -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 2:45 pm Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- 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 toeverything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe
Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
Hi spudboy, I follow Ben Goetzel and have some of the books he recommends on the topic on my to-read list. I remain agnostic on this stuff, and just try to consider the simplest explanation, even if it's boring. In the case of this story, this sounds a lot like the event was staged by some nice person who cares about the bride. This doesn't mean that is the correct explanation, of course. What I am more curious about are replicable laboratory experiments. Some people, like Goetzel, are claiming that results with statistical significance are known. Maybe this is a nice opportunity for amateur science, because dealing with this topics would still career suicide for many people -- even if to find negative results. Of course believing in the supernatural is absurd -- what does that even mean? If, for example, ghosts were real, then this would just mean that current scientific theories are incomplete or wrong. Cheers, Telmo. On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: If you know of Ben Goetzel, and Damien Broderick, as well as Eric Steinhart, they have claimed Psi experiences, or spiritual experiences, but are split on the true significance? At the end of the day, it either works for us, or it doesn't. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, May 3, 2015 7:03 am Subject: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism! Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, which I used to subscribe to - but I could only take so many debunkings, lectures on science, and so on, and eventually I cancelled the sub, reasonably well convinced that I had by now obtained all the wherewithal I was ever going to need to give 123 reasons to explain any apparently supernatural event... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anomalous-events-that-can-shake-one-s-skepticism-to-the-core/ It's also a rather nice story. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
