Re: soul swap

[PGC]

On Saturday, July 25, 2020 at 1:38:57 AM UTC+2, PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives 
>> too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically 
>> questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality 
>> mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues 
>> yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as 
>> visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC
>>
>>
>>
>> Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what 
>> you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a 
>> mean to make all cheater visible.
>>
>
> In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the 
> effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, 
> influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not 
> afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality 
> in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects 
> for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do 
> you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length?" 
>

Lol, today I will quote myself as obviously a 150 foot one suffices when 
you get caught pocketing 25 million $ from your own "We build the wall" 
fundraiser but no problem... he'll just get pardoned anyway, right? And the 
donors that got ripped are like US voters: "Yeah, we got robbed, but Donald 
is Jesus cuz the defenseless black werewolves will jump up and kill us if 
we don't use deadly force, that's why satan's media is out to get him with 
'facts'... so it's ok."

Let me make a suggestion: Why not wire all everything we own directly to 
Donald? Of course folks gonna vote for him... but why not give him and his 
buddies all our cash directly, let him say "infinite pardons, infinite 
pardons, executive order" and folks be like "Wuhan flu, Wuhan flu!" and he 
"yeah, baby president 4ever, and vaccinations are fake news too but US 
get's 'em first, ok?" If democrats manipulated facts here, their efforts 
would awaken suspicions, e.g. trying to naively frame republican Donald 
authoritarians as having some sort of scheme or strategy... But as usual, 
any of those kinds of considerations are too contrived to be.. uhm, the new 
real norm. 

Dems suck at lying. Even if all billionaires were democrats owning all 
social media, they wouldn't be able to manipulate the true believers. They 
see through the bullshit... I don't even know why democratic social media 
are seen as a threat, given how obvious it is that they are evil satan 
wuhan flu mask wearing bill gates defenseless black folks with super powers 
propaganda machines who want to burn every US city to the ground. Steve... 
Lol. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa0015cf-3310-45ee-a0c0-53e9588d8b12o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Agreed Lawrence. The China - Vietnam rivalry goes back 1000 years. They did 
fight over islands in disputed waters in 1979. If I recall, sentiment was 
pro-China because of the Vietnam war, in the US. Nixon-Kissinger actually did 
the WW2 type carpet bombings in 1972 to get Giap back to the negotiation table. 
The South lost (1975) because for most South Vietnamese, all through the 
conflict, tended to be nationalist, and if the North won, so be it! This was 
ever an issue for the US, that the North fought hard, and ARVN, the South, 
rarely did. Takeaway? You cannot make somebody like spaghetti, if they don't 
like spaghetti.  


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Aug 6, 2020 8:09 am
Subject: Re: soul swap

Only quibble I have with your history is that N. Vietnam was not supported that 
much by China as it was the Soviet Union. The PRC was tepidly disposed to the 
Ho Chi Minh inspired regime, but China and the Vietnamese have long standing 
enmities. The USSR was the main supplier of Viet Minh and NV army, which lead 
to the break up of the USSR-PRC alliance. The trains that sent arms to NV went 
through China and the Chinese stole what they could from those trains. The NV 
would complain the the USSR, which would point the finger at PRC, which in turn 
would deny. Sound familiar? PRC attempted an invasion into Vietnam (then 
unified) in 1979, and Vietnam punched a black eye to PRC.
LC

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 9:25:21 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Nixon's Southern Strategy was rolling up states that LBJ discarded. It needs to 
be remembered that George Corely Wallace was a Democrat. Beyond this was the 
refusal of Johnson and his generals to either fight the war in Vietnam, or end 
it? It was a badly pursued war, by Johnson and Westmoreland. They were 
constrained by the fear that China would use fission (1964) and fusion (1967) 
in "defense" of North Vietnam. The US policy until Nixon (secret plan to end 
the war!) was to send 500k troops in and take fire, or send them to retake 
hills which take hills, then go away, and the VC and the North troops will 
simply go back and set up shop. This, was the conduct of the war from the 
people who fought in WW2 (The Greatest Generation), sit there and do nothing. 
So, southern whites got Drafted along with southern blacks and The War was the 
biggest feature and not the Southern Strategy. Nixon was such a paranoid, he 
pissed away this 1972 win using The Plumbers to bug the then hopeless dems. 
Ancient History. The Draft was the killer of both parties, back then, because 
if you're going to fight a war, fight it. Since then, the lesson has not been 
learned by grads of West Point. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: soul swap


On 8/5/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear 
>> path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy
>
>
> What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I 
> suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a 
> racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon 
> was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least 
> Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even 
> after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and 
> send police for those who doubt this…

The Southern Strategy was to take advantage of reaction against Lyndon 
Johnson's civil rights act and the voting act.  The Republican 
strategists saw that by supporting "states rights" and "anti-busing" and 
"anti-abortion" they could draw off the white Democratic support in the 
southern states and in the Catholic labor class.  It was very 
successful.  Before Nixon the southern states were know as "the solid 
south", meaning solidly Democratic.   This dated back to a southern 
reaction against Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.  What it 
showed was that racism was still a strong political motivator in 1968.  
In only two election cycles the southern states switched from Democratic 
to Republican.

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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b1d5c3d-2de5-0fd3-c685-ddc6dd5fd675%40verizon.net.
-- 
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 vie

Re: soul swap

[Lawrence Crowell]

Only quibble I have with your history is that N. Vietnam was not supported 
that much by China as it was the Soviet Union. The PRC was tepidly disposed 
to the Ho Chi Minh inspired regime, but China and the Vietnamese have long 
standing enmities. The USSR was the main supplier of Viet Minh and NV army, 
which lead to the break up of the USSR-PRC alliance. The trains that sent 
arms to NV went through China and the Chinese stole what they could from 
those trains. The NV would complain the the USSR, which would point the 
finger at PRC, which in turn would deny. Sound familiar? PRC attempted an 
invasion into Vietnam (then unified) in 1979, and Vietnam punched a black 
eye to PRC.

LC

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 9:25:21 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Nixon's Southern Strategy was rolling up states that LBJ discarded. It 
> needs to be remembered that George Corely Wallace was a Democrat. Beyond 
> this was the refusal of Johnson and his generals to either fight the war in 
> Vietnam, or end it? It was a badly pursued war, by Johnson and 
> Westmoreland. They were constrained by the fear that China would use 
> fission (1964) and fusion (1967) in "defense" of North Vietnam. The US 
> policy until Nixon (secret plan to end the war!) was to send 500k troops in 
> and take fire, or send them to retake hills which take hills, then go away, 
> and the VC and the North troops will simply go back and set up shop. This, 
> was the conduct of the war from the people who fought in WW2 (The Greatest 
> Generation), sit there and do nothing. So, southern whites got Drafted 
> along with southern blacks and The War was the biggest feature and not the 
> Southern Strategy. Nixon was such a paranoid, he pissed away this 1972 win 
> using The Plumbers to bug the then hopeless dems. Ancient History. The 
> Draft was the killer of both parties, back then, because if you're going to 
> fight a war, fight it. Since then, the lesson has not been learned by grads 
> of West Point. 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:58 pm
> Subject: Re: soul swap
>
>
> On 8/5/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear 
> >> path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy
> >
> >
> > What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I 
> > suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a 
> > racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon 
> > was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least 
> > Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even 
> > after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and 
> > send police for those who doubt this…
>
> The Southern Strategy was to take advantage of reaction against Lyndon 
> Johnson's civil rights act and the voting act.  The Republican 
> strategists saw that by supporting "states rights" and "anti-busing" and 
> "anti-abortion" they could draw off the white Democratic support in the 
> southern states and in the Catholic labor class.  It was very 
> successful.  Before Nixon the southern states were know as "the solid 
> south", meaning solidly Democratic.   This dated back to a southern 
> reaction against Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.  What it 
> showed was that racism was still a strong political motivator in 1968.  
> In only two election cycles the southern states switched from Democratic 
> to Republican. 
>
>
> 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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b1d5c3d-2de5-0fd3-c685-ddc6dd5fd675%40verizon.net
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a074e67e-78ad-4399-87ec-c631c7964dc2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Nixon's Southern Strategy was rolling up states that LBJ discarded. It needs to 
be remembered that George Corely Wallace was a Democrat. Beyond this was the 
refusal of Johnson and his generals to either fight the war in Vietnam, or end 
it? It was a badly pursued war, by Johnson and Westmoreland. They were 
constrained by the fear that China would use fission (1964) and fusion (1967) 
in "defense" of North Vietnam. The US policy until Nixon (secret plan to end 
the war!) was to send 500k troops in and take fire, or send them to retake 
hills which take hills, then go away, and the VC and the North troops will 
simply go back and set up shop. This, was the conduct of the war from the 
people who fought in WW2 (The Greatest Generation), sit there and do nothing. 
So, southern whites got Drafted along with southern blacks and The War was the 
biggest feature and not the Southern Strategy. Nixon was such a paranoid, he 
pissed away this 1972 win using The Plumbers to bug the then hopeless dems. 
Ancient History. The Draft was the killer of both parties, back then, because 
if you're going to fight a war, fight it. Since then, the lesson has not been 
learned by grads of West Point. 

-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: soul swap



On 8/5/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear 
>> path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy
>
>
> What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I 
> suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a 
> racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon 
> was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least 
> Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even 
> after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and 
> send police for those who doubt this…

The Southern Strategy was to take advantage of reaction against Lyndon 
Johnson's civil rights act and the voting act.  The Republican 
strategists saw that by supporting "states rights" and "anti-busing" and 
"anti-abortion" they could draw off the white Democratic support in the 
southern states and in the Catholic labor class.  It was very 
successful.  Before Nixon the southern states were know as "the solid 
south", meaning solidly Democratic.   This dated back to a southern 
reaction against Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.  What it 
showed was that racism was still a strong political motivator in 1968.  
In only two election cycles the southern states switched from Democratic 
to Republican.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b1d5c3d-2de5-0fd3-c685-ddc6dd5fd675%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/333747287.548545.1596680715844%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: soul swap

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/5/2020 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
agree with that.  His election was a surprise, but there is a clear 
path leading to it, starting from Nixon's Southern Strategy



What has been Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Was it anti-black? I 
suspected Nixon to be a crook, but I am not informed that he was a 
racist, well, … I do remember some antisémite statements though. Nixon 
was a crook, but quite an amateur one compared to Trump. At least 
Nixon was still able to resign… Trump will not resign easily, even 
after the election. If Biden win, he might just say “fake news” and 
send police for those who doubt this…


The Southern Strategy was to take advantage of reaction against Lyndon 
Johnson's civil rights act and the voting act.  The Republican 
strategists saw that by supporting "states rights" and "anti-busing" and 
"anti-abortion" they could draw off the white Democratic support in the 
southern states and in the Catholic labor class.  It was very 
successful.  Before Nixon the southern states were know as "the solid 
south", meaning solidly Democratic.   This dated back to a southern 
reaction against Republican carpetbaggers after the Civil War.  What it 
showed was that racism was still a strong political motivator in 1968.  
In only two election cycles the southern states switched from Democratic 
to Republican.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7b1d5c3d-2de5-0fd3-c685-ddc6dd5fd675%40verizon.net.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Aug 2020, at 23:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/4/2020 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. 
 It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who 
 has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount 
 of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.
 
 It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, 
 but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the 
 legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same 
 as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of 
 most tyrants and pressure groups.
 
 Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” 
 setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.
>>> 
>>> As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings. 
>> 
>> I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation 
>> (modulo the biological differences of course), all this seems rather 
>> operational to me. You forget that my expertise in logic is in computer 
>> science, where operational semantics abound.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, 
>>> and society defends this choice.
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>   So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the 
>>> same pay for the same amount of work”. 
>> 
>> Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a mean 
>> to protect our right and agreed on obligation. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> In many cases it is a freedom from laws.
>> 
>> What?
>> 
>> The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal healthy 
>> state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom from the laws 
>> of the sternest and more violent.
> 
> You must not be familiar with laws in theocratic states, especially some 
> Islamic states. 

I was talking about “normal healthy *democratic* state, with religion:science 
completely separated from the state.

A theocratic state in your sense is not related to this. If theocratic state 
can only exist when theology has been taken out of science. That was the goal. 
That was the reason why christians, after 529 have persecuted the scientist, 
especially the theologian (called “pagan”, “heretic”, “atheists”, etc.).




> The majority in a society does not necessarily tolerate any deviation from 
> what it considers a "health state”. 

But it does, with time, unless the state is so unhealthy that its democratic 
rules are no more followed.

By “healthy democracy" I meant a democracy where the threshold of dishonesty is 
low. 




> Almost all states in the U.S. used to have laws against homosexual relations…

But people evolved, and in a democracy, enough people can change their mind, 
and the laws.



> and even against a lot of heterosexual acts.  Most in the south had laws 
> against miscegenation.  And these were democratically supported by wide 
> majorities.


That is the intrinsic weakness of democracies, or even anything alive. It can 
die, by lack of vigilance, stubborn decision, war, natural disasters, etc.

Sometimes people kill a democracy by voting for a “want-to-be-dictator”, by his 
demagogy, or by a lack of education etc.

There are no universal medication against this, but we can learn by our errors, 
propose new laws, etc.




>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>   I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of 
>>> the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do 
>>> everything and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into 
>>> thought. 
>> 
>> It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.
>> 
>> But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is still 
>> tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that people have not 
>> yet really understood what science is, probably to be able to keep the 
>> illusion of protect themselves through lies or fake knowledge.
>> 
>> The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and the 
>> literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend their job and 
>> curriculum.
>> 
>> The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we cannot 
>> talk about”.
>> 
>> And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory that you 
>> postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, and can observe 
>> structure  beyond its means of justification, like the degrees of 
>> unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and mathematics becomes 
>> the 

Re: soul swap

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 8/4/2020 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of 
right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at 
the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money 
for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour 
skin, etc.


It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice 
idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, 
the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is 
almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and 
is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.


Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely 
equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.


As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings.


I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation 
(modulo the biological differences of course), all this seems rather 
operational to me. You forget that my expertise in logic is in 
computer science, where operational semantics abound.






A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from 
doing, and society defends this choice.


OK.




  So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and 
"gets the same pay for the same amount of work”.


Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a 
mean to protect our right and agreed on obligation.






In many cases it is a freedom from laws.


What?

The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal 
healthy state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom 
from the laws of the sternest and more violent.


You must not be familiar with laws in theocratic states, especially some 
Islamic states.  The majority in a society does not necessarily tolerate 
any deviation from what it considers a "health state". Almost all states 
in the U.S. used to have laws against homosexual relations...and even 
against a lot of heterosexual acts.  Most in the south had laws against 
miscegenation.  And these were democratically supported by wide majorities.





  I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the 
rejection of the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one 
(holy) way to do everything and the idea of sin extended into every 
facet of life, even into thought.


It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.

But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is 
still tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that 
people have not yet really understood what science is, probably to be 
able to keep the illusion of protect themselves through lies or fake 
knowledge.


The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and 
the literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend 
their job and curriculum.


The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we 
cannot talk about”.


And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory 
that you postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, 
and can observe structure  beyond its means of justification, like the 
degrees of unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and 
mathematics becomes the Hubble telescope of elementary classical 
mathematical theology.


The enlightenment in a open and positive interpretation of what you 
said, has given the democracy and the US constitution, and that is a 
real progress in the human right. But old and young democracies are 
fragile, and the human sciences are nowhere, which is reassuring after 
the Shoa and Rwanda. You need to be cynical to say that the human 
science are OK after that.


I could argue that democracy is what nature does all the time, as she 
selects also what remains from infinite oscillation between security 
and liberty. Liberty is Turing universalness, security is total-ness, 
automaton. It is a bit going from []p to ([]p & p), back and forth, in 
between reason and intuition.


When theology will come back to the faculty of science, the literal 
reading of the sacred texts will be relegated in between the 
horoscopes and the necrology in the Sunday magazine, and, _and that is 
the main point_, it will become useless as demagogical tools by Tyrans 
to keep “theocratic” power.


A popular mechanist slogan (years 2201): “you can rape and torture all 
man, woman, kids and animals on this planet and still have a chance 
non null to go to heaven, but if you tear just one cilia out of a 
paramecium invoking its name when justifying your act, you go to hell 
immediately.




The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the concept of a 
private realm and a limited public/government realm.


I applaud this.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 31 Jul 2020, at 16:32, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. 
>> It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has 
>> to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of 
>> work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.
>> 
>> It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but 
>> in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of 
>> lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the 
>> interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most 
>> tyrants and pressure groups.
>> 
>> Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” 
>> setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.
> 
> As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings. 

I am not sure. Same salary, same laws, same treatment, same obligation (modulo 
the biological differences of course), all this seems rather operational to me. 
You forget that my expertise in logic is in computer science, where operational 
semantics abound.





> A right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, and 
> society defends this choice.

OK.




>   So it is quite different from "everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the 
> same pay for the same amount of work”. 

Honestly, you loss me. In a democratic society, we vote for laws as a mean to 
protect our right and agreed on obligation. 




> In many cases it is a freedom from laws.

What?

The laws, made by people representing the collectivity, in a normal healthy 
state (no leaks in the separated powers) provides the freedom from the laws of 
the sternest and more violent.




>   I think that was the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of 
> the medieval, theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do 
> everything and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into 
> thought. 

It is the understanding of science, or of what science is.

But unfortunately the “theocratic” stupidity, that you allude to, is still 
tolerated in theology, which in that case makes suspect that people have not 
yet really understood what science is, probably to be able to keep the illusion 
of protect themselves through lies or fake knowledge.

The Ayatollah, the popes, the bishops, the priest, the Brothers, and the 
literary philosophers can thank the gnostic atheists to defend their job and 
curriculum.

The motto is “you will not apply reason in the field made of what we cannot 
talk about”.

And that seems reasonable, but it all depends of what is the theory that you 
postulate. Wit mechanism, science can study its limitation, and can observe 
structure  beyond its means of justification, like the degrees of 
unsolvability. With Mechanism, mathematical logic and mathematics becomes the 
Hubble telescope of elementary classical mathematical theology. 

The enlightenment in a open and positive interpretation of what you said, has 
given the democracy and the US constitution, and that is a real progress in the 
human right. But old and young democracies are fragile, and the human sciences 
are nowhere, which is reassuring after the Shoa and Rwanda. You need to be 
cynical to say that the human science are OK after that.

I could argue that democracy is what nature does all the time, as she selects 
also what remains from infinite oscillation between security and liberty. 
Liberty is Turing universalness, security is total-ness, automaton. It is a bit 
going from []p to ([]p & p), back and forth, in between reason and intuition.

When theology will come back to the faculty of science, the literal reading of 
the sacred texts will be relegated in between the horoscopes and the necrology 
in the Sunday magazine, and, and that is the main point, it will become useless 
as demagogical tools by Tyrans to keep “theocratic” power. 

A popular mechanist slogan (years 2201): “you can rape and torture all man, 
woman, kids and animals on this planet and still have a chance non null to go 
to heaven, but if you tear just one cilia out of a paramecium invoking its name 
when justifying your act, you go to hell immediately.



> The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the concept of a private 
> realm and a limited public/government realm.

I applaud this. 

Trump is not a proof that there is a defect in the U.S. Constitution. Trump is 
a proof that there is a problem in Education.

To vote for a president who does not show its tax returns is like to take a 
plane without checking the fuel.

In a democracy, it should be understood that the more you are at the top, the 
more your apparent behaviour has to be morally impeccable. I don’t care much on 
the private life of a president, as long as he does not lie in public.

I am 

Re: soul swap

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:45 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which
> is a magical*


OK if you wanna call it that, but this is the sort of magic that works and
can be repeated, there is a name for that type of magic, it's called
"science".

*>  being on par with angels and the like. *


No, angels use a different type of magic, the type that doesn't work worth
a damn.

*> If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind
> could be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to
> another brain. However, brains physically adapt and change according to
> learning.*


And computers physically change whenever you load a new file into one, parts
in the memory that previously had no Electrical charge now have one, and
other parts that previously had an Electrical charge no longer have one,
and Electrical charge is physical. An array of switches is physical too,
and that is basically what the Internet is. So I failed to see the
distinction you're trying to make.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0F_Ou_hbgajt3iDiryoExghM%2Bd-%2Bb4YugfE%3DzPMqC-mg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: soul swap

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/31/2020 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of 
right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at 
the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for 
the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.


It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice 
idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the 
legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the 
same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main 
trick of most tyrants and pressure groups.


Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely 
equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are.


As I would expect of a logician, you avoid the operational meanings.  A 
right, must be something one has the power to do or refrain from doing, 
and society defends this choice.  So it is quite different from 
"everyone obeys the same law" and "gets the same pay for the same amount 
of work".  In many cases it is a freedom from laws.  I think that was 
the great advance of the Enlightenment, the rejection of the medieval, 
theocratic idea that there was a only one (holy) way to do everything 
and the idea of sin extended into every facet of life, even into 
thought.  The Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution built in the 
concept of a private realm and a limited public/government realm.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88a1adfd-e084-3df7-7764-89d0b5397bef%40verizon.net.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:38, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC > wrote:
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too 
>> ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically 
>> questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality 
>> mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues 
>> yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as 
>> visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC
> 
> 
> Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what you 
> mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a mean 
> to make all cheater visible.
> 
> In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the 
> effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, 
> influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not 
> afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in 
> order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for 
> communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you 
> really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a therapist 
> if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay folks?" would 
> be more pronounced.

OK.


> 
> Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the 
> success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. If 
> I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to thrive, 
> then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some invasive 
> species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in music: if 
> everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some orchestra 
> tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know we're either 
> getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying.

We can expect that, especially in an era where human sciences has been 
separated from the exact science, making them both inexact, and inhuman. Now, 
in a democracy we can change that, probably by voting sometimes for the left, 
sometimes from the right, and by denunciating and fixing the powers in place. 
Today, the separation of powers leak a lot, and we have regressed globally at 
the political level. 
We will see if the democracy will survive or not Trump and the “republicans”, 
but it seems to me that Trump has already win the election when the senate 
acquitted him for its (quite plausible) cheating on this. Why would Trump 
listen more to the result of the election than he is listen to its medical 
experts, or to anyone for that matter. 
Trump has many powerful allies (not just Putin, Kim-Young-Un, etc.). When Barr 
defends Trump, he is defending the "deep state” (which I define by the 
prohibitionists, to make it simple).



> 
> Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal 
> degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others.

OK.


> I argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, 
> sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention 
> afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill 
> each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in order 
> to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal 
> fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining 
> agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some 
> lives as we do to others... for whatever reason.

I am not sure I understand what you say here. I tend to find rather well the 
idea that we should not kill the others, unless legitimate self-defence, but I 
guess this is trivia. 




> Foremost, it is a question which I want to see taken to extremes by various 
> discourses to study what emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or 
> philosophical setting that would be extremely equal?

Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It 
is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to 
give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, 
independently of the genre, colour skin, etc.

It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in 
practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, 
etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use 
reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups. 

Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” 
setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are. 




> Some would try to be more equal than others :) but jokes aside even though 

Re: soul swap

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I am sure glad that all social media owned by democrats (billionaires) don't 
try to influence electrons!  Pichai doesn't attempt it, FB, Twitter...The TV 
Networks...naw... What you seem to be objecting to is that you demand no other 
opinion but the holy narrative of progressiveness? This is why I will never 
vote dem ever again. Because of ideology, the liberals lose focus in cause and 
effect, because, they wish so earnestly to be virtuous, which actually is their 
self righteousness,putting religious nuts to shame. 

That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged 
their personal tastes.  But money is also a form of power and inevitably 
some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media 
(Ruper Murdoch comes to mind) and political campaigns to (a) make 
themselves richer and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas 
(Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).



-Original Message-
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 24, 2020 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: soul swap



On 7/24/2020 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> A pandemic is global and international. This is a case where we can 
> make money for nothing, and invest it in fixing the economical 
> problem. The entire world should use the pandemics as an opportunity 
> to give to everyone a universal allocation, and then let everyone 
> becoming as rich as they want,

That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged 
their personal tastes.  But money is also a form of power and inevitably 
some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media 
(Ruper Murdoch comes to mind) and political campaigns to (a) make 
themselves richer and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas 
(Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).

...
>
> Equality in the social domain means equality of right.

But what rights.  Rights are human inventions.

Brent
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as
the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and
to steal bread.
     -- Anatole France

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b813192b-990d-7d7d-cc1d-7fe40c31305f%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/296043570.5962252.1595698877018%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: soul swap

[PGC]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives 
> too ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically 
> questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality 
> mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues 
> yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as 
> visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC
>
>
>
> Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what 
> you mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a 
> mean to make all cheater visible.
>

In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the 
effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, 
influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not 
afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality 
in order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects 
for communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do 
you really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a 
therapist if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay 
folks?" would be more pronounced.

Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the 
success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. 
If I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to 
thrive, then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some 
invasive species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in 
music: if everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some 
orchestra tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know 
we're either getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying.

Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal 
degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others. I 
argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, 
sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention 
afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill 
each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in 
order to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal 
fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining 
agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some 
lives as we do to others... for whatever reason. Foremost, it is a question 
which I want to see taken to extremes by various discourses to study what 
emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or philosophical setting 
that would be extremely equal? Some would try to be more equal than others 
:) but jokes aside even though never jokes aside. Dialetheism without the 
trivial relativism. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a252117-2f9b-4dc7-a62a-45b9706d793eo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 7/24/2020 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A pandemic is global and international. This is a case where we can 
make money for nothing, and invest it in fixing the economical 
problem. The entire world should use the pandemics as an opportunity 
to give to everyone a universal allocation, and then let everyone 
becoming as rich as they want,


That sounds good, and it would be fine if rich people simply indulged 
their personal tastes.  But money is also a form of power and inevitably 
some of the ultra-rich use their money to buy influence thru media 
(Ruper Murdoch comes to mind) and political campaigns to (a) make 
themselves richer and (b) to infect society with their crackpot ideas 
(Sheldon Adelson comes to mind).


...


Equality in the social domain means equality of right.


But what rights.  Rights are human inventions.

Brent
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as
the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and
to steal bread.
    -- Anatole France

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b813192b-990d-7d7d-cc1d-7fe40c31305f%40verizon.net.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:55:53 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  :
>>> ...
>>> Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
>>> having any sense of it as something that has either personality or 
>>> long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a 
>>> sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that 
>>> actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although 
>>> the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a 
>>> true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a 
>>> challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. 
>>> Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be 
>>> given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given 
>>> moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea 
>>> of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but 
>>> it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by 
>>> many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar 
>>> as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a 
>>> whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is 
>>> materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
>> 
>> 
>> That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual 
>> infinite.
>> 
>> That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have 
>> ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique 
>> consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 
>> 
>> The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,
>> and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of 
>> extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of 
>> mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.
>> 
>> In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a 
>> portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is 
>> membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination 
>> with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant 
>> from its environment/histories/relations.
> 
> Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to the 
> continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy on all 
> computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not discreet 
> reality is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is false. 
> Depending on the way that continuum behave might determine if Mechanism his 
> true or false. Today, the evidences are that it is true (which proves 
> nothing, as in science, we never prove anything).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a 
>> problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an 
>> ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't 
>> this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? 
>> Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of 
>> individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived 
>> others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 
> 
> The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for 
> *all* universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to 
> security and the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the 
> choice, when collection of similar universal systems appear, between 
> cooperating or not cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot of 
> security, but lose their individuality, freedom and (practical) universality. 
> It is a bit the doubt that cells have encountered a long time ago, as this is 
> related to staying unicellular, or cooperating in a colony/multi-cellular.
> It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda calculus 
> (security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus (Turing 
> universal but totally insecure).
> 
> People do balance security and freedom, as nobody in their right mind 
> considers going to live out in the woods alone to maximize their freedom. 


Indeed. The amount of mess that a universal machine can bring in any reality 
supporting her is nothing compared to the amount of mess brought by two 
universal machines, not mentioning, 3, 4, 5, … Up to 

Re: soul swap

[PGC]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:55:53 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self
>>  :
>> ...
>> Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
>> having any sense of it as something that has either personality or 
>> long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a 
>> sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that 
>> actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although 
>> the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a 
>> true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a 
>> challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. 
>> Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be 
>> given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given 
>> moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea 
>> of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but 
>> it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by 
>> many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar 
>> as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a 
>> whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is 
>> materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
>>
>>
>>
>> That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual 
>> infinite.
>>
>> That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have 
>> ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique 
>> consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 
>>
>> The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,
>>
> and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of 
>> extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of 
>> mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.
>>
>
> In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a 
> portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is 
> membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination 
> with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant 
> from its environment/histories/relations. 
>
>
> Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to 
> the continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy 
> on all computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not 
> discreet reality is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is 
> false. Depending on the way that continuum behave might determine if 
> Mechanism his true or false. Today, the evidences are that it is true 
> (which proves nothing, as in science, we never prove anything).
>
>
>
>
> That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of 
> a problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an 
> ant or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't 
> this otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? 
> Is this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of 
> individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived 
> others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 
>
>
> The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for 
> *all* universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to 
> security and the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the 
> choice, when collection of similar universal systems appear, between 
> cooperating or not cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot 
> of security, but lose their individuality, freedom and (practical) 
> universality. It is a bit the doubt that cells have encountered a long time 
> ago, as this is related to staying unicellular, or cooperating in a 
> colony/multi-cellular.
> It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda 
> calculus (security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus 
> (Turing universal but totally insecure).
>

People do balance security and freedom, as nobody in their right mind 
considers going to live out in the woods alone to maximize their freedom. 

Apparently we need 195 nation states, millions of organizations, nuclear 
and weapon arsenals, huge tech companies, energy-, global finance-, media-, 
science-, education-, health sectors etc. to manage such a balance.
 

>
>
>
> Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never 
> isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of 
> 

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Jul 2020, at 19:40, PGC  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self 
>> 
>>  :
>> ...
>> Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
>> having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term 
>> continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of 
>> the self could be an accurate representation of something that actually 
>> exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full 
>> argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true 
>> materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to 
>> the problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best 
>> account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain 
>> Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while 
>> retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It 
>> gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave 
>> us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic 
>> philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought 
>> to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us 
>> with what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially 
>> respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
> 
> 
> That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.
> 
> That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have 
> ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique 
> consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 
> 
> The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,
> and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of 
> extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of 
> mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.
> 
> In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a 
> portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is 
> membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination 
> with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant 
> from its environment/histories/relations.

Keep in mind that the machine first person, in arithmetic, is related to the 
continuum. This follows precisely from the first person indeterminacy on all 
computations + all (Turing) Oracles. So, the need of some not discreet reality 
is not necessarily a symptom that Digital Mechanism is false. Depending on the 
way that continuum behave might determine if Mechanism his true or false. 
Today, the evidences are that it is true (which proves nothing, as in science, 
we never prove anything).




> That hallucination, useful as it was for survival, promotes discourses of a 
> problematic kind of individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant 
> or the simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this 
> otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is this 
> inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of 
> individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived 
> others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

The otherness makes love and hate possible. That is a general problem for *all* 
universal machines. They are stuck in between the attraction to security and 
the attraction to universality (freedom). That will give the choice, when 
collection of similar universal systems appear, between cooperating or not 
cooperating. By cooperating all the machine wins a lot of security, but lose 
their individuality, freedom and (practical) universality. It is a bit the 
doubt that cells have encountered a long time ago, as this is related to 
staying unicellular, or cooperating in a colony/multi-cellular.
It can be related tp the difference between (strongly) typed lambda calculus 
(security, no more Turing universal) and untyped lambda calculus (Turing 
universal but totally insecure).


> 
> Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never 
> isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of 
> relations.

I thing that violence never succeeds, except when confronted to violence, in a 
defensive way. Only in legitimate defence can violence makes sense.



> Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and self-defense would 
> have no individualistic meaning; it would only have meaning as the absence of 
> violence towards the whole. This kind of common ecological conception of self 
> and individuals runs counter 

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Jul 2020, at 12:45, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a 
> magical being on par with angels and the like. 
> 
> If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind could 
> be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to another brain.


Yes, that is the mechanist hypothesis. It is implicit in Darwin, and in 
Molecular biology. I discovered “computer science” in the bacteria Escherichia 
Coli, thanks to the work of Watson, Crick, but also and mainly Jacob, Monod, 
Lwoff, etc.





> However, brains physically adapt and change according to learning.

So does any universal machine when learning. Once you have a universal system, 
it is easy to develop a universal system which modifies itself. Its existence 
is provided and explained by Kleene’s famous second recursion theorem. I have 
explained dit here from time to time.



> So the conscious being, while subjective, also appears tied to the physical 
> configuration of the brain.

Assuming Mechanism, it is tied only to an abstract form, itself implemented in 
the (unchangeable) subset of the physical laws used in its physical 
implementation. If it needs more, it means that the choice of the substitution 
level has been incorrect, or that Digital Mechanism is false.



> So the mind is not likely to ever be reduced to some information in a channel.

The mind is still reduce to the treatment of that information by some universal 
machine (or you are claiming that Mechanism is false, which seems to me 
premature to speculate).




> It is only likely this may happen if the brains of people are physically 
> swapped. 

Yes, and in that case, it is more like a body swapping than a brain swapping. 
We can add some nuance to this, as we know today that there are much more 
nerves and information treatment in the belly than we thought before. That last 
remark explain why, in my proof, I use a generalised brain notion. By 
definition, the digital brain is the part of the physical universe that you 
have to emulate at some level to “survive” in the usual clinical sense. If you 
decide that your brain is the cluster of galaxies around us, let it be.  As 
long as it is digitally emulable, the consequences will follow, and physics is 
reduced to number psychology/theology/arithmetic.


> 
> Of course a brain transplant, or maybe better put a body transplant, is 
> science fiction at this time. There are around 10^{11} neural connections 
> that have to be made correctly and this means there are around 10^{10^{11}} 
> combinations. That is certainly not computable or tractable in a standard way.

The 3D printer have to evolve a little bit more, no doubt. The scanning problem 
consists in finding a wave which can go through the brain without destroying 
it, and be able to store in some holographical way the content needed to 
restore you at the relevant level. It is hard to guess if this will take 100 
years or 1000 years, but this belongs to our “normal futures”, and will make it 
possible for us to explore the physical universe, and alternate versions of it. 
It is far more easy to copy something than to create from scratch, like all 
countries building atomic bombs know well.

Some people will never accept this mechanist brain prosthesis, and that’s OK. 
Mechanism = “yes doctor”, but the ethics of mechanism is the right for adults 
to say “no” to the doctor. How to handle the desire of the kids is more 
problematic, a bit like with the kids of the Jehovah witnesses who die because 
their parents refuse a sanguine substitution.  That problem is very general: we 
are not (yet) able to choose our parents…

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351 
> 
> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32d39d3a-861d-402e-b1a7-2a08f248d99en%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3324A22C-D138-45B8-9F9E-6F3DF4FA9554%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: soul swap

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

This is no philosophical swap, but it seems to be a built -in memory counter, a 
database storage mechanism that is built in to the cosmos. This is pretty much 
straight out of the Hindu faith, but this analysis is not religious in nature. 
I am not a Hindu, but enjoy (on occasion) seeing when observations in physics 
can be instructive to some of our religious ( read, amygdala) yearnings. I find 
this, somewhat optimistic at least, at times, other times, meh, I let the blues 
drive the train. Each to their own! It's a bit of Prisco's and Ben Goertzel's 
Cosmism which they wrote about 10 years ago. 
https://twitter.com/bengoertzel?lang=en

https://turingchurch.net/the-infrared-memory-of-the-universe-hints-at-future-akashic-physics-3f9a072f0ca6



-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 6:45 am
Subject: Re: soul swap

Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a 
magical being on par with angels and the like. 
If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind could be 
downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to another brain. 
However, brains physically adapt and change according to learning. So the 
conscious being, while subjective, also appears tied to the physical 
configuration of the brain. So the mind is not likely to ever be reduced to 
some information in a channel. It is only likely this may happen if the brains 
of people are physically swapped. 
Of course a brain transplant, or maybe better put a body transplant, is science 
fiction at this time. There are around 10^{11} neural connections that have to 
be made correctly and this means there are around 10^{10^{11}} combinations. 
That is certainly not computable or tractable in a standard way.
LC

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

  http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351
 
 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32d39d3a-861d-402e-b1a7-2a08f248d99en%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2111327689.4392078.1595375152920%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: soul swap

[PGC]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:16:09 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self
>  :
> ...
> Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
> having any sense of it as something that has either personality or 
> long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a 
> sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that 
> actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although 
> the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a 
> true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a 
> challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. 
> Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be 
> given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given 
> moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea 
> of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but 
> it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by 
> many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar 
> as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a 
> whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is 
> materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
>
>
>
> That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual 
> infinite.
>
> That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have 
> ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique 
> consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 
>
> The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation,
>
and they have 1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of 
> extensional and intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of 
> mathematical logic/thepretical computer science.
>

In my more ecologically tinged notes this notion of self is more like a 
portal to a web/multiplicity of relations to an unknown reality. It is 
membranous, not discreet, and the bifurcation/scission is a hallucination 
with the same kind of delusional character that would separate say an ant 
from its environment/histories/relations. That hallucination, useful as it 
was for survival, promotes discourses of a problematic kind of 
individualism, which, not unlike the caricature of an ant or the 
simplification of humans in comics, entails otherness. Doesn't this 
otherness enable and justify violence that further reinforces itself? Is 
this inevitable? When said portal confuses itself with such notions of 
individuality, doesn't it pursue the destruction/harm/deletion of perceived 
others in some hope/delusion for self-preservation? 

Violence never succeeds in this style of discourse as the damage is never 
isolated to the perceived delusional target but to the web/multiplicity of 
relations. Every violence would therefore equate to self-harm and 
self-defense would have no individualistic meaning; it would only have 
meaning as the absence of violence towards the whole. This kind of common 
ecological conception of self and individuals runs counter to reducing 
selves to their body representation. And while that hallucination of 
separation led us to war and science, an ecological approach to these 
questions would still pursue whether the violence entailed is absolutely 
necessary, and whether life could manage to at least mitigate the damage by 
moving towards stronger equalities that would stabilize the 
web/multiplicity and render the portion of it that we have some control 
over more resilient.

Tl;dr is that discreet selfhood, strong forms of individuality etc. are 
problematic from pov of ecological, psychological, social, linguistic 
perspectives. PGC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/88e8a8ab-bd47-4f62-bd67-dd29f5c1c7fao%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

[Lawrence Crowell]

Essentially it is a magical idea. This is being done by a genie, which is a 
magical being on par with angels and the like. 

If the brain were a hard wired systems it might make sense that a mind 
could be downloaded as a set of files and programs and transferred to 
another brain. However, brains physically adapt and change according to 
learning. So the conscious being, while subjective, also appears tied to 
the physical configuration of the brain. So the mind is not likely to ever 
be reduced to some information in a channel. It is only likely this may 
happen if the brains of people are physically swapped. 

Of course a brain transplant, or maybe better put a body transplant, is 
science fiction at this time. There are around 10^{11} neural connections 
that have to be made correctly and this means there are around 10^{10^{11}} 
combinations. That is certainly not computable or tractable in a standard 
way.

LC

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/32d39d3a-861d-402e-b1a7-2a08f248d99en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Jul 2020, at 10:13, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self 
> 
>  :
> ...
> Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
> having any sense of it as something that has either personality or long-term 
> continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a sense of the 
> self could be an accurate representation of something that actually exists – 
> even if materialism is true? I think it does, although the full argument 
> would require a careful statement of what it is to be a true materialist, 
> further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a challenge to the 
> problematic distinction between things and processes. Perhaps the best 
> account of the existence of the self is one that may be given by certain 
> Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given moment, while 
> retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea of the self. It 
> gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but it doesn’t leave 
> us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by many analytic 
> philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar as it is thought 
> to be different from the human being considered as a whole. It leaves us with 
> what we have, at any given time – a self that is materially respectable, 
> distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.


That makes sense with materialism if the soul is made into an actual infinite.

That makes sense with Mechanism, if we abandon the idea that we have 
ontologically existing bodies. In that case the selves comes from a unique 
consciousness which bifurcate by scission, and fuse by amnesia. 

The machine have a 3p-self, which is their body representation, and they have 
1p-self (and of many different types) obeying to the laws of extensional and 
intensional (modal) self-reference, which is a chapter of mathematical 
logic/thepretical computer science.

Bruno






> --- Galen Strawson
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351 
> 
> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6724346e-992d-4ee2-b665-8322d2a8a3e5n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/40A887F0-711D-426F-99BC-EA3C28E2EBF3%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: soul swap

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Jul 2020, at 07:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351 
> 
> 

This illustrates that soul swapping makes no sense, a bit like the fact that a 
soul (first person) is not duplicable from its own perspective. 

It might also look that it shows the a transcendent ego does not make sense, as 
the “devil” needs to invoke it to make sense of his soul swapping, but that is 
not true if we accept that a transcendent self could be a common self for 
different soul. This gives sense to some notion of higher self, without needing 
a notion of soul’s swapping. 

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/399dd3cc-f790-6fad-5a41-6f86c24f1d3d%40verizon.net
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C05779DD-069F-4471-95B3-0122D7D0AAD7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: soul swap

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self
 :
...
Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
having any sense of it as something that has either personality or 
long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a 
sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that 
actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although 
the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a 
true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a 
challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. 
Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be 
given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given 
moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea 
of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but 
it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by 
many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar 
as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a 
whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is 
materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
--- Galen Strawson

@philipthrift


On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351
>
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6724346e-992d-4ee2-b665-8322d2a8a3e5n%40googlegroups.com.

soul swap

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/399dd3cc-f790-6fad-5a41-6f86c24f1d3d%40verizon.net.