Re: Moslem peace march ?

2013-04-21 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: do you believe there is a small china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus? There is not a scrap of evidence indicating the existence of such a teapot nor is there anything proving its nonexistence, so are you a teapot atheist or

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-21 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion True, and the key word is rigorous and that means knowing the details. Cellular automata show how simple

Re: Moslem peace march ?

2013-04-21 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Original Buddhism and Hindu Sankhya are atheistic religions. No, originally they were atheistic philosophies without dogma; their main concern was how to be happy not how the universe worked. But unfortunately they've

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-22 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Without the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that you are the only conscious being in the universe. Now we're getting to the heart of it. Yes. That axiom

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-23 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is conscious. If they're right then that certainly solves the consciousness problem and we can move on to solving the REALLY hard problem, figuring out why some things

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-23 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: The last time I had general anaesthetic, I remember the count of the anaesthetist up to 4, but not any number higher than that. What was the point of that? I thought you were supposed to do the counting not the

Re: Nations die when they lose their religion.

2013-04-24 Thread John Clark
Even if it was true that nations die when they lose their religion that wouldn't mean that religion tells the truth, in fact we know for a fact that most of them are wrong because there are lots of religions and most of them contradict each other. But is it even true that religion promotes

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a harder problem than consciousness. As I've said many times and people just shrug off, Evolution figured out how to make a brain that produces intense emotion about

Re: In the beginning was the cosmic mind (which I call God) , who had a thought, which is the universe.

2013-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: In the beginning was the cosmic mind (which I call God) , I think that's being rather impolite. It's true that He's not big on formality and in fact His friends just call Him Bob, but He's Mr. God to you. who had a

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles Darwin was wrong. I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anything about consciousness.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a task well is hard and real work, laying in an isolation tank trying to observe

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Darwin knew for a fact that he was conscious. Really? Yes really. References please. No. you need to grasp the FPI and go farer than step two to see this. Which Foreign Policy Initiative are you referring to? John K

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-02 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2013, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Artificial neural networks have been trained to fly planes, invest in the stock market, converts speech to text, recognise handwriting and so on and so on. True. For most of these cases, nobody understands how the network

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-02 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It maybe that achieving intelligence via the evolutionary paths available to animals on Earth did entail consciousness. MAYBE?! There is quite simply NO way Evolution could have produced consciousness (and you and I know with

Re: Arguments against uploading

2013-05-02 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: http://io9.com/you-ll-probably-never-upload-your-mind-into-a-computer-474941498 1) Brain functions are not computable because* *most of its important features are the result of unpredictable, nonlinear interactions

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Things like Hebbian learning and artificial models of neurons have explanatory power Yes but Donald Hebb didn't just say it happens because of emergence, he explained exactly how these higher level laws worked. if you just

Re: Materialism can never explain consciousness or perception properly, because:

2013-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Materialism can never explain consciousness or perception properly, because: Neither materialism nor non-materialism can explain consciousness if it's fundamental because being fundamental means explanations come to a end.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-05 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: To make a AI by reverse engineering it would be enough to have a map of how information flows in the brain, I'd say you would also have to deal with neuroplasticity. The process that makes the brain grow is part of

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-07 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: there is no random decay or anything else There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that. only things that happen without our - so far - accessed

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-08 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 7, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale Craig Weinberg and perhaps others on this list think so too, are you also a fan of astrology and numerology as he is? I'd really like to know so I could best allocate my time. John K Clark -- You

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-08 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion. Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion, but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion, so please explain to me exactly why

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 8, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. Those aren't my words either, in fact I don't even know what a butterfly hoax is. Numerology was always one

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-09 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion, ? Which word didn't you understand? but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion, ? Which word didn't you understand?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to anything? Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you? And why should a religion be illogical? Because if it deals with big issues as religion

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-10 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: No they are not exactly alike. A tiny change in a cuckoo clock causes a tiny change in the clock's performance, but a tiny change in the roulette wheel causes a HUGE change in the wheel's performance, True, but chaotic

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved. Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct they can often be proven to be incorrect, of course that fact doesn't make the slightest difference to the

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-12 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven, Then you must believe that the word proof should be expunged from the English language as there would be no time when it would be appropriate to use it. I disagree and rather like the word.

Quantum Computer beats conventional computer for the first time

2013-05-12 Thread John Clark
A quantum computer was found to be 3600 times as fast as a high end PC for a certain class on problems. The following article was just published today in New Scientist magazine and it could be huge: == For the first time, a commercially available quantum computer has been pitted against

Re: Quantum Computer beats conventional computer for the first time

2013-05-12 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's very doubtful that the D-wave computer is a quantum device at all and has anything to do with qubits. That old view is changing, acording to the most recent information it's very likely that the D-wave computer is a

Re: Quantum Computer beats conventional computer for the first time

2013-05-13 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: See the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.4595v1.pdf That's not the same paper and as far as I can tell Catherine McGeoch had nothing to do with it. And the paper you refer to is about a 108 qbit computer but these

Re: The New Tractatus (ver. 1.0)

2013-05-15 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 14, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: In the beginning was the Creator, the One And so it came to pass that The One asked Himself why was I there at the beginning and why was there a beginning at all. But even though The One was omniscient He did not know the answer

D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-17 Thread John Clark
At last there is a report of a Quantum Computer solving a more interesting problem than finding the factors of 15: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/quantum-study.pdf D-Wave's chip is not a general purpose Quantum Computer like a machine with quantum logic gates would be, but it

Re: D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This is what makes one think the D-wave may just be a special purpose machine, There is no may be about it, as I said D-wave's chip is a special purpose machine, but if it can solve the protein folding problem that's one

Re: D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: as I understand the problems its solve quickly, they are like Ising and satisfiability problems - they are essentially minimization over a set of binary choices. No, those are exactly the sort of problems that D-Wave

Re: D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 18, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: I don't think D-Wave would be very good at factoring numbers, but that's OK protein folding is vastly, astronomically, more important. I think you're underestimating the importance of cryptography. Not at all, without

Re: D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-19 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 19, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Protein folding may grant us immortality, cryptography may save us from spending an eternity in hell :) Excellent, I wish I'd said that. But Quantum Mechanics can give as well as take, even a Quantum Computer couldn't break a

Re: D-Wave's Quantum Computer

2013-05-19 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Even without solving protein folding problems, regenerative medicine is predicted to enable us to regrow any organ on-demand by 2025. Organs on demand will certainly happen eventually and I hope it happens by 2025, but

Re: That the mind works even after the brain ceases to function suggests its independence

2013-05-19 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The documented fact that people have had near death experiences after death [...] Huh? If its after death then they are not nearly dead they are completely dead. The fact that sometimes the brain generates hallucinations when it

Re: A speculation on life after death and ghosts in Leibniz's metaphysics.

2013-05-25 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 6:38 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: ** Frank Tipler, before he became a convinced Christian, You means before he went completely nuts. Today Tipler says we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-26 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 26, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Materialism fails to account for the first person Can non-materialism do better and if so how? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-27 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 27, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Can non-materialism do better and if so how? Yes, by using the mathematical theory of self-reference. I've never heard of the mathematical theory of self-reference. And it's no great mystery, the only difference between you and

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-28 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 27, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: John - you are being disingenuous here. Bruno has explained this [Bpp] at considerable length. If even mighty Google doesn't know what Bpp is then I'm not embarrassed in not knowing either. John K Clark -- You received

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-28 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 27, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Have you heard about Gödel's theorem? Yes. The only difference between objective and subjective is that in one case information is universally available and in the other case the information only exists in 3 pounds of grey goo

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-28 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If even mighty Google doesn't know what Bpp is then I'm not embarrassed in not knowing either. You might search on Theatetus instead, as Russell suggested. If you want to communicate why should I need to search at

Re: Materialism fails to account for the first person

2013-05-29 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If you want to communicate why should I need to search at all? And if even Google doesn't know what the hell Bpp is then it's ridiculous to expect your readers to know what you're talking about. Come on, John. Search

Re: Please read me !!!

2013-06-22 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: For some time, I have been trying to contact you to inform you that consciousness = subject + object but you people keep trying to solve the problem consciousness = object. If people don't read you it's because they

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-08 Thread John Clark
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they first hear of it. I was surprised to learn that infinity times infinity is just the same old infinity but 2 to the power of infinity yields a larger infinity, and I was surprised to learn that there is a proof that some things

Re: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an anticlerical than an atheist to me ... Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I think you just don't like the term.

Re: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: atheism is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many people confuse agnosticism and atheism. 1) A atheist is someone who dismisses the idea

Re: Hitch

2013-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism=that whether or not God exists is unknown with agnosticism=that whether or not God exists is impossible to know. If God created the universe that would be a fact about physics that

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they first hear of it. This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for the constant makes the equation considerably more

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: God is the fundamental reality in which you believe in. Since you are not a native speaker I must say it's a bit presumptions of you to insist that the English Language reinvent itself, you're a HUGE fan of acronyms so why

Re: the love torture

2013-07-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I am amazed these days at the antagonism atheists hold against religion. And I am amazed that you are amazed that there should be antagonism toward the thing that, with the exception of death itself, has caused more

Re: Hitch

2013-07-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: they [atheists] believ in Matter, the thrid God of Aristotle. But they want you to believe it is not a God, If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations, and if I could build a bridge overpass by

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If I could predict God's future actions by solving partial differential equations I have no idea what you mean by God in that sentence. It seems odd that now you're the one complaining that the word God is too

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.com wrote: This thread has devolved somewhat into arguing definitions, Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes: e^(t * i) = 1 There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original equation is more beautiful because it shows a relationship between 5 of the most

Re: computationalism as a form of magic

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I see computationalism as a form of magic. The only difference is that one works and the other doesn't. Extispicy (using animal entrails to predict the future) makes use of magic and it doesn't work at all; Newton used computation to

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If you want to see all the constants at once there is an easy correction: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 Then it has the additive identity but not the multiplicative identity and I still prefer Euler's original. What is the

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You know what partial differential equations are don't you? Well then, in the above God is anything in which a solution to such a equation describes the future behavior of that thing. God would be more like the one

Re: Hitch

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes, word games and arguing over what arbitrary meaning a sequence of ASCII characters should have is what passes for philosophy these days. Meanwhile REAL philosophers have discovered that there is more than one type of

Re: Which one result in maths has surprised you the most?

2013-07-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: 1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0 I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X unless X=0. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Hitch

2013-07-12 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Turing proved 80 years ago that in general you can't predict what an external purely deterministic system will do, In the long run, and without any indeterminacy in the functioning of its parts. Yes. We might not know if the

Re: Re: the love torture

2013-07-13 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Religion is about sacrifices. I know, religion is big on sacrifices, especially Christianity, and that's the problem. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb is be suspicious of any religion who's most sacred symbol is a

Re: the love torture

2013-07-13 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 spudboy...@aol.com wrote: John, please understand from the Christian pov, that this (Christianity) is an attempt to sustain life beyond death, I understand that, but understanding how a stupid point of view came about does not make that point of view any less stupid.

Re: General Relativity and Consciousness

2013-07-13 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, luizfelipecs...@gmail.com wrote: The price to pay to have an dualistic explanation for consciousness is the total absence of free will. Free will? What an odd term, what in the world does it mean? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are

Re: the love torture

2013-07-14 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Christianity borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism: final battle, good over evil, judgement day, punishment of the wicked. BUT the punishment wasn't eternal and everybody gets to heaven eventually and nobody has to get

Re: Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

2013-07-25 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: To me it seems that must be incorrect, because it would enable super luminal communication. By sending a continuous stream of entangled photons in opposite directions I can't send a message that way because I have no way of

Re: Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

2013-07-26 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random source as you assume. The photon has no polarization at all unless a filter is

Re: Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

2013-07-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: If a photon passes a filter orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters a filter at 90 degrees it will be blocked. How do you know the photon is oriented at 0 degrees? If the photon has never been measured, if neither it nor its

Re: Can someone explain why this doesn't work?

2013-07-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: So why is it the entanglement is destroyed by the presence of the 45 degree filter, but not the 0 degree filter? Because before the photon hit the 0 degree filter, that is to say before it was measured, neither it nor

Re: Whui I keep posting about Leibniz

2013-08-03 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: I am accused of wasting peoples' time by constantly posting here and elsewhere on the subject of Leibniz. I have nothing against Leibniz and that's not why you're wasting people's time, it's because whenever anybody has a

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong. The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached. You put no effort into defending your Juvenile ideas so I see no reason why I should put any effort into attacking

Re: Whui I keep posting about Leibniz

2013-08-05 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: in some respects, Roger seems like a shadow version of myself Does he also engage in astrology and numerology? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also has to believe that this god was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: the fossil record, Yes, but that's not the

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-06 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: If one has to disprove the best of sciences, which appears to be evolutionary adaptation, in order to defend one's religion, then there must be something wrong about the religion. Yes, that's why there is something wrong with

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-09 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible. There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely inconsistent with our

Re: What God wants us to do

2013-08-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: God doesn't necessarily want *us* to do anything. He wants [...] God wants? He's omnipotent, why doesn't God have? instead to work *through* us. If for some obscure reason God want's something then He should get off

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-09 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: If not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast majority of them are not how is that functionally different from mutations. It is NOT functionally different from mutation, that was precisely my

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-10 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: some feel Epigenetics should only refer to the actual molecular mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and histone modification) that alter the underlying gene expression; I find this restrictive and use epigenetics to

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation. Epigenetic changes that effect what is transcribed is not mutation – at least in the classic sense of changing – i.e. mutating – the

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-11 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral stories.

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-12 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity. Yes. What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central dogma. How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-12 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: I have heard this survival of the community dynamics being used to suggest why for example we still have behaviors such as altruism still quite common amongst members of our species It's not just our species that displays

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-13 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. Yes, but we're not talking about molecular biology, we're talking about Evolution and it has a different

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-13 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: I was wondering if there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak; in other words are there any areas of coding DNA that are known to be (or perhaps suspected of being) linked to and involved with such

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-14 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I see no evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the

Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong

2013-08-15 Thread John Clark
I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of view Yes without of course falling into the mental trap of anthropomorphizing the gene and assigning to it qualia that are associated with self-aware consciousness. I am unaware of any thinker on evolution worthy of

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-16 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: When will a computer pass the Turing Test? Are we getting close? Here is what the CEO of Google says: “Many people in AI believe that we’re close to [a computer passing the Turing Test] within the next five years,”

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-16 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: I don't really find the Turing Test that meaningful, to be honest. I am certain that in your like you have met some people that you consider brilliant and some that are as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs, if it's not

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-16 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: the Turing test is a very specific instance of a subsequent behavior test. Yes it's specific, to pass the Turing Test the machine must be indistinguishable from a very specific type of human being, an INTELLIGENT one; no

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-18 Thread John Clark
...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/16/2013 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: the Turing test is a very specific instance of a subsequent behavior test. Yes it's specific, to pass the Turing Test the machine must be indistinguishable

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-18 Thread John Clark
Telmo Menezes wrote: You are starting from the assumption that any intelligent entity is interested in self-preservation. Yes, and I can't think of a better starting assumption than self-preservation; in fact that was the only one of Asimov's 3 laws of robotics that made any sense. wonder

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-19 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: If you expect the AI to interact either directly or indirectly with the outside dangerous real world (and the machine would be useless if you didn't) then you sure as hell had better make him be interested in self-preservation!

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-21 Thread John Clark
Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com So if the slave AI has a fixed goal structure with the number one goal being to always do what humans tell it to do and the humans order it to determine the truth or falsehood of something unprovable then its infinite loop time and you've got yourself

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature, There are only 3 possibilities: 1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same thing can be done on a computer. 2) Our brains do NOT work by cause

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Would you agree that the universal dovetailer would get the job done? I'm not exactly sure what job you're referring to and Bruno's use of a carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of sense to me.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-22 Thread John Clark
On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by any possible program no matter how detailed? Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: There are only 3 possibilities: 1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same thing can be done on a computer. 2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they are random

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of random variation Yes. but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the randomness is not random If it's not random then it

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >