In my humle opinion, This is a sign of the times.
In an era of nomadism, God was a shepherd . Peasants thought that the world
was the God vineyard. During the XVIII XIX where most of the cities were
expanded,God was an architect. Apparently the mecanicist metaphor of the
industrial revolution was
At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could
become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in
the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before
computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in
the possibility of making
Hi Richard Ruquist
Good question. My response is that the monads only refer as a whole
to physical entities.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content
Hi Craig Weinberg
The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Hi Craig Weinberg
I think that Peirce came closest to giving a useful account of 1p
is in his triadic diagrams and in his categories. The
three categories expand into a 3x3 matrix (below) which
breaks down 1p experience into 9 categories of interactions
of self with symbols. This science of
Hi Craig Weinberg
It's tribal thinking on both sides.
Still, although it's pointless,
I'll throw a spear occcasionally.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I agree. I would say that God is not a computer program,
rather, God is the programmer (as in preestablished harmony).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
-
Hi Bruno Marchal
In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a subject.
In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could
Hi Richard Ruquist
The fundamentalists are wrong in thinking that the Bible is a science textbook.
The scientists are wrong in believing that they need to disprove a spiritual,
nonscientific message.
Let science be science and the Bible be the Bible.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Craig Weinberg
I can't see any usefulness for a computer or calculator
where the same number is recalculated over and over.
Think of a Turing tape running through a processor.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that
I mean good design not god design
2012/9/4 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could
become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in
the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs a
subject.
In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject.
Consciousness needs a subjective point of view but if you
Semiosis of the monad
This is very very speculative. I'm no mathematician.
THESIS: Somehow there ought to be a connection between
Peirce's semiotics and Leibniz's monads. Let these
be given as forms of computation,
a) the columns being the STAGES of computation
b) the rows being the TYPE of
Hi Alberto G. Corona
IMHO you can't have intelligence without a 1p perceiver.
Only life can do that.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I'm not talking about subjectivity in everyday terms,
but rather in logical terms.
Cs = subject + object
Where's the subject ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
causality exist in the world of the mind, not in the external world.
In a block universe where the universe is a mathematical manifold,
where time is embedded, and thus has nothing but a local meaning,
causality also has no meaning, except for the living being that go
along a line of maximum
Hi Stephen P. King
I probably knew that but forgot.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:24, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you disagree, please tell me why.
I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any
justification of your belief. If you are correct,
On 03 Sep 2012, at 20:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/3/2012 10:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize
that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy.
This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism.
The lights
On 03 Sep 2012, at 22:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
FYI
Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist
3 September, 2012
Share this story:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More
Sharing Services
5
Follow us:
MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
God can be thought of as cosmic intelligence
And if humans are the only intelligence in the cosmos (and they might be)
then the human race is God.
or life itself.
If as you say
On 04 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
In 1) you left out the someone to be conscious. Consciousness needs
a subject.
In 1) the subject is you.
In 2) you left out the our. Consciousness needs a subject.
In 2) the our is not left, as I mention it explicitly.
On 03 Sep 2012, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t
work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of
On 03 Sep 2012, at 18:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
... If you are OK to semi-axiomatically define God by
1) what is responsible for our existence
2) so big as to be beyond nameability
Then there is a God in comp...
Is it fair to say that you substitute (= use) the G O D word in a
On 03 Sep 2012, at 17:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:
My experience is that canabis
increases my motivation and creativity.
Am I an exception?
You are certainly not, as the guitar boy provided a sample of people
inspired by cannabis.
Cannabis is also useful to break negative connotations that
On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Where is the aware subject in the computer ?
Where is the aware subject in you?
What color eyes does he have ?
A blind and deaf person still has a subject, no?
Jason
Roger Clough,
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO God is the All, or better said, the uncreated intelligence behind all
creation.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Jason Resch
Good point, but I was thinking of a perceiving/feeling subject.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver:
Hi John Clark
No, God created the human race.
So the human race cannot be God.
IMHO God is the uncreated infinite intelligence
behind/before/beyond/within Creation itself.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that
On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:57 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
wrote:
At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could
become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in
the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before
computers.
On 03 Sep 2012, at 16:12, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels,
context
and
ambiguity don't exist, and this is why
On 03 Sep 2012, at 16:09, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Chalmer's biggest error has been not to recognize
that the self does not appear in all of neurophilosophy.
This IMHO is the glaring shortcoming of materialism.
The lights are on, but nobody's home.
The self is a
Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO I would put it that life begets life, no means required.
Just as at Christmas time in church we pass a flame
from one candle to another.
Creation was like an ignition of life like a flame,
like lighting a match.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz
Anybody who believes that we are all born equal probably doesn't
have any children.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's
nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and
transistors.
Roger Clough,
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
irrelevant
What on earth are you talking about? The scribblings of Hume and Leibniz
were not the sum total of human thought even 300 years ago when
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I
don't
see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p
point
of view where this isn't true. This
Here is the link I mentioned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
On 9/4/2012 10:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO I would put it that life begets life, no means required.
Just as at Christmas time in church we pass a flame
from one candle to another.
Creation was like an ignition of life like a flame,
like lighting a match.
Hi Roger,
Hear Hear!
I recommend the movieHarrison Bergeron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmEOI5zwFMM as a demonstration of the
ill effects that follow attempts to generate equality in a population.
On 9/4/2012 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Anybody who believes that we are all born equal
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a theory of everything (and there
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's
nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of
Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
To:
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
Seems funny that Turing “…assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers…” given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.
Not really infinite but it has no boundaries, it can always extend if
needed. At any given time the used
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God created the human race.
And when God asks Himself the question Why have I always existed, why
haven't I always not existed? what answer in his omniscience does He come
up with?
God is the uncreated infinite intelligence
There
While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the
fundamental notion of infinite. One can hardly
take a set of LARGE size (like half of the infinite set) and, say by
weighing or by volumetric scale, determine if it is different
from any truly infinite set. The point
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer.
It has no intelligence, no
Well, the fact that at *any* moment the tape is of finite length explains
why it can't handle *infinite* numbers... there is nothing funny about that.
Quentin
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is
the
Hi Bruno Marchal
According to Leibniz there is only one live perceiver, and that
he calls the Supreme Monad. Actually, not the monad itself,
but what sees through the monad.Then when we see individually
we all must be seeing through that one eye. I believe it's Plato's All,
or in my terms,
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do,
but I
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:37:37 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The idea that someone considers the sum total of human thought
irrelevant
What on earth are you talking about? The
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7d8fykSPB1qz4sr8o1_500.jpg
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:38 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
It's tribal thinking on both sides.
Still, although it's pointless,
I'll throw a spear occcasionally.
Roger Clough,
Hi Roger,
Not sure what you are getting at. We can't see any usefulness for eating
chocolate until the bar is gone, but we still do it.
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:45 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I can't see any usefulness for a computer or calculator
where the
John Clark-12 wrote:
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible.
Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate
with infinite numbers, so if there is a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine functions, it
can react dynamically to the brain, it can grow, it can heal, it can become
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
IMHO Not to disparage the superb
First to Bruno's response to
*(R):3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimately doesn''t work,
it lowers every body's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle down
doesn't work.*
**
*I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot
work for many reasons. But
On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
*//*
It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to
distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay
their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
First to Bruno's response to
(R):3) It's also probably why
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has
succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that
the RA level was enough.
Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that
the RA
level would be enough.
Why?
No
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously
generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and
what we are conscious of is that model.
I like this description of a
On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as well.
Richard
OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every
one. Then
That's what I'm saying. You can have ideal consciousness without space.
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:36 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
The experience of time is called consciousness, the simplest kind.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
9/4/2012
Don't be silly.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
this time, but here are my objections to the first step and the stipulated
assumptions of comp. I understand that the point is to accept the given
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
function and that your
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought
On 9/4/2012 8:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be
continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world
that includes our body and what we are
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth in directing the
life
of the country.
seem to be exporting jobs
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I
will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and
the stipulated assumptions of comp. I
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning
On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Jason,
Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is
effectively simultaneous.
Perhaps this is the
On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
This is not qubits that are involved... The
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
What struck me is that the the USERS of wealth
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jason,
Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is
effectively
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of
contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see how well your
theory measures up. The
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed,
assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
If
81 matches
Mail list logo
