Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 26 Jun 2014, at 11:59 am, LizR wrote: > >> On 26 June 2014 13:56, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> > On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:05 am, spudboy100 via Everything List >> > wrote: >> > >> > "Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well >> > I believe in God, and the only t

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 June 2014 13:56, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:05 am, spudboy100 via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > "Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." > Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:05 am, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > "Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well I > believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Soze". When Richard Dawkins briefly had me convinced that I was atheist I order

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain > On 26 Jun 2014, at 5:05 am, spudboy100 vi

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

I think the term has broadened out since it was first introduced. Nowadays it appears to mean believing there are no supernatural forces of any kind. It also seems to (often implicitly) mean believing that the "primitive materialist" view of the physical world is correct, too. -- You received thi

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to > "Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and > atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 June 2014 07:05, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Or to quote, Richard Dawkins, "Yes, I can imagine there are god-like intelligences in the universe." Atheist, Agnostic, Believer? Sure. All three. (Or in other universes, or branches of the level 1

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Original Message- From: John Clark To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > In Brussels, the atheists cl

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 6/25/2014 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some claim that my problem in Brussels was that in the introduction to "Conscience & Mécanisme" I make clear what I mean by agnostic (~[] g) and atheists ([]~g). Natural language confuse easily ~[] and []~. Modal logic is useful if only to explain that

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > In Brussels, the atheists claims that agnostics are atheists, but this > can only create a confusion. > Concerning the existence of a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus, are you a teapot atheist or agnostic? Technically I guess

Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

on is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 27 May 2014, at 01:37, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@g

Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, L

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 29 May 2014 00:48, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would > pretend that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations > about it, just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this > fictitious publication was "Formaldehy

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53:27 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 >: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote: >>> >>> "To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely >>> useless. " Please elabora

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 : > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> "To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely >> useless. " Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be >> organized...all >> > > I was actually quo

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > "To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely > useless. " Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be > organized...all > I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:48:25 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR >wrote: > >> On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR >wrote: >>> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes > wrote: >>

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR wrote: > On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > I guess it would be pedantic to

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

"To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely useless. " Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be organized... On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:52 PM, wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, M

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 28 May 2014 13:54, wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I >> can't recall all the evidence though. >> > > well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig > theory

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs > treat us as equals." > --- Winston Churchill > Indeed. Some animals are more equal than others. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this gr

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 28 May 2014 13:48, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/27/2014 6:26 PM, LizR wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I >> can't recall all the evidence though. >> > > Sometimes I read your posts and wonder what they are referring too? > Sorry, that is the price of

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I > can't recall all the evidence though. > well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig theory as I do. come, let us kneel together and

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 28 May 2014 11:55, wrote: >> >>> >>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in >>> popular knowledge. In scientific terms the b

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/27/2014 6:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 28 May 2014 12:56, Russell Standish > wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: > Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune > systems are apparently very similar to pig

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/27/2014 6:26 PM, LizR wrote: I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I can't recall all the evidence though. Sometimes I read your posts and wonder what they are referring too? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I can't recall all the evidence though. -- 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

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 28 May 2014 11:55, > wrote: > >> >> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular >> knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, >> is a hyrbidization event involving apes

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 28 May 2014 12:56, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: > > Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune > > systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we > use > > bits of pig to repair our faulty h

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:04:32PM +1200, LizR wrote: > Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune > systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use > bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions > have taboos again

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 28 May 2014 11:55, wrote: > > the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular > knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, > is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's > ignored is because a lot of people hav

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

ay, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer > architecture > > > > > > > > On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > e

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:27:24 AM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 5:41 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subje

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

I'm downloading it for possible future viewing, although I suspect my other half will find the Danish thriller "Forbrydelsen" (The Killing) more enticing... On 27 May 2014 20:27, Kim Jones wrote: > And here is the link to the full doco. Its a syndicated link to a > newsstand site so the content

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

And here is the link to the full doco. Its a syndicated link to a newsstand site so the content may not play in all regions which is pretty damn annoying, I know. Anyway, you may be able to pull it up on YT or iTunes for a couple of bucks. http://www.smh.com.au/tv/Investigation/The-Hidden-Hand-

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

http://youtu.be/p6nGwg0jCcA This is an interview with the director of an award winning documentary about alien incursion on Earth called "The Hidden Hand." I have seen the full documentary and I would rate it as one of the best around. Anyone who has already made up their mind that this is a no

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 27 May 2014 19:02, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge. That doesn't mean I > can mate with one. In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz. > > > > Yes… nor would I advise trying to mate

RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:32 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chr

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 27 May 2014 13:31, meekerdb wrote: > Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge. That doesn't mean I > can mate with one. In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz. > > Thanks for summing up what I've been trying to say ever so much more succinctly! -- You received this message

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

oups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On

RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:41 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 27 May 2014 11:24, 'Chr

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 27 May 2014 11:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > > I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting > to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014 2:51 PM > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer > architecture > > > > On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 25 May 2014 23:3

RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chr

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

2014 2:51 PM > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer > architecture > > > > On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menez

RE: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: >>> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Hi, This phrase in the article makes me doubt that the writer thereof did his homework: "for some unknown reason the flashes synchronize over time.”" The synchronization of weakly coupled oscillators is a well known phenomena! It should be pointed out that in the human brain, global synchroni

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/26/2014 12:45 AM, LizR wrote: On 26 May 2014 19:07, Kim Jones > wrote: On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Brent Australia: Where men are men and sheep are nervous. Sorry Brent. You mean New Zealand. L

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR wrote: > On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> >> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: >> >>> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens >>> wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to >>>

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:12:56AM +1200, LizR wrote: > > On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > > > > > >> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of ali

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014, at 5:48 pm, LizR wrote: > On 26 May 2014 19:11, Kim Jones wrote: > On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: >>> Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We >>> aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species >>> that

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014 19:11, Kim Jones wrote: > On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We > aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species > that evolved on the same planet under very similar con

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014 19:07, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: > > Brent > Australia: Where men are men and sheep are nervous. > > Sorry Brent. You mean New Zealand. Liz can now get on her high horse. > > New Zealand diversified into dairy farming a few years ago and now

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

I can think of loads of science fiction scenarios which will cover any specific speculation. For example, it's possible grey aliens are our descendants, time-travelling from an ecologically devastated future. They need to obtain samples of present day humanity as organ donors, or slaves, or to insp

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: >> Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. We >> aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other species >> that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to us - for >> example, we ar

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014, at 4:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: > Brent > Australia: Where men are men and sheep are nervous. > > Sorry Brent. You mean New Zealand. Liz can now get on her high horse. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/25/2014 4:12 PM, LizR wrote: On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex w

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 26 May 2014, at 9:58 am, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:12:56AM +1200, LizR wrote: >>> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of ali

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:12:56AM +1200, LizR wrote: > On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > > > >> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting > >> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely re

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 26 May 2014 01:02, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 May 2014, at 13:15, LizR wrote: > > I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting > to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, > jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... > > > Yeah...

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > >> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting >> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, >> jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... >> >

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/25/2014 6:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 May 2014, at 13:15, LizR wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Yeah... but we might

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 4:32:47 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > >> >> On 25 May 2014, at 02:43, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal > >> wrote: >> >> >> On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 1:43:49 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: > > > Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. > > > (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa).

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 5:47:47 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > > Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. > > Hi Kim - you might have been responding to me there actually. Either way though...I will certainly reply to your post in the next few days and hope you'll n

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 May 2014, at 02:43, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: > > > Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. > > > (OK, just t

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 25 May 2014, at 02:43, Kim Jones wrote: On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa). Wps! OK - some of these mo

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 25 May 2014, at 13:15, LizR wrote: I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Yeah... but we might be more gifted for sex. Well, slugs might

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR wrote: > I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting > to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, > jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... > Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't t

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens... Odd that this is such a persistent meme, though. Someone (James Tiptree?) wrote an SF short story satirising

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 25 May 2014, at 10:43 am, Kim Jones wrote: > > I think the aliens want to get laid by humans so they can perpetuate > themselves in a new part of the galaxy by mixing their genetics with ours. > Aliens just wanna have fun. I think... Curiously, and quite coincidentally, someone has just

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 25 May 2014 12:43, Kim Jones wrote: > > Wps! OK - some of these monster threads become a bit confusing as to > who has their mouth open and in whose direction > I always try to cut out all the unrelated parts when I reply. For example: -- You received this message because you are subsc

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. > > (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa). Wps! OK - some of these monster threads become a bit co

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote: Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa). On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that cont

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 5/23/2014 9:45 PM, Kim Jones wrote: I mean, it is said to be quasi-impossible for beings to cross the vast inter-galactic distances and this is the main argument used in answer to Fermi's Paradox, yet are we not almost certainly - to take a leaf out of GHibbsa's manual momentarily - unconsc

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. Kim > >> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that contains >> no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. Consciousness was >> n

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that contains no > knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. Consciousness was never > understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the more important mystery of

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 23 May 2014, at 14:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutat

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 23 May 2014, at 14:00, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

Kim, On 23 May 2014, at 10:02, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno is assuming that this word works the same in English as in French

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:57:18 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:39:04 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:39:04 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> > >>> > Can you at le

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: >>> >>> >>> > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> > >>> > Can you at le

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > >> > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp >> >> The word 'prete

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp > > The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno is assuming that this > word works the

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

> On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno is assuming that this word works the same in English as in French. It doesn't. He means only modestly "Can you at

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 22 May 2014, at 14:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:06:52 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 May 2014, at 21:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: But

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:06:52 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 May 2014, at 21:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> But now that you tell us that you

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 21 May 2014, at 21:50, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: But now that you tell us that you believe that comp is false, I am not so astonished. You still miss a real opportunity

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:20:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 May 2014, at 15:28, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, B

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:28:00 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18 May 2014,

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:04:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Does this computer architecture assume not-

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 19 May 2014, at 20:14, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, e

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:26:40 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? > > > No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, > even infinite enumerable set of oscillator

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:05 AM, LizR wrote: > On 19 May 2014 07:16, wrote: > >> Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? >> > > I don't know, but I would think not, because comp allows reality to be > digitised at any level (e.g. sub atomic) which wouldn't contradict the use > of oscill

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 18 May 2014, at 21:16, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? No. Elementary arithmetic emulates n-synchronized oscillators for all n, even infinite enumerable set of oscillators. You would need a continuum of oscillators, with an explicit special non

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

On 19 May 2014 07:16, wrote: > Does this computer architecture assume not-comp? > I don't know, but I would think not, because comp allows reality to be digitised at any level (e.g. sub atomic) which wouldn't contradict the use of oscillators. This sounds a bit like what someone once told me abo

<    1   2